Murray v. Geithner: Judge Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss RE: AIG, Sharia Law

Posted on 5/27/2009 by Phil

The Thomas More Law Center had originally filed suit in December of 2008 challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that the Center considers are “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish.”

They now report that Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff has denied the Defendant’s (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board) Motion to Dismiss:

The lawsuit was filed last December by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and attorney David Yerushalmi, an expert in security transactions and Shariah-compliant financing.

In his well-written and detailed analysis issued yesterday, Judge Zatkoff denied the request by the Obama administration’s Department of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit.  The request was filed on behalf of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board – the named defendants in the case.  In his ruling, the judge held that the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It is outrageous that AIG has been using taxpayer money to promote Islam and Shariah law, which potentially provides support for terrorist activities aimed at killing Americans.  Shariah law is the same law championed by Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.  It is the same law that prompted the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our soil that killed thousands of innocent Americans.   We won this skirmish.  But the war to stop the federal government from funding Islam and Shariah-compliant financing is far from over.”

In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, the DOJ argued that the plaintiff in the case, Kevin Murray, who is a former Marine and a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action.  And even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  The court disagreed, noting, in relevant part, the following:

In this case, the fact that AIG is largely a secular entity is not dispositive: The question in an as-applied challenge is not whether the entity is of a religious character, but how it spends its grant. The circumstances of this case are historic, and the pressure upon the government to navigate this financial crisis is unfathomable.  Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution.  In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG.  AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing.  Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent.  At least two of AIG’s subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash.  After using the $40 billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release.  Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.”  These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff’s claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.

…According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Shariah-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” …

According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities.  AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.  This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.  AIG itself describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed].” 

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee,” which is comprised of the following members: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain, Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan.  Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is the leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world and the author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or government.  According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.” 

An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle [jihad] for Allah.”  The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth.  The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities,” some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels,” which includes Christians and Jews. 

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an example of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat, was recently convicted by a federal jury for providing millions of dollars to Islamic terrorist organizations.  As a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the federal government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels” under Islamic law.

Everyone needs to realize that when the federal government becomes personally involved with what are otherwise private institutions — especially to the point of making such institutions public — a whole host of issues begins to arise in terms of what, exactly, the government is supporting. On the face of it, while some might not have a problem with this kind of takeover, realize that the Constitution works both ways; if the government is getting involved with activities that somehow diminish, disparage or otherwise favor one group over another, and there is at least one interested party who petitions against the government, we’re going to be seeing more and more such lawsuits in the future.

The President and I fundamentally disagree over the role of the government. For as the government grows in this fashion, so, too, will the number of lawsuits spring up to counter the overreach of politicians who think they know better than the People how the People should live.

-Phil