Here are the highlights for May:
* On May 3, 2024, we filed a motion to dismiss the politically-motivated criminal case brought against our client, Andy Hess, by the Oakland County Prosecutor, a member of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic prosecutor charged Hess with “making a terrorist threat,” which is a felony offense that carries a maximum penalty of 20 years confinement and a $20,000 fine, for uttering a political comment in an nearly empty lobby of an election recount room that was overheard by a receptionist who then reported the alleged “threat” to a County deputy sheriff.
The receptionist waited to report the comment as her receptionist duties were of greater concern to her at the time than any alleged safety concerns caused by Hess’s comment. In short, the allegation is bogus.
During a contentious ballot recount in Oakland County last December where allegations of election improprieties were ignored by Oakland County election officials, Hess walked outside of the recount room and allegedly made the statement, “hang Joe for treason,” allegedly referring to Joe Rozell, the director of elections in Oakland County.
Following this alleged “threat,” Hess returned to the recount room and had multiple interactions with Rozell and other election officials without incident.
Deputies from the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office were present, and even after speaking with Hess about the alleged comment, took no action against Hess whatsoever and allowed him to return to the recount room.
While this alleged “terrorist threat” took place in December 2023, the Oakland County Prosecutor waited until April 1, 2024, to file a criminal complaint, which itself demonstrates that the alleged safety concerns are fabricated and that politics are driving this prosecution.
This is yet another example (has anyone been following the Trump prosecutions?) of left-wing prosecutors weaponizing their office to attack political opponents.
In this case, the Democratic prosecutor wants to send a message to anyone who may question the way they (Democrat officials) are running elections.
As we make clear in our motion to dismiss, there is no basis for the is prosecution, which itself is an attack on the First Amendment.
* On May 8, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise argued before the Michigan Court of Appeals on behalf of four pro-lifers who were arrested, charged, and convicted of a felony for their non-violent and peaceful actions at an abortion center in Flint, Michigan in 2019.
Prior to the jury trial, Muise met with the County Prosecutor to urge him to not charge this case (which was a simple trespass) as felony. The pro-abortion, Democratic prosecutor refused. And this same prosecutor publicly vowed not to enforce Michigan’s abortion laws upon the reversal of Roe. So much for equal justice under the law.
Upon their arrests, the pro-lifers engaged in a time-honored act reminiscent of the civil rights movement that is often described as “passive resistance,” although that description is inaccurate here because pro-lifers offered no resistance—they simply went limp.
The pro-lifers explained to the officers that they could not morally assist with their own arrests. As a matter of conscience, the pro-lifers could not assist the officers with their arrests because doing so made them morally complicit in the killing of innocent lives. But the pro-lifers did nothing that prevented the officers from exercising their police authority and arresting them. The pro-lifers were in fact arrested and carried off the property.
As a result, the prosecutor charged the pro-lifers with the felony of assaulting/resisting/obstructing a police officer. Do you think this prosecutor would charge BLM protestors, or Antifa protestors, or any other left-wing protestors with a felony for passively resisting their arrests? We all know the answer to that question.
* On May 9, Muise represented a homeless, indigent pro-lifer in a “show cause” hearing in state court in Southfield, Michigan.
The pro-lifer, a religious man who has taken vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience and who was given a maximum jail sentence by this judge for a peaceful rescue he was involved with at a local abortion center following a jury trial in 2023 (it was a simple trespass case), still owed $625 in fines and costs.
While the law permits a judge to waive all such fines and costs upon a showing of indigency, which we did via evidence presented at the hearing, the judge refused to do so here because the reason for the indigency was the pro-lifer’s religious convictions.
* On May 30, we began the “preliminary examination” in the “terrorist threat” case involving AFLC’s client, Andy Hess.
During the preliminary examination, the government is required to come forward with evidence establishing probable cause for each element of the offense. If the prosecutor does so, the district court “binds” the case over to the circuit court for trial.
The government called two witnesses so far: the receptionist who apparently heard the “threat” and the director of elections who never heard the threat but was apparently frightened when he later learned of it from the deputy sheriffs.
As noted above, this is a politically-driven prosecution that has no basis in fact or law and is, indeed, a direct violation of the First Amendment.
We will continue to defend Hess in this bogus criminal case, and we have our sights set on vindicating his civil rights in federal court once the timing is right! We are not going to simply accept these abuses of government power. We will fight back!
* As we previously reported, on April 15, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the high court to review its case against Attorney General Merrick Garland filed on behalf of parents from Loudoun County, Virginia and Saline, Michigan.
In this lawsuit, AFLC is challenging the Attorney General’s political attack of parents who speak out at school board meetings against the indoctrination of their children by “woke” school boards.
The Solicitor General of the United States, who is representing the Attorney General in the Supreme Court, filed a waiver with the Court (i.e., a notice that they are waiving their right to file a response).
On May 31, the Court directed the Solicitor General to file a formal, written response. Apparently, this case has caught the attention of at least some members of the high court.
* As we continue to report, our efforts to save “Baby Doe” from the Taliban continue with full force as we battle Gitmo lawyers from large law firms who have engaged in a battle of legal attrition in an effort to wear us down. It won’t work.
As you know from prior reports, Baby Doe was miraculously rescued from the battlefield of Afghanistan and adopted by a Marine family.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!