Legally Actionable: Lawsuit Heats Up Against US Government Promotion, Advancement of Sharia

David Yerushalmi and the Thomas More Law Center are continuing in their landmark lawsuit against the  the US government’s acceptance, promotion and advancement of sharia (Islamic law and finance). And yes, these are the same legal warriors who are representing me in my lawsuit against the city of Detroit for violation of free speech for refusing my freedom bus ads. Look for breaking news on that in the next few weeks.

David Yerushalmi explains the lawsuit against the sharia (Islamic law):

Shariah is the Islamic legal doctrine and system that drives jihad against the infidel West and provides for murdering apostates—those Muslims who seek to exercise some modicum of religious liberty by leaving Islam. Shariah-compliant finance (SCF) is the application of this dangerous if not fatal religious-legal system to modern finance, business, and economics. There is no space between the Shariah that drives OBL, Qaradawi, and the Muslim Brotherhood and SCF as practiced by Dow Jones, HSBC, AIG and others.

When the US government took more than $150 billion of tax payer money to bail out and take ownership and control of AIG, it had a duty to its citizens and to common sense to remove any vestige of Shariah as the enemy’s doctrine of war.

Instead, the US government embraced Shariah and provided AIG with over $1 billion to further its Shariah promotion. US taxpayer dollars used to promote the very Islamic legal doctrine that calls for our destruction as a Western constitutional republic free from tyranny and unwanted religious dogma.

Mr. Kevin Murray, a former combat Marine (Iraq) brought this suit seeking to force either AIG out of Shariah or the U.S. government out of AIG because anything less at the very least was a patent violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, not to mention an abject violation of the oath of office of every Treasury and Fed official embracing SCF.

This reply brief represents the final briefing stage before federal Judge Zatkoff of the Eastern District of Michigan rules on who wins.

What follows is their final brief before oral arguments for the Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. This reply brief is good. It boils the case down to the bare bones in 5 short pages. Yerushalmi and Thomas More law center will be filing shortly a motion asking the judge to UNSEAL the redacted documents (you’ll note some of the AIG money trail in the footnotes is redacted in this public version; the details of our AIG discovery is all under seal currently) on the grounds that the information AIG and the government claim is confidential business information is in fact no such thing, and the public has a right to these documents. The court is likely to grant this motion, so we can expose the nitty-gritty of the money trail from taxpayer pockets to AIG to funding Shariah.

Also attached is the declaration sans exhibits, because it quotes the relevant passages from Harvard Professors Vogel and Hayes (the latter moderated the Treasury’s Islamic Finance 101 Seminar in Nov 08 right after the AIG takeover) seminal work on SCF as a refutation of the government’s pathetic claim that SCF is not really a religious endeavor (even though they did not even oppose their experts, Coughlin/Spencer, who made it clear that it was).

Read the documents — they are a beautiful thing, a fight for American law over the sharia:

“One of the more striking facts about the rise of Islamic banking and finance is that it represents an assertion of religious law in the area of commercial life, where secularism rules almost unquestioned throughout the rest of the world. Even as adherence to Western-derived commercial laws is becoming more commonplace and advantageous, Islamic finance challenges these laws in two key respects: first, it challenges the presumption that modern commercial mores are per se more efficient or otherwise superior; and second, it challenges the secular separation of commerce from consideration of religion and piety.” g. Page 20: “The question of whether law should be secular or religious can represent a false dichotomy for the Muslim. To the believer, Islamic law is not merely an obligation of conscience, which if observed earns eternal reward; the law is also the best guide to human welfare in this world. To believers, God [Allah] legislates for their well-being in this world and the next. As a law instilled by God [Allah] in man and nature, obedience to it leads to social and individual success and happiness. Muslims often conclude that their current 5 social, economic, and moral weaknesses are a consequence of their deviation from divine law in favor of Western ways.”

Here are the actual docs: Download Declaration-Yerushalmi_Final_for_Filing

Download Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss_w_exhibits_filed

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
KEVIN J. MURRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official
capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of
Treasury; BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,
Defendants.

Click for text of documents.

Case No. 08-CV-15147
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849) John R. Coleman, Esq.
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Julie Straus, Esq.
P.O. Box 393 Trial Attorneys
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
[email protected] 20 Massachusetts, Ave., N.W., Rm 6118
(734) 827-2001 Washington, DC 20530
Fax: (734) 930-7160 [email protected]
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff (202) 514-4505
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Counsel for Defendants
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YERUSHALMI, P.C.
David Yerushalmi, Esq. (Ariz. Bar No. 009616;
DC Bar No. 978179; Cal. Bar No. 132011; NY Bar No. 4632568)
P.O. Box 6358
Chandler, AZ 85246
[email protected]
(646) 262-0500
Fax: (801) 760-3901
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF DAVID YERUSHALMI, ESQ.
______________________________________________________________________________
2
I, David Yerushalmi, Esq., make this declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 based on
my personal knowledge:
1. I am an adult citizen of the United States, co-counsel to Plaintiff Kevin Murray in
this action, and declare the following to be true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.
2. According to Harvard Business School publications, Samuel L. Hayes, III, holds
the Jacob H. Schiff Chair in Investment Banking Emeritus, at the Harvard Business School. (See
Hayes’ biography published on line at the Harvard Business School Web site at

http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=bio&facId=6856.)

3. According to the Library of Congress, Hayes co-authored, with Harvard Law
Professor Frank E. Vogel, Islamic Law and Finance: Religion, Risk, and Return (1998) (“Islamic
Law and Finance”). (See Library of Congress online data entry at http://catalog.loc.gov/cgibin/
Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search%5FArg=samuel%20l%20hayes&Search%5FCode=N
AME%40&CNT=100&PID=pTMdWXbCtJA_uJ247uAPlk7foIb&SEQ=20100705115950&SID
=3.)
4. According to the Harvard Law School publications, Vogel also served as the
director of the Harvard Islamic Legal Studies Program at Harvard Law School. (See, e.g.,
program agenda for the Sixth Harvard University Forum On Islamic Finance, 2004, published on
line at the Islamic Finance Project Web site at

http://ifp.law.harvard.edu/login/view_pdf/?file=6thForum.pdf&type=forums.)

5. Hayes moderated the Islamic Finance 101 Seminar conducted at the U.S.
Department of the Treasury on November 6, 2008. The seminar was hosted by the U.S.
3
Department of the Treasury in association with the Harvard Law School Islamic Finance Project.
(See, e.g., Ex. K to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6-13]).
6. The following are true and correct copies of selected quotations from Islamic Law
and Finance:
a. Page 1-2: “The structure of Islamic finance is firmly rooted in the Qur’an and the
teachings of Muhammad and the interpretations of these sources of revelation by
his followers.”
b. Page 4: “Islamic finance is not an invention of this century’s Islamic extremist
political movements but stems from injunctions found in the Qur’an and the
sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. These inspired central tenets in the religious
law of Islam concerning commercial dealings are as much part of the religion as
marriage. Islamic law has derived from revealed texts a web of interrelated norms
prohibiting interest-taking and undue speculative practices.”
c. Page 9: “Islamic scholars [authorities] have a profound influence on the day-today
practice of [Islamic] finance; to our knowledge there is no equivalent in other
religious cultures. For example, Islamic financial institutions generally maintain
boards of scholarly advisors, called shari‘a boards, to review all proposed
transactions for conformity with religious law.”
d. Page 10: “Although the raison d’être for the practice of Islamic finance is
undeniably religious, politics and national government policy also play important
roles in determining how it manifests itself in the Islamic world.”
4
e. Page 12: “In the last category of Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia provides an
instructive example. It has actively discouraged a distinct Islamic banking sector,
despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is a highly traditionalist Islamic religious state,
and is the fountainhead of much of the private sector savings that fuel Islamic
banking elsewhere in the Gulf. Its official position is that since it is an Islamic
state, all of its banks are as Islamic as is feasible.”
f. Page 19: “One of the more striking facts about the rise of Islamic banking and
finance is that it represents an assertion of religious law in the area of commercial
life, where secularism rules almost unquestioned throughout the rest of the world.
Even as adherence to Western-derived commercial laws is becoming more
commonplace and advantageous, Islamic finance challenges these laws in two key
respects: first, it challenges the presumption that modern commercial mores are
per se more efficient or otherwise superior; and second, it challenges the secular
separation of commerce from consideration of religion and piety.”
g. Page 20: “The question of whether law should be secular or religious can
represent a false dichotomy for the Muslim. To the believer, Islamic law is not
merely an obligation of conscience, which if observed earns eternal reward; the
law is also the best guide to human welfare in this world. To believers, God
[Allah] legislates for their well-being in this world and the next. As a law
instilled by God [Allah] in man and nature, obedience to it leads to social and
individual success and happiness. Muslims often conclude that their current
5
social, economic, and moral weaknesses are a consequence of their deviation
from divine law in favor of Western ways.”
h. Page 21: “But Islamic law also lays demands on believers in spheres most
Westerners no longer associate strictly with religion: family interactions
(courtship customs, inheritance rights, gifts to heirs); social security and public
welfare (alms-tax, strengthening religious education); social interactions
(separation of the sexes, women not working); and, most importantly for our
purposes, contract. Classical Islamic law offers a complete corpus of commercial
and contract law intimately linked with fundamental religious precepts.”
i. Page 21: “In sum, the surge in Islamic banking and finance is part of the much
larger phenomenon of Islamic reassertion. Since the tenets of Islamic banking
derive from fundamental principles of Islamic law, one may expect Islamic
banking and finance to endure, as Muslims continue working out the significance
of their faith for modern life.”
j. Page 23: “Islamic banking and finance seek to apply the Islamic religious law
(shari‘a) to a sector of modern commerce. This law—more than business
organization, economics, politics, theology, or history—shapes Islamic banking
and finance and differentiates it from its conventional counterparts.”
k. Page 23: “Since the time of the Prophet, Muslims have understood that the means
by which the believer earns God’s [Allah’s] favor, and with it salvation, is
through obedience to the Divine Command as conveyed for all time in the words
of the Qur’an, the divine book, and the Prophet’s Sunna, for example. The latter,
6
when conveyed by authenticated reports of the acts and words of the Prophet, is
also taken as revealed, since God [Allah] corrected the Prophet whenever he was
in error. The Sunna is embodied in a great many written reports about the
Prophet’s lifetime (individually called hadith), each subjected to a careful process
of authentication in various degrees. Thus the Sunna, like the Qur’an, ends up as
written text. From these two texts Islamic jurisprudence arises by interpretation,
the interpretation carried out by persons considered sufficiently learned, called the
“scholars” (‘ulama’). The scholars labor to derive from the texts specific rules of
behavior, indeed rules to govern all spheres of human life—from inward (e.g.,
worship, personal mortality, family life) to outward (e.g., buying and selling,
communal relations, political life, and international relations).”
l. Page 23: “Islamic legal rules encompass both ethics and law, this world and the
next, church and state. The law does not separate rules enforced by individual
conscience from rules enforced by a judge or by a state. Since scholars alone are
capable of knowing the law directly from revelation, laypeople are expected to
seek an opinion (fatwa) from a qualified scholar on any point in doubt; if they
follow that opinion sincerely, they are blameless even if the opinion is in error.”
m. Page 26: “Islamic banking as we know it today would never have arisen if the
classical law [Shariah] did not still command overwhelming authority and
prestige. The growth of this new form of commerce is driven by the desire not to
replace the classical law but to apply it. There is a feeling that the law has never
been given a fair chance in modern times. This line of thinking dictates a legal
7
conservatism in Islamic banking and finance, a conservatism probably greater
than could be explained by the methodological tenets of its practitioners. Why
revise Islamic law, as has been tried so extensively and in times of political and
religious weakness, when its original provisions may be more desirable?
Therefore the determinant in Islamic finance is, and is likely to remain, the
classical law itself.”
7. A true and correct copy of excerpts of the July 21, 2009 Quarterly Report to
Congress issued by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief
Program is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8. A true and correct copy of excerpts of Part 2 Agency Financial Statements (2009)
for the Office of Financial Stability of the United States Department of the Treasury is attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
9. A true and correct copy of excerpts of the Financial Stability Oversight Board
Quarterly Report to Congress for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 is attached hereto as Exhibit
C.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 5th day of July 2010.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849) John R. Coleman, Esq.
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Julie Straus, Esq.
P.O. Box 393 Trial Attorneys
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
[email protected] 20 Massachusetts, Ave., N.W., Rm 6118
(734) 827-2001 Washington, DC 20530
Fax: (734) 930-7160 [email protected]
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff (202) 514-4505
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Counsel for Defendants
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YERUSHALMI, P.C.
David Yerushalmi, Esq. (Ariz. Bar No. 009616;
DC Bar No. 978179; Cal. Bar No. 132011; NY Bar No. 4632568)
P.O. Box 6358
Chandler, AZ 85246
[email protected]
(646) 262-0500
Fax: (801) 760-3901
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 72 Filed 07/05/10 Page 1 of 9
i
ISSUES PRESENTED
I. Whether the use of taxpayer funds to approve, endorse, and support Shariah-based
Islamic religious activities and religious indoctrination, including the use of such funds to
acquire government ownership and control of a company that engages in such activities, violates
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
II. Whether the government’s ownership and control of a company that engages in Islamic
religious activities and indoctrination violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
III. Whether the government’s approval and support of Shariah-based Islam is sufficiently
likely to be perceived as conveying a message of endorsement of religion in violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 72 Filed 07/05/10 Page 2 of 9
ii
CONTROLLING AND MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009)
Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988)
Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2002)
Committee for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973)
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973)
Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Murray v. Geithner, 624 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Mich. 2009)
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971)
Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 72 Filed 07/05/10 Page 3 of 9
1
The following facts (and law) are undisputed:
 Sharia-compliant finance (“SCF”) is an Islamic religious activity.1
 AIG’s SCF business is pervasively sectarian in that its “secular” business purposes and
its Islamic religious mission are inextricably intertwined.2 See Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589,
620 n.16 (1988) (stating that an entity is “pervasively sectarian” when its “secular purposes and
religious mission are ‘inextricably intertwined’”).
ï‚· AIG promotes itself and its wholly owned subsidiaries as engaged in Shariah-complaint
practices, thus holding itself out to the public as a market leader in SCF.3
1 Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are frivolous. (See Defs.’ Resp. Br. at 11). Defendants
presented no expert testimony to refute the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts. Defendants cannot
refute AIG’s own statements and publications on the matter. Specifically, in addition to AIG’s
description of takaful as based upon Shariah and Shariah in turn described as “Islamic law based
on Quran [sic] and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH),” (AIG Takaful-FAQs at 1 at Ex.14;
Defs.’ Admis. at No. 131 at Ex.5), AIG promotes Shariah and takaful as a way to proselytize
non-Muslims through an “ethical product” and a “new way of life.” (Coughlin Decl. at Ex.A at
slide 7 at Ex.12). Further, Defendants are estopped from refuting their own responses to
Plaintiff’s requests for admissions. (Defs.’ Admis. at Nos. 110-15; 130; 132-38; 140-52; 158-69
at Ex.5) (acknowledging that SCF involves “a theological proposition”). Finally, Defendants’
patent dishonesty in denying the religious-Islamic nature of SCF is no where better highlighted
than in the seminal work on SCF by Harvard Professors Samuel Hayes III and Frank E. Vogel,
whose book opens with the following statement: “One of the more striking facts about the rise of
Islamic banking and finance is that it represents an assertion of religious law in the area of
commercial life, where secularism rules almost unquestioned throughout the rest of the world. . .
. [Islamic finance] challenges the secular separation of commerce from considerations of religion
and piety.” (Yerushalmi Decl. at ¶ 6.f. at Ex.41). The remainder of this groundbreaking and still
quite authoritative text is devoted to a study of how Islamic religious dictates infuse SCF with its
characteristics, meaning, and operational demands. (See generally Yerushalmi Decl. at ¶¶ 2-6 at
Ex.41.) It is not the least bit ironic that Professor Hayes served as the moderator at Defendants’
Islamic Finance 101 seminar as a leading expert on SCF as evidenced by the promotional
biographical material provided by Defendants at Plaintiff’s Exhibit 35 (pages 1-2).
2 Coughlin Decl. at Ex.A at ¶ 13 at Ex.12.
3 See, for example, a copy of the AIG press release that was issued in December 2008, shortly
after the federal government took control over AIG. (Doc. No. 6-12 (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss);
Coughlin Decl. at Ex.C at Ex.12).
Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 72 Filed 07/05/10 Page 4 of 9
2
ï‚· Defendants have de jure and de facto control over AIG, and this control was made
possible through the infusion of billions of federal tax dollars pursuant to the Emergency
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq.4 This fact distinguishes
this case from Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000), Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997),
and American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir.
2009), such that the Establishment Clause violation is inescapable. See, e.g., Lemon v.
Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971) (holding that the “active involvement of the sovereign in
religious activity” is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause) (citation omitted); Lebron v.
National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 397 (1995) (holding that Amtrak was an
instrumentality of government for purposes of the First Amendment); Brentwood Acad. v.
Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Assoc., 531 U.S. 288, 296 (2001) (holding that a challenged
activity is government action for constitutional purposes when there is “entwinement” between
the government and a private actor); see also Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)
(O’Connor J., concurring) (“[E]very government practice must be judged in its unique
4 Defendants argue throughout that the monies committed to AIG for SCF are trivial. This is
wrong both as to the absolute amounts provided to AIG for SCF purposes (see infra notes 6-7),
and as to the relative amounts. As of April 2010, Defendants established the following discreet
funding programs under TARP: the Capital Purchase Program; the Targeted Investment
Program; the Asset Guarantee Program; the Consumer and Business Lending Initiative; the
Public-Private Investment Program; the American International Group, Inc. Investment Program
(formerly known as the Systemically Significant Failing Institutions Program, which was
singularly, exclusively, and entirely dedicated to AIG); and the Automotive Industry Financing
Program; as well as the Home Affordable Modification Program. These programs collectively
have committed to dole out $491.1 billion dollars. Of this amount, the funds paid out and
committed to AIG are $69.84 billion. In other words, Defendant Geithner has committed 14.2
percent of all of the TARP funds paid or committed to date to AIG as the only company that has
qualified under the Systemically Significant Failing Institutions Program. (See Yerushalmi Decl.
at ¶¶ 7-9 at Ex.41).
Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 72 Filed 07/05/10 Page 5 of 9
3
circumstances to determine whether it constitutes an endorsement or disapproval of religion.”)
(emphasis added).5
 Federal reserve funds (more than $900 million) were diverted directly to support AIG’s
SCF business, and these funds were a mere placeholder for the EESA funds that soon followed.6
ï‚· EESA funds have been used (diverted) to support SCF, and billions of such funds remain
available for future diversion to support SCF.7
5 Leaving aside the overwhelming factual evidence supporting Plaintiff’s claim, consider the
testimony of the former, government-selected CEO of AIG, Edward Liddy, to Congress (and the
American public), in which he admitted (under oath) that “the Federal Reserve and U.S.
Treasury” are AIG’s “primary day-to-day partners in government.” (Test. of Liddy on May
13, 2009, at 5-6 at Ex.29) (emphasis added).
6 After receiving more than $37 billion from the FRBNY by September 22, 2008 ($14 billion of
which AIG received on September 16, 2008), an amount that jumped to $62 billion by October
1, 2008, none of which were segregated, AIG then provided funding and other financial support
of almost one billion dollars to several AIG subsidiaries engaged in SCF. Specifically,
received a capital contribution of $ on , and on
an additional loan of $ from , a direct AIG subsidiary that receives
money in nonsegregated accounts directly from AIG on a daily basis. Testimony from
further establishes that there could be significant intra-company transactions that are impossible
for to trace precisely because operates its various branch offices as a single
corporate entity with consolidated financing and accounting, using nonsegregated bank accounts.
( Aff. at ¶¶ 2, 4, 13 at Ex.8; see also Supp’l Aff. at ¶¶ 2-3 at Ex.37; Ex. 39). It is
indisputable that engaged in SCF during these funding periods. ( Aff. at ¶¶ 5, 8
at Ex.8). During this same time period, another such subsidiary, located here in the
United States, received $ from AIG pursuant to a on
(AIG Aff. at ¶ 9.e. at Ex.4), and on and
received of $ and $ respectively,
( at ¶ 11(a-b) at Ex.11; see also Ex.39).
7 We know that received TARP funds from the Millstein Declaration provided in support
of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Millstein’s declaration makes clear
that more than $ was drawn down by AIG on in part to
from (Millstein Declaration at ¶ 26 (filed under seal as Ex.1 to Defs’. Mot.)).
We also know from AIG that received $ on
for the (AIG Aff. at ¶ 9.d. at Ex.4).
(As set forth supra note 6, this is in addition to the $ received after the
FRBNY credit facility was set up pursuant to the Credit Agreement.) Testimony from
further establishes that there could be significant intra-company transactions that are impossible
Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 72 Filed 07/05/10 Page 6 of 9
4
ï‚· EESA provides no statutory safeguards to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to support
SCF. As the uncontested evidence demonstrates, there are “no [AIG] policies, whether required
by the U.S. government or otherwise, created or implemented to prevent the use of any
government funds from promoting, supporting, or funding [AIG’s Shariah-based Islamic
practices].”8 To this day, neither Congress nor Defendants have issued rules, regulations, or any
other such restrictions on the use of EESA funds for the impermissible purpose of supporting
SCF.9 Consequently, immediate injunctive relief prohibiting such future diversions is
warranted and necessary.
for to trace precisely because operates its various branch offices as a single
corporate entity with consolidated financing and accounting, using nonsegregated bank accounts.
( Aff. at ¶¶ 2, 4, 13 at Ex.8; see also Supp’l Aff. at ¶¶ 2-3 at Ex.37). Further,
after AIG began drawing down on the $30 billion Securities Purchase Agreement (“TARP”),
AIG continued to fund its SCF subsidiaries right here in the United States. Specifically, on
AIG provided additional
of $ $ , and $ ( Aff. at ¶ 11(ce)
at Ex.11; see also Ex.39).
8 at ¶ 10 at Ex.11; Aff. at ¶ 11 at Ex.8; Aff. at ¶
15 at Ex.7; Aff. at ¶ 14 at Ex.9; and Aff. at ¶ 10 at Ex.10.
9 This is a significant fact that compels judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendants claim that
“Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion [in Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 836 (2000)] is the
controlling authority” (Defs.’ Resp. Br. at 3, n.2); yet, they proceed to misrepresent it. In
Mitchell, Justice O’Connor did not say that a funding program need not have constitutionally
sufficient safeguards to ensure that funds are not diverted for the impermissible purpose of
supporting religious activity. What she found was that “[t]he safeguards employed by the
program [were] constitutionally sufficient.” Id. at 861. These statutory “safeguards” included,
inter alia, a limitation on the use of the aid to “secular, neutral, and nonideological services,
materials, and equipment” and a prohibition on the use of “any payment . . . for religious worship
or instruction.” Id. She went on to conclude that evidence of a possible use of such funds to
purchase audiovisual equipment and a computer that might have been used during religious
instruction was de minimis in that it did not prove that the safeguards were not working and
thus was insufficient evidence to strike down the entire program. She stated, “[T]he presence of
so few examples over a period of at least 4 years (15 years ago) tends to show not that the ‘nodiversion’
rules have failed, but they have worked. Accordingly, I see no reason to . . . declare
a properly functioning aid program unconstitutional.” Id. at 866. See also Committee for Pub.
Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 774 (1973) (observing that “[n]othing in the
Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 72 Filed 07/05/10 Page 7 of 9
5
ï‚· To this day, the federal government actively and publicly endorses SCF. Presentations
by senior Treasury Department officials lauding SCF and stating explicitly that the U.S.
government “places significant importance on promoting . . . Islamic finance” and has
“recently deepened our engagement in Islamic finance in a number of ways,” including a
“call[] for harmonization of Shari’a standards at the national and international levels” remain
posted on the Treasury Department’s website.10
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court grant his motion for summary judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YERUSHALMI, P.C.
/s/ Robert J. Muise /s/ David Yerushalmi
Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849) David Yerushalmi, Esq.
statute” prohibits the use of funds for religious purposes and holding that “[a]bsent appropriate
restrictions on expenditures for [religious] purposes, it simply cannot be denied that [the
challenged statute] has a primary effect that advances religion”); American Atheists, Inc., 567
F.3d at 293, 296 (stating that “a program may have the primary effect of advancing religion if the
recipient diverts secular aid to further its religious mission” and finding that “the mechanics of
the program ensured that the aid would go just to the approved [secular] uses”) (quotations and
citation omitted); cf. Kendrick, 487 U.S. at 621-22 (remanding to determine whether funds in
particular cases were being used in violation of the Establishment Clause even though express
restrictions were made). In this case, there are no statutory safeguards in place—nor do
Defendants care to impose them because Defendants favorably endorse SCF as a matter of
official government policy.
10 See Ex.33 (Treasury Department Press Release of May 2004) (emphasis added).
Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 72 Filed 07/05/10 Page 8 of 9
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 5, 2010, a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT with index of exhibits and exhibits
was filed electronically through the Court’s ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all
parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the Court’s electronic filing
system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. I further certify that I served
unredacted copies of the foregoing by electronic mail directly to John R. Colemen and Julie
Straus, counsel for Defendants. I also further certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served
by ordinary U.S. mail upon all parties for whom counsel has not yet entered an appearance
electronically: None.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YERUSHALMI, P.C.
/s/ David Yerushalmi
David Yerushalmi, Esq.

Tags: lawsuit sioa., sharia