This is an extremely important case, as it touches on the nature of Sharia and the U.S. Government’s role in promoting it, which gallops ahead in other areas today. I was one of the experts who testified for the plaintiff. “AFLC Attorneys to Argue Before Federal Appellate Court that AIG Bailout Was Unconstitutional,” from the American Freedom Law Center, January 30:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has
announced that it will hear oral argument in Cincinnati, Ohio on April
20, 2012, in an appeal challenging the AIG bailout. The case, which is
captioned Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al., was brought by American Freedom Law Center attorneys
David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, representing the plaintiff, Kevin
Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq. The
federal lawsuit alleges 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.
Sharia is Islamic law, and it is the identical 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. By propping up AIG with taxpayer funds,
the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more
troubling, sharia.In May 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Zatkoff, who presides
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
rejected a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the Obama
administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and later rebuffed their
efforts to stay the proceeding so they could avoid discovery and take an
extraordinary appeal to the Sixth Circuit.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.What makes this case all the more egregious is that this doctrine “”
sharia “” also happens to be the underlying legal and military doctrine
animating jihad against the West by Muslims from the Middle East, Asia,
Russia, Africa, and even right here at home, as evidenced by the tragic
Fort Hood massacre. Each and every one of the domestic and foreign
jihad terrorists has proclaimed allegiance to sharia and its call for
“jihad against apostates and infidels.”Two experts on sharia, sharia-compliant finance, and jihad testified
at length through affidavits in support of the plaintiff’s case. The
government could not “” and did not “” oppose this expert testimony with
any contrary evidence….