Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Alliance Defense Fund’

The Alliance Defense Fund brings us news that they secured an agreement with Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, West Virginia to keep a disabled 40-year-old woman on dialysis after the hospital’s so-called “death board” “ethics board” determined to stop dialysis treatments over the objections of the family. This is just a glimpse of what is to come under Obamacare.

ADF-allied attorney secures agreement with hospital to extend vital care for 40-year-old woman

Family agrees to seek transfer to new medical facility by April 9 when hospital may discontinue life-sustaining treatment
Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 12:00 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020



MORGANTOWN, WV — An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney secured an agreed-upon court order Friday that extends care for a 40-year-old woman on dialysis at Ruby Memorial Hospital after the hospital originally said it would end treatment on March 27 against the wishes of the woman’s family.The hospital agreed to continue care while the family of Rebecca Bennett locates another medical facility willing to continue treatment. The family agreed that if the transfer does not occur by 5 p.m. on April 9, they will no longer oblige the hospital to continue dialysis treatment for the seriously disabled woman, but the hospital will still continue her other basic care. So far, another facility has not been found.

“A hospital should not be allowed to cease care for a family’s loved one when state law gives the family the right to make medical decisions in such circumstances. Becky’s family simply wants to honor their mother’s wishes,” said Jeremiah Dys, general counsel of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia and one of more than 1,600 attorneys in the ADF alliance.

“We were pleased to assist the family in securing this agreement; however, Becky seriously needs life-sustaining dialysis treatment beyond April 9,” Dys explained. “It’s our hope that another facility will be found that is willing to work with the family to give Becky a chance to fight for her life.”

Bennett went into a coma due to complications from diabetes. The hospital’s board of ethics decided that it would stop dialysis on March 27, despite the expressed objections of Sierra Kisner, a member of the family acting as her legal surrogate. ADF attorneys argued that the hospital’s decision violated West Virginia law, which gives the surrogate decision-making power and which requires the hospital to continue care or cooperate in obtaining a transfer. It does not allow the hospital to unilaterally determine that care will cease.

The complaint and motion for temporary restraining order in Kisner v. West Virginia University Hospitals was filed with the Circuit Court of Monongalia County Friday and led to the agreed order issued the same day.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

www.telladf.org facebook.com/AllianceDefenseFund twitter.com/AllianceDefense

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The Alliance Defense Fund has filed lawsuit against the Board of Education of Half Hollow Hills Central School District after they canceled a Christian club without any warning, citing funding and attendance issues.  They failed to provide evidence supporting their claim and have allowed 60 other clubs to remain active.  The school has a history of discrimination against the Christian club.

NY high school cancels Christian club, lets 60 others remain

ADF attorneys file suit against Board of Education of Half Hollow Hills after officials shut Christian student club down
Thursday, February 18, 2010, 12:00 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020


CENTRAL ISLIP, NY — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Board of Education of Half Hollow Hills Central School District on behalf of a student who was told that school officials cancelled, without her knowledge, the Christian club she helps lead. School officials claimed that unspecified budget cuts and a lack of student popularity spurred their decision, even though the club had more than 55 student attendees last year and approximately 60 other student clubs, including the Gay-Straight Alliance and Amnesty International, were allowed to continue.

“Christian student groups in public schools shouldn’t be discriminated against simply because they are religious,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “Singling out a religious student club while letting the vast majority of the others remain constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is unconstitutional. In addition, it’s simply false that this club is not popular with students. More than 90 students signed a petition in favor of allowing the club to continue meeting.

“At the beginning of her freshman year at Half Hollow Hills High School East, the student was told that the Ichthus Club, a student-led group where she was one of the leaders, had been cancelled without any advanced notification. Four years earlier, her older brother met strong resistance before the club was finally allowed to form. Once he graduated, the school cancelled the club, even though the existence of clubs is not dependent upon a particular person’s leadership.

Instead, school officials claimed that a budget crunch was a key factor spurring the decision to cancel two or three clubs, including the Ichthus Club, yet officials provided no response when ADF attorneys asked to see evidence in support of their decision. Administration also asserted that the club’s lack of popularity was another reason for its cancellation, even though more than 55 students were on the club’s attendance roll last year.

The student leader worked diligently to negotiate with the administration to keep the club, even offering to cut expenses by meeting every other week and finding a club advisor who would volunteer, but officials and the school board declined the offer.

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit J.P. v. Board of Education of Half Hollow Hills Central School District with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Robert W. Dapelo, one of more than 1,600 attorneys in the ADF alliance, is serving as local counsel in the case.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

www.telladf.org facebook.com/AllianceDefenseFund twitter.com/adfmedia

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

Read Full Post »

The Alliance Defense Fund reports that they have been granted permission to intervene on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com to defend California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act against a lawsuit brought by two gay men claiming the acts violate the U.S. Constitution.

Court: ADF to defend Prop. 8, federal DOMA

ADF attorneys granted intervention on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com in defense of Calif. marriage amendment and federal DOMA
Friday, May 08, 2009, 8:25 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020


SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal court entered an order granting Alliance Defense Fund attorneys a motion to intervene Thursday on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com in a lawsuit waged by two men against the United States and the state of California to eliminate California’s state constitutional amendment protecting marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. ADF attorneys filed a motion to intervene last month to defend the intended definition of marriage in a suit alleging that the passage of both Proposition 8 and DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution.

“The people of California want marriage to remain as the union between one man and one woman; they made their voice clear last November at the polls,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. “Yet this lawsuit begs the court to nullify the voices of more than 7 million California voters, as well as put an end to the federal law on marriage. We are pleased to be able to represent ProtectMarriage.com in defense of California’s constitutional marriage amendment and the federal DOMA. ”

In December 2008, two men filed a lawsuit claiming that the California marriage amendment, which voters decisively passed as Proposition 8 in last November’s election, violates the U.S. Constitution. The suit also argues that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by former President Bill Clinton, is also unconstitutional. The men have asked the court to issue an overwhelmingly broad injunction “mandating the use of gender-neutral terms in all legislation affecting marriage.”

“ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents and campaign committee of Proposition 8, says it is intervening in the lawsuit because otherwise California’s constitutional amendment would be left essentially undefended in light of the fact that the state attorney general has already argued that he thinks it should be invalidated,” said ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno of Folsom, who is directly working with ADF attorneys and allied attorney Sam Kim of Buena Park on the case.

  • Order granting motion to intervene issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Santa Ana in Smelt v. United States of America

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

http://www.telladf.org/ http://www.domawatch.org/

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

Read Full Post »

The Alliance Defense Fund reports that a lawsuit between Jews for Jesus and the City College of San Francisco has been settled.

Jews for Jesus now free to speak

ADF-allied attorney reaches favorable settlement with City College of San Francisco
Thursday, April 16, 2009, 7:55 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020


SAN FRANCISCO — The City College of San Francisco has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney on behalf of Jews for Jesus.  After arresting a Jews for Jesus employee for handing out literature on its campus without a permit, the college will now allow access for the ministry to distribute literature and express its Christian message on its campuses without unconstitutional permit requirements.

“Christians shouldn’t be arrested for expressing their beliefs on public college campuses,” said ADF-allied attorney Frederick Nelson of the American Liberties Institute.  “We are pleased that the City College of San Francisco will allow free speech on its campuses in accord with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

While distributing literature on several occasions at the City College of San Francisco’s Ocean Campus in 2007 and early 2008, Jews for Jesus employee Robert Wertheim was approached by campus security officers and district employees who demanded that he either show a permit to hand out literature or cease his activities.  Wertheim, who did not have the permit, left the campus each time.

When Wertheim returned to peacefully distribute literature in April 2008, campus police told him he couldn’t distribute literature without a permit and threatened him with arrest if he continued.  Believing the permit requirement violated his constitutional rights, Wertheim did not comply.  Police arrested and handcuffed him before detaining him for more than an hour at the campus police department, where officers confiscated his literature, wallet, watch, and wedding band.  He was then transferred to San Francisco County Jail and placed in a holding cell for three hours.  The charges were dropped the next day.

  • Judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Wednesday in Jews for Jesus v. City College of San Francisco
  • Map of CCSF Ocean Campus areas now open for literature distribution and free speech
  • Preliminary injunction order issued by the court on Jan. 12

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

www.telladf.org

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

Read Full Post »

The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit against the Atlantic Public Schools after a Christian club was denied equal treatment by Sutton Middle School.

The school has forced the club to pay rent, denied them access to privileges that other clubs have, and has prevented them from talking about the club on school grounds; other clubs get access to the facilities for free and are not denied privileges or communications about their clubs on school grounds.

School rules out religion: Atlanta Public Schools challenged after blocking club

ADF attorneys file lawsuit against school district for denying Christian student club equal treatment
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 10:35 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020


ATLANTA — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a complaint Wednesday against the Atlanta Public Schools on behalf of a student and his mother.  The two claim their constitutional rights have been violated by school officials who have repeatedly denied their Christian club access to the same rights, benefits, and privileges given to all other student clubs at Sutton Middle School.

“Christian student groups shouldn’t be discriminated against for their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman.  “The First Amendment and federal law prohibit such actions on the basis of religion, and this has been established by decades of court precedent.”

Over the past six months, Atlanta Public School officials have repeatedly refused equal treatment to the Student to Student Club.  A number of other non-curriculum-related, student-led clubs–including Power Over Prejudice, Puppetry Club, and Knitting Club–are permitted to meet free of charge at Sutton Middle School and are entitled to a number of other benefits and privileges, including the ability to publicize club meetings and activities through a variety of communicative channels.

But school officials have singled out the STS club for discriminatory treatment, forcing the club to pay monthly rent for meeting space and excluding the club from accessing any of the privileges extended to other Sutton student clubs–including all means to communicate its activities.  School officials have even prohibited STS club members from talking about the club with interested students or parents while on school grounds.

“The STS club is entitled to the same benefits given to all other student clubs on campus,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Joshua Bolinger.  “When school officials deny equal treatment simply because the club is religious, that’s unconstitutional.”

ADF-allied attorneys S. Fenn Little and Jonathan Crumly of Little, Crumly & Chambliss, LLP, in Atlanta are assisting with the case.

  • Complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, in Shelton v. Atlanta Public Schools

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

www.telladf.org

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

Read Full Post »

The Alliance Defense Fund reports that they have sent complaint letters to FEMA after FEMA refused to assist Southside Community Church in Arkansas in cleanin up storm debris.  FEMA had previously used the church’s facilities, without asking, as a partial operational base in assisting the community in cleanup after ice storms.

FEMA denies debris clean-up to Ark. church that aided FEMA, storm victims

ADF attorneys send letter to FEMA
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 9:05 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020


PARAGOULD, Ark. — The Federal Emergency Management Agency has denied storm debris clean-up to a Paragould church whose property the agency used for its debris clean-up efforts in the community and despite the efforts of church members to assist with the clean-up after recent ice storms.  Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter to FEMA officials on behalf of the church Wednesday.

“It’s unbelievable that FEMA, which benefitted from the church’s help, would slap it in the face in this way by refusing to pick up the church’s own storm debris.  Furthermore, FEMA’s decision may be unconstitutional and a violation of federal law,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.  “Sadly, this church isn’t the only one that FEMA wouldn’t help.”

President Obama declared Greene County, Arkansas, a disaster area following major ice storms in January.  FEMA used Southside Community Church’s property as a partial base of operations for the clean-up effort.  The church, whose members also traveled to assist with clean-up efforts after Hurricane Katrina, was more than willing to allow use of its property for the ongoing disaster relief efforts even though FEMA did not ask the church’s permission to use its property.  FEMA workers used the property as a main turn-around point for its trucks, repaired trucks on the church’s property, and parked on the church’s property to supervise progress and complete paperwork.

In addition to church members assisting others in the community with debris cleanup, the church also cleaned up its own debris from the ice storm.  Following instructions in the local media that all properties should pile their debris by the street for FEMA to pick up, the church piled its debris near the street, but a FEMA supervisor advised the church that FEMA would not be collecting the church’s debris because “churches are considered a commercial business.”  FEMA denied assistance to other churches in the community as well.

“The denial of disaster relief to Southside Community Church constitutes discrimination in its worst form,” the ADF letter states.  “A church is not a ‘commercial business’ but is a vital community partner and participant in disaster relief….  Further, the rationale that a church is a ‘commercial enterprise’ seems to mask the fact that what is really occurring here is religious discrimination….  FEMA is mandated to provide disaster services without discriminating on the grounds of religion.”

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

www.telladf.org

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily reports that, in Washington State, attorney Stephen Pidgeon is being followed by local and federal law enforcement.

Pidgeon has a complaint filed against Obama contending Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States.  Washington State is different in this case because State law gives citizens the right to raise questions about a candidate’s eligibility where in other states, the majority of eligibility cases are dismissed because judges routinely deny the cases for lack of “standing”.

Eligibility lawyer says Homeland Security shadowing him

Reports incidents involving county, federal agents


Posted: March 25, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawyer spearheading the effort in Washington state to bring light to the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president says he was shadowed all day today by officers with the federal Department of Homeland Security, the Snohomish County sheriff’s office and the Everitt city police department.

“There’s definitely observation,” attorney Stephen Pidgeon told WND. “Maybe observation in anticipation of making an arrest.”

Pidgeon has been the attorney for Washington state plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president under the Constitution’s demand for that office to be occupied only by a “natural born” citizen. Dozens of similar cases have been filed around the country since the election and many have been dismissed, often because judges rule the plaintiffs don’t have “standing” to bring a complaint.

The Washington state case, however, cites state law that vests in citizens the right to raise questions about an elected official’s authority, effectively granting standing to those plaintiffs.

The case, although it has been filed, has not been brought to court for hearings yet.

Pidgeon told WND today he contacted his personal defense attorney, and also was in contact with the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization advocating for civil liberties and religious and personal freedoms.

Pidgeon is affiliated with the organization and told WND that there would be a letter sent inquiring about the surveillance.

He said he first became aware of the situation when his wife left their rural home early in the day and reported there were three law enforcement vehicles parked nearby, along with three black Suburban-style vehicles carrying camouflage-wearing agents, apparently from Homeland Security.

Pidgeon said he has been “outspoken” about the Obama administration and its validity due to the eligibility questions, but didn’t realize he was “qualifying as an enemy of the state.”

He immediately reached out to a number of individuals through e-mail.

“My only protection is to contact the people I know,” he said.

Officials of the Department of Homeland Security did not return multiple WND messages seeking a comment on the situation. Officials with the Snohomish sheriff’s office and the Everett city police department said they didn’t know anything about it.

“Where Homeland Security is concerned, obviously there are people working for the Obama administration with little consideration for free speech,” Pidgeon told WND.

He said when he left his home, he had a sheriff’s vehicle “marking every turn that I made.”

“There’s definitely observation,” he said.

“The fact of the matter is that we have taken the position and it is consistent with Orly Taitz’ position that Barack Obama failed to establish his bona fides by the election on November 4,” he said. “We alleged under Democratic National Committee rules he had a burden to establish to the DNC’s satisfaction his eligibility. He never did.

“As a consequence the burden remains on him. He didn’t meet the burden of proving his eligibility to hold the office.”

He said voters cannot simply rewrite the Constitution’s eligibility requirements in a presidential vote. For one thing, only 52 percent voted for Obama, and the Constitution requires approval from two-thirds of the states for an amendment.

He also cited U.S. senators and congressman who have credited the online “fact” organizations such as snopes or factcheck for authenticating Obama’s eligibility.

“Any senator who would rely on snopes or factcheck to establish a judicial opinion whether or not this person has documented his eligibility is a fool,” Pidgeon said. And citing a federal judge who said the issue of Obama’s eligibility already had been “twittered,” he said that is “tantamount to malpractice.”

Several hours after Pidgeon returned WND’s call, he called again.

“We are definitely under surveillance and it’s coordinated with Homeland Security,” he said.

He said one of his associates had been followed from his home to the law firm’s downtown office, and the associate was stopped just outside the building.

“The police officer claimed he didn’t have brake lights working,” Pidgeon said. “But he does.”

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join some 350,000 others and sign up now!

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the legal challenges question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for Obama, but it cannot be released without his permission, and they have not revealed the information it contains.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, told WND a demand for verification of Obama’s eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”

Officials for the Obama campaign repeatedly have refused to comment on the questions, relenting only once to call the concerns “garbage.”

Related Posts: Criminal Complaint Filed Against Obama Over Eligibility
DOJ, Supreme Court Confirm Receipt Of Eligibility Cases
Orly Taitz Requests FBI Investigation Into Supreme Court Tampering
Chief Justice Roberts Accepts Eligibility Case Request
Supreme Court Clerk Thwarting Obama Eligibility Cases
U.S. Officer Seeking Obama’s Eligibility Is Silenced By The Military
More Military Officers Join Lawsuit To Determine Obama’s Eligibility
Retired Major General Questions Obama’s Eligibility, Asks To Be Added As Plaintiff
Second U.S. Soldier Question’s Obama’s Eligibility, Asks To Be Added As Plantiff In Lawsuit
Active Duty Soldier Says Obama Is “Neither My Commander In Chief Nor My President”
Obama’s Eligibility Questioned By Alabama Senator
Alan Keyes: “[Obama] Is Going To Destroy This Country”
Alan Keys: President Obama “Has Something To Hide”
Obama’s Attorneys File To Keep Birth Records, Passport, College Records Sealed

State Representatives Joining Effort To Determine Obama’s Eligibility

Congress Checked McCain’s “Natural Born” Status, But Refused To Check Obama

TV Networks Refuse To Air Obama Eligibility Ad

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »