On June 1, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a federal taxpayer lacks “standing” to
challenge the government’s use of taxpayer funds to support
sharia-based activities. The case, which is captioned on appeal as Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al.,
was brought by American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) attorneys David
Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, representing the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, a
taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq. The federal
lawsuit alleged that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial
bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
Specifically, at the time of the
government bailout (beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the
present), AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting
sharia-compliant insurance products. As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged
in its opinion today, “‘Sharia’ refers to Islamic law based on the
teachings of the Quran. It is the Islamic code embodying the way of
life for Muslims and is intended to serve as the civic law in Muslim
countries.” Indeed, sharia is the legal doctrine that demands capital
punishment for apostasy and blasphemy and provides the legal and
political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by the world’s
Muslim terrorists. As argued by AFLC, by propping up AIG with taxpayer
funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam
and, more troubling, sharia. And as the Sixth Circuit noted in its
opinion, Murray objects to his tax money being used to support sharia
because it “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West
and the United States.”
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert
Muise argued the case before the Sixth Circuit. Muise commented, “This
decision by the Sixth Circuit is troubling on many levels. First, it is
contrary to controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which allows a
taxpayer to challenge a congressional spending program that violates the
Establishment Clause. And second, this decision permits the federal
government to continue its practice of promoting and supporting sharia
through the use of taxpayer funds. We intend to request a rehearing by
the full court, and if that does not succeed, we will ask the U.S.
Supreme Court to review the case.”
After a year of document requests,
depositions of current and former government witnesses, and three
separate subpoenas issued to AIG and the New York Federal Reserve Bank,
Yerushalmi and Muise filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that
the undisputed facts demonstrate that the government, through its
absolute control and ownership of AIG, and with tens of billions of
taxpayer dollars, has directly and indirectly promoted and supported
sharia as a religious legal doctrine in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.
Indeed, in its opinion, the Sixth
Circuit acknowledged that “AIG subsidiaries ensure the Sharia-compliance
of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from ‘Sharia Supervisory
Committees.’ The members of these committees are authorities in Sharia
law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s
operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating
the compliance of these products with Sharia law.” The court
acknowledged that “AIG’s subsidiaries received a significant portion of
the funds AIG received from the federal government” and that “[s]ix AIG
subsidiaries have marketed and sold SCF products since AIG began
receiving capital injections from the federal government.” And
most important, the court acknowledged that “[n]either party disputes
that Treasury Department financing supported all of AIG’s businesses,
including the subsidiaries that marketed SCF products.”
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David
Yerushalmi remarked, “It is one thing that our government felt compelled
to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s
own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s sharia businesses all
of which don’t just sell sharia products to the Muslim world, but
actively promote sharia as the best, most ethical way of life.
Indeed, the sharia authorities relied upon by AIG’s Sharia Supervisory
Committees actively promote violent jihad. The fact that the Sixth
Circuit acknowledged these facts, but yet found no standing to challenge
this impermissible use of taxpayer money under the Constitution is
troubling, but this fight is not yet over.”
No comments:
Post a Comment