Here are highlights for April:
* On April 3 and throughout the month, we have been engaged in discovery matters in the contentious and important Mast case, which involves a custody dispute over a baby girl. But this is no run-of-the-mill custody case.
This dispute involves a young Marine assisting an infant child recovered off the battlefield by Army Rangers during a mission to take out a nest of East Turkistan Islamic Party (ETIP), Al Qaeda foreign fighters in Afghanistan in September 2019.
Two of the foreign fighters were the parents of this little girl. The father was killed in the firefight engaging the Rangers; the mother blew herself up with a suicide pack while holding her months-old baby girl.
Miraculously, the baby survived but was seriously injured.
The Marine and his wife were granted custody of this child, and now that custody is being challenged by those who do not want a Muslim child to be raised by Christians.
We are representing the Marine’s brother, who is embroiled in this legal battle because he assisted his brother with obtaining legal custody of the child.
You can read more about this intriguing case here.
* On April 7, we filed our reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Washington, D.C.), in our lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.
In this brief, we blasted the Attorney General for targeting concerned parents as “domestic terrorists.”
The lawsuit challenges the Attorney General’s political attack against parents who speak out at school board meetings against the indoctrination of their children by “progressive” school boards.
The parents strongly object to the woke curricula and policies that these school boards are trying to implement as this “progressive” agenda is harmful to their children.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of parents from Loudoun County, Virginia and Saline, Michigan.
* On April 10, we filed supplemental briefing on our motions-in-limine in our case defending the Center for Security Policy and some of its employees, who were sued by CAIR for conducting an undercover documentary designed to expose the Islamic organization’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The case is set to go to a jury trial in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. This latest filing is part of the extensive pretrial briefing ordered by the court.
* On April 17, we filed our “Third Brief” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in our legal battle to permit a Catholic organization to use its 40-acre property for religious assembly, expression, and worship.
This lawsuit was filed against Genoa Charter Township, Michigan on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (“CHI”), and its president.
This appeal involves CHI’s request for a preliminary injunction to permit the display of religious symbols (Stations of the Cross, altar, and a mural wall with the image of Our Lady of Grace) on their 40-acre property and to permit CHI to use the property for “organized gatherings” (i.e., religious assemblies and worship).
The Township prohibited both, prompting the filing of a motion for a preliminary injunction.
The district court denied the request to display the religious symbols, so CHI appealed, but granted the request to allow religious assemblies and worship, so the Township appealed.
The brief was the third of four that will be filed in this cross-appeal.
You can read more about this case here.
* On April 18, we filed claims of appeal in our case defending six pro-lifers who were convicted and sentenced for engaging in a Red Rose Rescue at the Northland abortion center located in Southfield, Michigan.
The rescuers were found guilty of trespassing and resisting/obstructing a police officer for their “passive resistance” (i.e., going to their knees). Four rescuers were also found guilty of disturbing the peace/interfering with a business.
Our appeal will raise multiple issues, including the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying our request for jury instructions on the defenses of others and necessity.
* On April 20, we filed our reply in support of our motion requesting the district court to reconsider its order dismissing our lawsuit challenging the military vaccine mandate on behalf of four Navy SEALs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed on mootness grounds Plaintiff Navy SEAL 4’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction.
Without waiting for the D.C. Circuit to remand the case, the lower court hastily issued a one-page order dismissing this entire case on mootness grounds.
Upon receiving our motion for reconsideration, the district court requested a response from the government. In its response, the government had to concede that the district court erred because the lawsuit raises multiple issues that the appellate court failed to address.
We are awaiting the lower court’s order.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!