Here are the highlights for May:
* On May 1, we filed a reply in support of our motion for a preliminary injunction in our federal lawsuit against Oakland County, the Oakland County Prosecutor, and others. The motion asks the court to enjoin the prosecutor from enforcing the “terrorist threat” felony statute against our client, Andrew Hess.
Following the dismissal of the bogus criminal charge against Hess in state court, on March 10, we filed our federal civil rights lawsuit, advancing claims for malicious prosecution, selective prosecution, and violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, among others.
The County Prosecutor has vowed to continue her pursuit of Hess, claiming that Hess’s political speech made during an election recount held in the County on December 15, 2023, constituted a “terrorist threat” (Hess claimed that government officials who cheat on elections should be tried and punished for treason, which is core political speech protected by the First Amendment).
You can read more about this case here.
* On May 5 and May 6, respectively we filed responses to the motions to dismiss filed by the Michigan Director of the Cannabis Regulatory Agency and the owner of HiCloud, a marijuana establishment, in our federal lawsuit challenging the operation of HiCloud’s marijuana facility in Newfield Township, Michigan.
As set forth in our filings, the operation of HiCloud violates federal law, and it is a public nuisance that is harming the property interests of our clients, a husband and wife who reside with their children in their home, which is less than 300 yards away from this facility. The noxious emissions from this facility are causing physical harm to the family and disturbing the quiet use and enjoyment of their property.
When our client complained to the Township about the operation of this marijuana facility, Township officials retaliated against him by charging him with multiple bogus zoning violations while turning a blind eye to the illicit operations of the facility.
Our lawsuit raises claims arising under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and Michigan nuisance law.
* On May 26, we filed a notice of supplemental authority in our federal lawsuit challenging on federal constitutional grounds Michigan’s Proposal 3, which created a super-right to “reproductive freedom” under the Michigan Constitution.
In our notice, we brought to the court’s attention the recently issued state court opinion in Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, which struck down under Proposal 3, several longstanding regulations passed by the Michigan legislature to protect the health and safety of women seeking abortions, including mandatory waiting periods, mandatory informed consent laws, and laws that only permit licensed physicians to perform abortions.
As we note in our filing, this decision confirms that Proposal 3 causes harm to women as alleged in our First Amended Complaint.
You can read more about this case here.
* On May 28, we filed a first amended complaint in our lawsuit discussed above against Oakland County, Michigan and several of its officials on behalf of Andrew Hess.
This amended pleading refined several allegations and added a “false light” claim in lieu of defamation. We also included additional evidence of selective prosecution, including the fact that prominent members of the Democratic Party in Michigan have called for the hanging of Trump supporters, but they are not being prosecuted for making a terrorist threat. See the social media post below.
You can read the First Amended Complaint here.
* Our lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department advances as we continue to refine our allegations in light of the discovery of new facts. As you can see from the latest riots in LA, there is a dearth of leadership in that City.
We filed this putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of our client Adom Ratner-Stauber, a substantial LA property owner and manager, against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department.
The lawsuit alleges that the City’s shuffling of the homeless onto or near private property effectively destroys the value of the property and amounts to a violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a de facto condemnation under the California Constitution, and creates public nuisances.
We have many other important cases at various stages of litigation. You can read more about our work on our website.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldn’t do what we do without them!