American Laws for American Courts

American Laws for American Courts was crafted to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law.

Why American Laws for American Courts?

Some 235 years ago, America’s forefathers gathered in Philadelphia to debate and write a unique document. That single-page document announced the formation of a new country—one that would no longer find itself in the clutches of a foreign power. That document was the Declaration of Independence. Eleven years later, many of those same men gathered again to lay the foundation for how the United States of America was to be governed: The US Constitution, a form of government like no other by the people, of the people and for the people.

For more than two centuries, hundreds of thousands of courageous men and women have given their lives to protect America’s sovereignty and freedom.

American constitutional rights must be preserved in order to preserve unique American values of liberty and freedom. State legislatures have a vital role to play in preserving those constitutional rights and American values of liberty and freedom.

America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law. Included among, but not limited to, those values and rights are:

• Freedom of Religion
• Freedom of Speech
• Freedom of the Press
• Due Process
• Right to Privacy
• Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Civil and Criminal Law Serve as the Bedrock for American Values: We are a nation of laws.

Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines, including Shariah law principles, are finding their way into US court cases.

Reviews of state laws provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines are introduced into US state court cases, including, notably, Islamic law known as Shariah, which is used in family courts and other courts in dozens of foreign Muslim-majority nations .

These foreign laws, frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, typically enter the American court system through:

• Comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system)
• Choice of law issues and
• Choice of forum or venue

Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state.This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.

Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.

The goal of the American Laws for American Courts Act is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic. American Laws for American Courts is needed especially to protect women and children, identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.

By promoting American Laws for American Courts, we are preservingindividual liberties and freedoms which become eroded by the encroachment of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.

It is imperative that we safeguard our constitutions’ fundamentals, particularly the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the sovereignty of our Nation and its people, and the principles of the rule of law—American laws, not foreign laws.

MODEL LEGISLATION:

AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE [GENERAL ASSEMBLY/LEGISLATURE] OF THE STATE OF [_____]:

The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

The [general assembly/state legislature] fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[1] As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals For the purposes of this act, foreign law shall not mean, nor shall it include, any laws of the Native American tribes in this state.

[2] Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[3] A contract or contractual provision (if severable) which provides for the choice of a law, legal code or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the law, legal code or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[4]A. A contract or contractual provision (if severable) which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any law, legal code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[4]B. If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions of the non-claimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.

[5] Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.

[6] This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State. This exemption in no way grants permission for any otherwise unlawful act under the guise of First Amendment protection.

[7] This statute shall not be interpreted by any court to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the extent that such treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on the matter at issue.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases
Version 1.4 / June 21, 2011 (PDF, 635 pages, 2.4 MB)

The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.

These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of several cases in which the court’s application of Shariah law appears to be in direct conflict with Constitutional liberties and the public policies of the state.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases
Version 1.4 / June 21, 2011 (PDF, 635 pages, 2.4 MB)

NOTE: In the fifty full-text published court cases, the highlighted search terms are included for the reader’s convenience.

For more information, contact the Center for Security Policy
www.securefreedom.org

To schedule an interview, contact:
David Reaboi dreaboi@securefreedom.org (202) 431-1948 or (202) 835-9077

________________________________________

AMERICAN LAWS FOR AMERICAN COURTS
LEGISLATOR BRIEF TO ACCOMPANY SAMPLE ALAC BILL

“I support the principle of American Laws for American Courts, to ensure that no American citizen or resident is denied, as a result of the enforcement of foreign law, the liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed by state public policies and the U.S. Constitution.”

(Courtesy, American Public Policy Alliance)

Why do we need ALAC (American Laws for American Courts)?

For decades, through the misuse of comity, American courts have improperly applied foreign laws, causing harm in many cases, especially to women and children who have immigrated here to escape the harsh and discriminatory laws of their homeland. Since most states lack a statute that defines the state’s public policy on the application of foreign laws in state courts, the goal of ALAC is to ensure that all of our residents reap the benefits of the American legal system by reinforcing our U.S. laws. Furthermore, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists aggressively promotes sharia law. According to its website, its purpose is to serve “the growing need of an Islamic jurisprudence to Muslims in the west.” A look at the 85 sharia courts in Great Britain will make obvious the need for us to be proactive.

Most of the cases with which ALAC deals concern themselves with matters of family law. ALAC does not:

Apply to a business that contracts to subject itself to foreign law;

Interfere with the exercise of religion as per the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;

Conflict with any treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party.

There are hundreds of cases in which foreign law which conflicts with U.S. law has been invoked. For detail on many of these cases, please see: http://www.shariahinamericancourts.com. As U.S. citizens become increasingly aware of the influence of foreign law on the outcome of legal proceedings, public support for ALAC has grown tremendously. Six states thus far have passed ALAC, all of them by most impressive majorities:

AZ: ?

KS – Senate: 33-3; House: 120-0

OK – Senate: 40-3; House: 85-7

LA – Senate: 33-3; House: 94-0

TN – Senate: 32-0; House: 96-0

NC – Senate: 31-2; House: 75-37

MS – 116-1

To date, ALAC has not been challenged in any state in which it has been passed, and about twenty more states are considering instituting ALAC. Additionally, some Muslim groups (such as AILC) have publicly supported ALAC as have many distinguished members of the military and intelligence communities.

Three sample cases invoking foreign law:

The first case is S.D. v. MJR, a Moroccan couple (married in Morocco), whose case was tried in NJ in 2010. While the wife was pregnant with their child, she claimed that the husband repeatedly raped and abused her physically, claiming that these behaviors were acceptable under sharia law. The results of the physical abuse were verified through pictures taken by the Prosecutor’s office and hospital personnel. The wife was seeking a restraining order.

In his testimony, the couple’s imam confirmed that, in Islam, a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, though he acknowledged that in NJ non-consensual sex is considered rape.

The trial court judge refused to issue a restraining order on the grounds that the husband was behaving according to his beliefs, and had no criminal intent. Instead, the judge ordered the husband to have no further contact with the wife.

Almost thirteen months later, the appellate court decided in favor of granting the restraining order.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/05/zombie-muhammad-atheist-who-was-attacked-by-angry-muslim-wants-shariah-ruling-judge-kicked-off-the-bench/

The second case began in October of 2011 in PA, when a man marching in an atheists’ parade costumed himself as a “Zombie Muhammad.” A Muslim onlooker took offense and attacked the Zombie Muhammad, tearing his sign off and pulling at his beard.

The PA judge handling the case, Mark Martin, dismissed the case for lack of evidence despite the video taken of the attack and the on-the-scene confession to police by the Muslim attacker. Before the dismissal of the case, however, the judge dressed down the victim for six minutes regarding his lack of sensitivity to Muslims while holding up a Quran! Furthermore, the judge refused to allow the video into evidence, claiming that he had heard enough and there were two conflicting stories.

Since the trial, the victim has received 471 verifiable threats.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=124

A third case concerns the custody of the minor daughter of a Pakistani couple. The mother fled Pakistan with her daughter and settled in MD, keeping their whereabouts hidden from her husband. The husband took the custody matter to a Pakistani court, which notified the mother of the upcoming trial. The mother elected not to travel to Pakistan as she was in an adulterous relationship in the U.S. and could therefore be sentenced to punishment or death; additionally, the mother may have recognized that her chances of winning custody in Pakistan were exceedingly slim. The mother was represented by her father and legal counsel but was not there herself to present her testimony. The daughter was not represented by counsel either. The Pakistani court decided in favor of the father being granted custody.

That trial was followed by a trial in a MD court, which granted comity to the Pakistani decision, holding that the Pakistani court had decided, as would a MD court, in the best interest of the child, citing, among other things, that the child should be brought up in her culture and religion of origin. Also, in Pakistan, the father is considered the “natural guardian.” The child’s lawyer did not appear due to confusion regarding schedules; the child, therefore, was again unrepresented.

At the appeals level, the trial court verdict was again affirmed. Although the mother complained of the father’s abuse of alcohol and drugs and his subsequent bad temper, and despite the fact that the daughter was afraid of her father and wanted to stay with her mother, the fitness of neither parent was ever brought up.

To sum up, lives have been adversely affected by the application of foreign laws by U.S. state courts. That pattern of reliance upon foreign law stands to become even stronger and more frequent as our immigration rate continues to grow and as the American Muslim Jurists Association gains in numbers and political clout. This situation can be rectified by the passage of a bill which effectively changes nothing, but merely makes clear that only U.S. laws may be considered in American court cases. Please help us to help those who have immigrated here in the hope of experiencing the freedom and justice we afford our citizens. Please co-sponsor American Laws for American Courts. Thank you!

South Central CT Chapter
ACT! For America
act4ourcountry@gmail.com

________________________________________

GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT

Florida Governor Rick Scott approved on Monday, May 12, 2014 legislation titled Application of Foreign Law in Courts (SB 386) which would prohibit Florida courts from considering some provisions of Sharia and other foreign laws.

The full senate amended SB 386, titled it Application of Foreign Law in Courts and voted 24 to 14 to approve the new language on April 28, 2014 session. The house voted 78 to 40 in favor of the amended senate version SB 386 titled Application of Foreign Law in Courtsduring the April 30, 2014 session.

Florida became the eighth state to prohibit state courts from considering foreign laws.

Floridafamily.org
Email: ffa@floridafamily.org

Florida Family Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105
Telephone 813-264-5888

________________________________________

American Laws for American Courts has passed into law in the following states:

• American and Florida Laws for Florida Courts
• American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts
• American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts
• American and Arizona Laws for Arizona Courts
• American and Kansas Laws for Kansas Courts
• Alabama Votes To Ban ‘Foreign Laws’
• Mississippi Votes To Ban Foreign Laws

Click here to view accurate updated map of states that have passed American Laws For American Courts

________________________________________

Below may be one reason the Islamists are getting ahead of us:

Traitors within the U.S. Senate & Congress
By: Dave Gaubatz
14 Oct 2013

Almost 5 years ago my team and I conducted first-hand research in CAIR National (Muslim Brotherhood). Our book, ‘Muslim Mafia’ was released in 2009. In our book we named ‘names’. The names we mentioned were often confirmed traitors of our U.S. Constitution and they were U.S. Senators and Congressmen. Some are still in office and some are not.

I want to refresh Americans minds about who these people are and to encourage you to demand they leave office or if they have been voted out, to never return.

The following are Senators and Congressmen who vocally support the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR) and their hate and violence filled Islamic ideology. CAIR sponsors Islamic based terrorism against innocent people worldwide and they are working and living in Washington DC. This is sad, but it is even much sadder our American leaders are in bed with the enemy.

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA)

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI)

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL)

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL)

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA)

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)

Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)

Rep. Albert L. Wynn (D-MD)

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)

Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA)

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA)

Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA)

Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-MD)

Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)

Rep. James P. Moran (D-VA)

Rep. Nick J. Rahall, II (D-WV)

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)

Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD)

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Rep. Andre Carson, (D-IN)

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)


TOP 10 RECIPIENTS OF ARAB-MUSLIM CASH:*

1. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) … $16,970

2. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) … $15,000

3. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) … $14,000

4. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)… $12,500

5. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) … $12,000

6. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) … $8,500

7. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) … $8,000

(tie) Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) … $8,000

8. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI) … $7,000

9. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) … $6,000

10. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) … $5,000

Presidents and Commanders in Chief who are aligned more with Sharia law than with our U.S. Constitution are:

• Jimmy Carter
• Barack Hussein Obama 

* Contributions from Arab American Leadership PAC, National Association of Arab-Americans PAC, and National Muslims for a Better America PAC; 2000 – 2008 elections cycles.

Many people who are devoting parts of their lives to educating innocent Americans about the truth of the Islamic ideology and terrorist organizations such as CAIR often feel we/they are fighting an uphill battle. I stress to all that there are more honest, ethical, and law abiding Americans than CAIR has scattered around the globe. CAIR has only 5133 members in America.

Many are asking how can they have so much media and political power having so few members? The answer is simple. Saudi Arabia puts millions of dollars into our colleges, high schools, libraries, the pockets of politicians, our media, and into such terrorist organizations as CAIR.

The result is money talks. We have a tough road ahead, but I have faith in ‘True Americans’.

In my professional opinion, and based on my hundreds of hours analyzing our national security, I adamantly believe the persons I mentioned above are traitors to America.

It is important to point out that the above information and much, much more damaging information pertaining to the politicians I have discussed is presented in ‘Muslim Mafia’. After almost five years these politicians have never disputed the accuracy of ‘Muslim Mafia’. Not one has sued me for slander of them. As with CAIR National I have no problem swearing under oath about anything I have ever written or said. CAIR knows this and they are very frightened we will release the other 11,000 plus documents when our court case is complete and the judge gives the nod.

-P.David Gaubatz