May 18, 2013 / Maria News

Congress Receives Irrefutable Evidence of IRS Harassment of Pro-Life Organizations

(May 17, 2013 – Chicago) Today, the Thomas More Society offered over 150 pages of analysis and evidence to the House Ways and Means Committee about repeated IRS harassment of pro-life organizations. At the request of Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL), Thomas More Society President Thomas Brejcha, Executive Director Peter Breen, and Special Counsel Sally Wagenmaker, prepared the legal memorandum with solid evidence of IRS harassment of pro-life organizations dating back to 2009.

The memo details the history of IRS misconduct in the cases of three organizations represented by the Thomas More Society. The abuse dates back further than the now publicized 2010 complaints and extends beyond the IRS’s recently exposed Cincinnati office to also include the tax agency’s California operations in the charges of blatant bias.

The IRS office in El Monte, California, began harassing Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County, Texas in 2011. In a series of questions penned by Exempt Organization Specialist Tyrone Thomas from the California office, the IRS asked a series of unwarranted questions ordering Christian Voices for Life without any foundation, to explain its content, message, and prayers as if they were engaging in highly offensive or criminal behavior.

Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.

In yet a third matter, an IRS agent in their Chicago office repeatedly harassed Daniel and Angela Michael of Small Victories, a pro-life organization, with an intrusive investigation, calling the leaders every 2-3 weeks over the course of 2011, beginning in January of that year. The IRS officially closed its investigation in January 2012, having found no illegal activities.

To read the entire Thomas More Society memo to Congressman Aaron Schock of the House Ways and Means Committee click here

About the Thomas More Society
Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm that exists to restore respect in law for life, marriage, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago, the Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro-bono professional legal services from local trial courts all the way to the United States Supreme Court. www.thomasmoresociety.org

Subscribe to MariaNews.com

June 15, 2012 / MariaNews.com 

State’s Attorney’s Gay Marriage Support Part of an “Inside Job”

Subscribe to MariaNews.com

March 22, 2012 | MariaNews.com 

U.S. Department of Justice Drops “Face” Lawsuit Against Denver Pro-Lifer 

DENVER March 21, 2012 – Today, U.S. Justice Department attorneys agreed to dismiss all of the civil charges pending against Denver pro-life advocate Kenneth Scott, whom it alleged last year to have physically obstructed clients and employees of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains abortion facility in Denver.  Attorneys working for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in Washington, D.C. had filed suit last year in Denver’s federal district court, charging Scott with ten separate violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, asking the court to assess a $10,000 civil fine and strap him with a federal injunction keeping him 25 feet away from the abortion facility.  The agreement to dismiss the charges followed in the wake of a ruling last January by United States District Judge Philip Brimmer, denying the federal government’s bid for entry of a preliminary injunction against Scott after an all-day hearing and ruling that the Justice Department attorneys had failed to meet their burden of proof that they would be reasonably likely to prove at trial that Scott violated the FACE Act.

“This is a monumental victory for the pro-life movement against the Department of Justice,” said Peter Breen, executive director of the Thomas More Society which represented Scott, together with Denver attorney Rebecca Messall.  Both Breen and Messall attended the settlement conference held this afternoon before a Federal Magistrate in the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse in Denver.

Breen added:  “The charges against Scott, like a flurry of other charges the Justice Department recently has brought against pro-lifers all over the country, were fundamentally flawed and constitutionally obnoxious.  The Government claimed that when drivers stopped their vehicles for as short a time as a minute when entering or exiting abortion facilities to receive leaflets or talk with pro-life advocates, those stops constituted FACE violations.  But as pro-lifers have First Amendment rights to communicate their message to potential abortion patrons or providers, they cannot lawfully be sanctioned when their potential audience agrees to listen, if not necessarily agree with, their vital message.”  Breen concluded:  “We trust that this flawed legal theory will be jettisoned now that the courts have so roundly rejected it!”

A copy of the signed settlement agreement may be viewed here

More information about the case can be found here

Subscribe to MariaNews.com

March 7, 2012 | MariaNews.com 

Jacksonville, NC Stops Restricting Pro-Life Activists’ Free Speech

Federal Court Approves Consent Order Between Thomas More Society Attorneys and City

(TCPR.net) – Jacksonville, NC (March 6, 2012) – Today, U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle approved a consent order between attorneys with the Thomas More Society and attorneys for Jacksonville, NC, requiring the city to modify its public assembly ordinances to stop violating constitutionally-protected free speech. The ordinances had suppressed free expression of pro-life activists, including lead plaintiff Dr. Bartolo Spano, according to the original lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. A copy of the consent order approved by the court is available here.

The suit was filed last year because Jacksonville’s Chief of Police stopped Spano and other pro-life advocates from praying and picketing outside the front entrance of the Crist Clinic for Women, a Jacksonville abortion facility, trying to force the picketers to a rear entrance, less visible to the public. Thomas More Society’s suit argued that the First Amendment protects these pro-life advocates’ right to peacefully protest on the public right of way at the front entrance to the clinic. After the suit was filed, Jacksonville agreed, and the consent order requires Jacksonville to make several revisions to its public assembly ordinances to protect any lawful assembly of pro-life activists or others in the free exercise of their First Amendment rights.

“This is a great win for free speech for Jacksonville’s citizens ,” said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society’s executive director and legal counsel. “Our clients, pro-life activists who want to help women and children, will no longer be subject to police prohibiting their legally protected public assembly.”

Links to court documents available:

Consent Order Requiring Jacksonville to Revise Assembly Ordinances

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction

Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, and Relief Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

About the Thomas More Society

Founded in 1997, the Chicago-based Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that seeks to restore respect in law for life, marriage, and religious liberty. The Society is a nonprofit organization wholly supported by private donations. For more information or to support the work of Thomas More Society, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Subscribe to MariaNews.com

February 9, 2012 | MariaNews.com 

Thomas More Society Expects that Proposition 8 Will Be Upheld by the Supreme Court.

(BY TCPR.NET) – CHICAGO, Feb. 8, 2012  – In a “split decision” (2-1), a three-Judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sitting at San Francisco yesterday struck down Proposition 8, the California initiative adopted on November 4, 2008, which overturned a decision of the California Supreme Court (In re Marriage Cases) requiring the State of California to recognize same-sex marriages. Under Proposition 8, marriage is a relationship that may exist only between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 did not deprive same-sex couples of any of the rights and privileges of marriage they are entitled to under California’s Domestic Partner Act. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, in an opinion joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, crafted what he characterized as a “narrow” opinion, focusing on whether, once California had allowed same-sex marriages as a result of a state supreme court decision in the spring of 2008, it could then “withdraw” the right of same-sex couples to enter into relationship designated as “marriage” by virtue of a state constitutional initiative (Proposition 8) approved by the voters on November 4, 2008.

Judge Reinhardt’s opinion declined to decide whether same-sex couples have a fundamental due process liberty interest in marrying, whether classifications based upon sexual orientation are subject to a heightened standard of review (like those based on race or gender) for purposes of equal protection analysis, whether the people of California could have amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages before the state supreme court ruled on the question, or whether they could have reserved both marriage and the rights and privileges of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Judge Reinhardt’s opinion purported to find a constitutionally relevant distinction between not extending rights to persons who had not previously enjoyed those rights and withdrawing rights from those who had, a distinction that is of questionable constitutional relevance. 

In an opinion that seems clearly aimed at attracting the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, if (as everyone expects) this case reaches the Supreme Court, Judge Reinhardt relied almost exclusively upon Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in Romer v. Evans (1996), in which the Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2. Colorado’s Amendment 2, however, which in very broad terms swept away existing special legislation for gays and lesbians and barred both the State of Colorado and its political subdivisions from enacting such legislation in the future, bears little or no relationship to California’s Proposition 8, which focuses upon a single, narrow concept — whether the People of the State of California may define marriage as a relationship that may exist only between a man and a woman. Indeed, Colorado’s Amendment 2, by its own terms, did not even prohibit same-sex marriage (that prohibition was adopted by the voters of Colorado many years later).

Several state and federal courts, in reviewing the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, have recognized the difference between such bans and the initiative struck down in Romer v. Evans and have held that Romer simply has no application to such measures.

The proponents of Proposition 8 advanced multiple reasons in support of the initiative, that reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples is reasonably related to the State’s legitimate interests in responsible procreation; in providing the benefits of parenting by both a mother and a father; and in proceeding cautiously in changing a basic social institution. Without commenting upon the legitimacy of these interests, Judge Reinhardt found that Proposition 8 did not promote such interests. He also dismissed any interest that Californians may have had in restoring the institution of marriage to what it had meant before the California Supreme Court decided that the State had to recognize same-sex marriages.

Tradition alone, in Judge Reinhardt’s view, could not support the removal of a new right from same-sex couples. Judge Reinhardt concluded that, once all of the stated and possible justifications for the initiative were removed, Proposition 8 could be explained only by a “disapproval” by the voters of gays and lesbians, an explanation that cannot be justified in constitutional terms.

Judge N.S. Smith dissented, questioning Judge Reinhardt’s reliance on Romer v. Evans and taking issue with his treatment of the state interests at stake and whether Proposition 8 advances those interests.

The Thomas More Society represented the Family Research Council in defending Proposition 8 in the Ninth Circuit and expects that Proposition 8 ultimately will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

About the Thomas More Society
 Founded in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that exists to restore respect for life in law. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends the sanctity of human life, the family and religious liberty in courtrooms across the country. The Society is a nonprofit organization wholly supported by private donations. For more information or to support the work of the Thomas More Society, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Subscribe to MariaNews.com

January 27, 2012 | MariaNews.com 

Catholic Homeschool Group’s Appeal Will Be Argued Before the Indiana Civil Rights Commission  

TCPR.net | Indianapolis (January 26, 2012) – Tomorrow, Friday, January 27, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., the Illinois Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) will hear an appeal filed by the Chicago-based Thomas More Society on behalf of a Roman Catholic home-schooling group, Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society (FACES).  The appeal asks that ICRC overturn a preliminary ruling by one of the Commission’s Administrative Law Judges, Hon. Robert Lange, to the effect that FACES, based in Fishers, Indiana, unlawfully “retaliated” against a former student when it expelled her from this voluntary association of eleven Catholic homeschooling families.

The expulsion occurred a few months after the teenage student had filed a claim with ICRC, charging “disability discrimination” when she was denied a steak dinner at FACES’ “All Soul’s Day Ball,” a group-sponsored social event.  The approved  menu for all other FACES students was  a chicken dinner.  The claimant’s mother privately arranged with the local banquet hall that hosted the event to serve her and her daughter a steak dinner in lieu of the chicken served to others. The menu dispute arose when the claimant insisted that the chicken meal posed the risk of a serious, potentially fatal reaction given her supposedly severe food allergy.  After two years of intensive, costly litigation, however, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that the Civil Rights Commission dismiss the disability bias charge, as FACES’ leaders had asked the claimant to bring a home-made meal to the event, thereby averting any risk of an adverse allergic reaction.  Yet, the ALJ also urged ICRC to affirm his initial ruling that FACES illegally retaliated when the claimant and her family were expelled.

Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society’s president and chief counsel, hailed the ALJ’s ruling on disability:  “This disability bias claim was not only meritless, but spurious – a manipulative, petty move by an arrogant, selfish, and dominating parent insistent on getting her own way at others’ expense.  FACES more than “accommodated” the student’s allergy, bending over backwards to avoid any health risk, by directing her mother to bring a meal from home.”

On the other hand, Brejcha assailed the ruling on retaliation as lawless and extreme: “The claimant’s mother flouted the group leaders’ order to stop negotiating directly with the banquet hall about a special meal for her family.  This was gross insubordination, warranting her expulsion, and it was only one in a series of insubordinate acts she committed, all after the filing with ICRC.  Thus,  she was carrying on with utter arrogance as if she were a law unto herself, an ‘untouchable’ no longer bound by FACES’ rules, which remained binding on other families. If ICRC adopts this extreme ruling as an enforceable legal precedent, it will impose by sheer fiat of state government an unbearable burden on private associations (and businesses) in the State of Indiana, mandating that any group member (or employee) who merely files a bias charge with ICRC, even baseless as in this case, will be entitled to special treatment – an exemption from compliance with the group’s (or employer’s) rules.  This would turn the Indiana Civil Rights Law — an anti-bias statute – upon its head, perverting it into a mandate for discrimination in favor of charging parties before ICRC.  No group, let alone the few volunteer families in this case who merely wanted to provide social enrichment opportunities within a Catholic context for their home-schooled kids, could ever hope to function as a cohesive unit if its members were legally entitled to behave as they please, heedless of the group’s own rules and chain of command.”

Even though Thomas More Society undertook FACES’ defense on a pro bono basis, without charge, the home-schooling group had to cease operations in Summer 2010, owing to the many distractions and burdens bound up with having to defend such a protracted, intensive ICRC proceeding.  Had FACES been forced to pay its own way in defense of ICRC’s taxpayer-funded prosecution, it would have had to capitulate years ago.

The brief filed by Thomas More Society argues an entire litany of points:

• The Indiana Civil Rights Commission does not have authority to police the internal affairs of religious and social groups like FACES, especially about menu choices;
• The Indiana Civil Rights Law doesn’t apply because the claimant’s dietary issue did not restrict any major life activity and was exaggerated by the claimant’s mother;
• There is no duty under the Indiana Civil Rights Law to provide “reasonable accommodation” even for persons with legitimate major disabilities; and
• FACES was not guilty of “retaliation” as it treated the claimant and her family on an equal and non-discriminatory basis, enforcing the group’s rules binding on everybody.

A copy of the filing of FACES’ appeal is available.

FACES’ motion for leave to cite supplemental authority, namely, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal constitutional right of religious groups to hire and fire as they choose, is available.

# # #

About the Thomas More Society

Founded in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that exists to restore respect for life in law. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends the sanctity of human life, the family and religious liberty in courtrooms across the country. The Society is a nonprofit organization wholly supported by private donations. For more information or to support the work of Thomas More Society, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Subscribe to MariaNews.com

December 20, 2011 | TCPR.net

U.S. Justice Department To Face Off with Thomas More Society Attorneys Over Charges Against Denver Pro-Life Activist                     U.S. Constitution Protects Kenneth Scott’s Right to Counsel and Protest Outside Abortion Clinics….

DENVER (December 19, 2011) – Thomas More Society attorneys have joined Kenneth Scott’s legal team to defend him against the U.S. Attorney General’s civil complaint that Scott violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act). In June, Scott was charged by the Attorney General with physical obstruction against patients and staff attempting to enter and exit the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

The Attorney General’s complaint claims that, because cars stopped to allow their occupants to speak with and receive literature from Scott, Scott was “obstructing” other traffic that might have wanted to pass, in violation of the FACE Act. The Thomas More Society will contend that Scott’s actions are protected by the First Amendment.

“The Attorney General of the United States is taking us down a dangerous path in trying to criminalize leafletting and oral communication on the public right of way — actions historically protected by the First Amendment,” said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive director and legal counsel. “These charges appear calculated not to obtain justice but to scare pro-life people away from the same abortion clinics that strongly supported President Obama’s electoral campaign. We intend to show that these charges are not merely false but frivolous.”

MariaNews.com will be following this story.

Subscribe to MariaNews.com

Parental Notice of Abortion Act Heading to Illinois Supreme Court
 

November 30, 2011 (Springfield) – Today, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 violates the Illinois State Constitution of 1970. The high Court is expected to grapple with the question of whether, and to what extent, the Illinois Constitution includes protection for abortion rights. Abortion was illegal in Illinois from the time of the State Constitution’s adoption until the United States Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

 The Chicago-based Thomas More Society sought to intervene in the case on behalf of two Illinois State’s Attorneys, whom the Act vests with enforcement responsibilities, and who questioned the adequacy of representation of their interests by the Office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. The Society also filed a brief for more than twenty Illinois State’s Attorneys as amici curiae on the merits in defense of the Parental Notice Act in the Appellate Court.

Paul Linton, Special Counsel for the Society, welcomed the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision to review the Act. ”The Illinois Supreme Court’s action ensures that there will be a prompt resolution of the law’s constitutionality, and we believe that the high Court will uphold the law. Similar laws in other States have been associated with significant declines in the numbers of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, births, and abortions among minors.  The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the vital interests that States have in protecting pregnant minors and the rights of their parents to provide guidance and counsel in this very sensitive area.”

Subject to certain exceptions, including medical emergencies, the Illinois Parental Notice Act – whose enforcement has been blocked almost from its inception due to successive federal and state court challenges brought by the ACLU – requires that an unemancipated minor notify one of her parents, her legal guardian, a step-parent residing in the same household, or a grandparent of her intention to obtain an abortion. The Act does not require parental consent, only notice, and it also provides for confidential options for “bypassing” the notice requirement, including expedited and confidential appeals, in cases where a minor has been abused or where a court finds she is mature enough to make her own decision, or it is otherwise in her best interest to proceed without notice.

About the Thomas More Society

The Thomas More Society is a public interest law firm that counsels and defends those who work to protect innocent human life, defends those who proclaim faith-based values in our nation’s public square, and strives to protect the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman formed to beget, bear and nurture new human lives. For more information, please visit: www.thomasmoresociety.org.

November 26, 2011 | TCPR.net

(Chicago) - CHICAGO NATIVITY SCENE RETURNS TO DALEY PLAZA 

Tradition Continues, Despite “Political Correctness”

To Eradicate the “Reason for the Season” Across the United States

The annual dedication of the Crèche in Daley Plaza will take place Saturday, November 26^th, at 12:00 Noon.

“The Nativity Scene has been an annual tradition in Daley Plaza since l985 when the beautiful life size crèche was first displayed,” said Terrance Hodges, co-chair of the Nativity Scene Committee.

“This remains the sole religious expression of Christmas on a government plaza in downtown Chicago,” said Hodges.  “The God Squad, a group of volunteer tradesmen will erect the stable and install the lighting as they have for the over twenty-five years.” The volunteer craftsmen will begin setting up the Nativity display at 9:00, with the ceremony planned for Noon.

The bell choir from Santa Maria del Popolo Catholic Church in Mundelein, Illinois will ring in the sacred season, along with the singing of Christmas hymns.

Daley Plaza is a popular destination for Chicagoans and visitors to wrap themselves in the Christmas spirit throughout the festive season. The recreation of the scene of the birth of Jesus joins the Chicago Christmas tree and Christkindlmarket as downtown celebrations of Christmas.

The Nativity Scene committee invites all Chicago area families to join them on Saturday, November 26^th to inaugurate the Christmas season or to stop by Daley Plaza to visit the Christ Child when they come downtown to enjoy the decorations.

The Nativity Scene will remain in Daley Plaza throughout the Christmas season.

For a detailed history of the Chicago Nativity Scene visit: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/11/a-christmas-tra.html

Subscribe to MariaNews.com

November 14, 2011 | TCPR.net

After 90 Years, Catholic Charities Foster Care Will Cease in Illinois

State’s Action to Remove Children from Charities’ Care Forces Cessation of Lawsuit

(CHICAGO, IL) Today November 14, 2011, the Thomas More Society announces that it will file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Illinois’ Catholic Charities against the State of Illinois, as the actions of the State have prevented the Charities from being able to obtain relief from the Illinois court system. Because the State of Illinois has put an expedited process in place to transition to other agencies the foster children under the Charities’ care, any relief ordered by the Appellate Court would come too late to save the Charities’ foster care ministry. Both the Circuit and Appellate Courts denied the Charities’ emergency motions to prevent the transition.

“The dismantling of Catholic Charities’ foster care ministry marks a tragic end to 90 years of foster care service by some of the most effective child welfare agencies in Illinois,” said Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, which represented the Charities in their lawsuit against the State. “The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies. Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections. This stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising ‘religious protection’ in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises.”

Earlier this year, the Catholic Charities affiliates of the dioceses of Springfield, Joliet, Belleville, and Peoria took legal action in Springfield, IL, to seek injunctive relief against efforts by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) to halt the Catholic Charities’ social service agencies from any further participation in Illinois’ programs for foster care and adoption. They charged that the State distorted the meaning of relevant Illinois statutes, including the recently effective “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act,” ignoring that Act’s explicit exemption for religious social service agencies.

About the Thomas More Society

Formed in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm based in Chicago. The Society defends religious liberty, marriage, and the sanctity of human life in courtrooms across the country. For more information, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Read Back Story