Web
Analytics

Islamic Law vs American Law: Request for Ruling on Freedom Buses in Dearborn

6

  Leaving islam bus

Back on April 2,  I happily announced that we had won in our year-long struggle against the violation of our first amendment rights in Detroit, Michigan.

It took a year, but we won our free speech lawsuit in Detroit for their refusal to post our Freedom ads on Dearborn buses. And the week our ad was scheduled to run, SMART Transit still refused to post it, and another young Muslim girl was honor killed in the very town our ads were scheduled to run. We could have helped her. We could have gotten her to a safehouse. But our political and media elites are more concerned with offending Muslims than with equal protection under the law. They are more concerned with offending Muslims than protecting freedom of speech. They are more concerned with adhering to sharia law than upholding American law.

JessicaOur "Leaving Islam?" bus campaign was designed for girls like Rifqa Bary and Jessica Mokdad and Noor Almaleki and Amina and Sarah Said and any one of these individuals

Apostasy is punishable by death, and we are seeing a spike in these horrific murders in the West.

We won our case against Detroit, and our ads were supposed to be up by now, but the city appealed, and we are back in court.

Perhaps if our bus campaign ran, maybe Jessica Mokdad would be alive today. Shame on the city of Detroit, shame on you. How do they look at themselves in the mirror?

They cannot keep these buses off the streets. Please contribute to the Dearborn anti-sharia campaign — paypal writeatlas@aol.com

Today Robert Muise of Thomas More Law Center and David Yerushalmi filed this — Download Motion to Request Ruling–FDI v SMART-ECF Filed

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

On July 13, 2010more than a year ago—this court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. On March 31, 2011, this court entered its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion based upon the fact that Defendants’ refusal to run Plaintiffs’ advertising on their buses was a violation of Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of speech. (Doc. No. 24).

Just prior to their filing a Notice of Appeal of this court’s order (Doc. No. 29), Defendants filed an emergency motion asking this court to stay its order on the grounds that the court’s grant of the preliminary injunction was manifest and reversible error. (Doc. No. 27).

 

The motion was fully briefed and a hearing was held before this court on May 12, 2011. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court indicated that it would rule by the following Monday, May 16, 2011, at the latest. The court has yet to rule on Defendants’ motion.

 

To date, Defendants have refused, and continue to refuse, to place Plaintiffs’ advertising on their buses even after all conditions of the contract have been satisfied. Thus, the court’s failure to rule is effectively granting Defendants’ motion for a stay notwithstanding the fact that neither the law nor the facts authorize such a stay. Moreover, this de facto stay is depriving Plaintiffs of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and prolonging what was evident to this court when it issued its order granting the preliminary injunction: Defendants were wrong to censure Plaintiffs’ speech and should rectify that wrong immediately. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”)

 

 

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court issue its ruling on the pending emergency motion to stay the enforcement of the preliminary injunction. [Signature page follows.]

2:10-cv-12134-DPH-MJH
Doc # 35    Filed 07/19/11    Pg 3 of 4    Pg ID 439
Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YERUSHALMI, P.C.
/s/ David Yerushalmi David Yerushalmi, Esq.
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER
/s/ Robert J. Muise Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest