Tag Archives: Defendant Timothy Geithner

Murray v. Geithner, Judge Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, May 27, 2009, Defendant Timothy Geithner, AIG, Sharia Law, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 challenged

Phil at the Right Side of Life reports:

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

“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:”

“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.”

“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.”

Read more:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6121