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

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.

Our "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 [email protected]

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

On July 13, 2010—more 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

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.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

0 0 votes

Article Rating

6 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Frank

12 years ago

“It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.”-Charles Peggy
This quote of the French poet Charles Péguy (killed at the first battle of the marne-9/4/1914) sums up the issue.

0

Kufar Dawg

12 years ago

Maybe they’ll take a page from the Islamonazi dhimmidiots who run Dearbornistan and establish “free-speech zones.”

0

ParahSalin

12 years ago

Any grounds for charges of manslaughter on the basis of reckless endangerment? I could certainly connect their refusal to comply with the ruling with the death of that young lady.

0

gsw

12 years ago

I agree with ParahSalin, could be “Accessory to the Act”
An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.
… merely giving generalized and/or limited help and encouragement.
By failing to complete their contract and actively condemning honor killings, they are:
Indirectly condoning the practice and facilitating the crime by failing to make potential victims aware of legal alternatives and protective agencies.
You might even get them for malicious intent to do harm since they are actively preventing potential victims from obtaining help.
While she should not have died, perhaps you can help that she didn’t die in vain.

0

John P

12 years ago

They would have to invoke “reasonable constraint” on appeal. City managers are despicable for attempting to constrain that message.

0

J. Guidry, Battlefield, MO.

12 years ago

I as read of the atrocities of the muzzies in this nation’s cities, on this site, I am struck by the level of cowardice of those cities officials and their underlings. The rationale I can find for this behavior is that these cities have somehow been infiltrated by the muzzies via payoffs, threats or blackmail. What else is there? Until the “O”, and his minions in the federal government, are turned out of office I doubt there is very little patriots can do about it.
I do applaud the actions of the few who take the problems head-on and try to stem the tide of islamization of our country. However, I have the feeling that it will come down to us versus them in a new revolution to reclaim this nation for liberty and freedom. Not advocating anything, just sayin’ thats how it looks to me.
“Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed”. Anything less than a shooting revolution would be welcome.

0