***VITAL FIRST AMENDMENT COURT CASE HAPPENING NOW - THIS TRIAL WILL CHANGE THE WORLD***

"I don't see any kind of moral outrage at what's happening to my client.. and that's a sad thing" - Phillip Kuhn


Phillip Kuhn has been a civil rights attorney for 44 years.

Early in Kuhn's career he was even involved with some of Martin Luther King's civil rights cases.


Last September 35 children were taken from their parents by the DHS (Department of Human Suffering).

Kuhn, as their attorney, recently presented an injunction to the Federal Courts to have these children returned to their homes.

Philip Kuhn was interviewed by Greg Syzmanski on the 12th of June 2009.

Kuhn says during this interview:


"The rights of the best of us are only protected when the rights of the worst of us are preserved"


In this interview Kuhn also re-tells the old story of the Mayor of Warsaw during World War II who said:


"They came for people I knew and I said nothing.

They came for my friends and I said nothing.

They came for my family and I said nothing.

And when they came for me..

there was no-one to say anything to."


You must listen to this interview because this court case will have an affect on everyone's future.


Part 1 of an interview with Philip Khune about this case is available here: [link to trilogymedia.com.au] [4.1 MB]
Part 2 of an interview with Philip Khune about this case is available here: [link to trilogymedia.com.au] [4.3 MB]


This case is not only vital to the people of the United States.

It is also vital to every other country in the world as well.

For it may be called the First Amendment in the United States..

..but in Australia it is Section 116 of the Constitution that guarantees these rights.

And every country in the world that has managed to gain some measure of freedom will also have a similar law.

For it is indeed the classic SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE that is being argued here..

The seperation of church and state is a wall..

This wall is essential for freedom to exist at all.


For your own sake you must read, listen and understand what is going on here.

..the New World Order is coming.. and it wants your life, your liberty and absolutely everything that you hold dear.


Here is Part 1 of a video called "The Wall" which explains why we need seperation between church and state: [link to arcticbeacon.com] [70.3 MB]

Here is Part 2 : [link to arcticbeacon.com] [64.4 MB]


(Jurist.. you gotta get involved in this..)


Here is Part 1 of the injunction Kuhn presented to the Federal Courts:

Plaintiffs' Reply Brief to Defendants'
Brief in Opposition for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff, Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, is hereinafter referred to as "The Church"; the individual Plaintiffs Bert Krantz and Greg Seago are hereinafter referred to as "Krantz" and "Seago" respectively; and the Defendants are hereinafter referred to as "Defendants."
I
Summary of Argument
Defendants misapply the doctrine of Younger to the church by asking this court hold it to mean they must intervene into the state cases of another party. Further, the Younger doctrine doesn't apply to plaintiffs Krantz and Seago in that the relief they seek is prospective and such relief could not be achieved through the favorable disposition of the pending state case. The church has articulated irreparable harm in the form of ultimate shutdown if the injunction is not granted.
Plaintiffs Krantz and Seago come to this court with clean hands in asking the court to enjoin the requirements imposed on them by Defendants (and enumerated in their brief) to sever ties with the church, and in seeking an injunction barring future removals or investigations based solely on association.
The request for a preliminary injunction is carefully drafted to preserve the status quo and protect both parties with the least restriction to each until the matter can be fully adjudicated.
II
Introduction
In a broad brush stroke of general condemnation, the Defendants have painted a very bleak picture of the Church. The Defendants spoke of prior cases involving the Church and Tony Alamo. The Plaintiffs assume the purpose was to prejudice the Court. The Plaintiffs will not respond to these allegations until the evidentiary hearing. The Plaintiffs will trust the reputation of the Court for fairness and its sense of relevancy.
The primary issue in this case is not what occurred to prompt the action of the Defendants, but rather how those actions are carried out to the detriment of the church. The questions presented to this Court by the Plaintiff's are:
1. Is it permissible for the Defendants to require church parents to leave the church housing and church employment as a condition of obtaining custody of their children?
2. Is it permissible for the Defendants to search for and take custody of children of church parents simply because the parents have some sort of association with the Church?
3. Is it permissible for the Defendants to threaten and to take into custody new born babies of church parents at the moment of birth, when they are not in danger?
4. Is it permissible for the Defendants to vaccinate children in foster care over the religious objections of the church parents?
5. Is it permissible for the Defendants to institute policies that teach the children in foster care that their prior religious training was untruthful and that their parents mislead them in order to mainstream the children to the Defendants' views of the world?
Many of the allegations in the Defendants' Answer and Brief are evidentiary disputes that will be addressed at the hearing of this case. However, the Plaintiffs wish to address some of the main issues raised by the Defendants in their Brief and Answer.
III
Younger Abstention Doctrine as Applied to the Church
In order for the Younger abstention doctrine to apply, plaintiffs must be given opportunity to present their federal claims in state court. National City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp., 687 F.2d 1122 (C.A.8.MO, 1982). The church is not a party to the state case and therefore has no opportunity to raise its Constitutional claims.
Younger does not require plaintiffs to intervene into the state case of another party - rather it says that if the plaintiffs have a state case pending in which they can raise their Constitutional claims, the federal court should abstain. Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). Defendants are asking this court to expand the doctrine of Younger to require the plaintiffs to intervene into another party's state case. In the history of Younger and its progeny, no court has ever required a federal plaintiff to intervene into another party's state case.
Further, Defendants incorrectly assert that the church would have standing to intervene into the pending state case. Defendants rely on Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a), which states:
(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
ARCP 24(a)
The subject or "transaction" of the state case is the welfare of children, not the persecution and harassment of the church. The church does not have an interest in the welfare of those specific children (although its members love and care deeply about what happens to all of its members, including the children); its interest is in protecting itself from diminishment and ultimate disbandment as a result of the harassing actions of the state. Caselaw interpreting this statute, as outlined below, makes it more than clear that the church would have no standing to intervene into the state case.
Three requirements must be met for intervention as matter of right: (1) recognized interest in subject matter of primary litigation, (2) interest that might be impaired by disposition of suit, and (3) interest not adequately represented by existing parties.
Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 24(a). Matson, Inc. v. Lamb & Associates Packaging, Inc., , 947 S.W.2d 324, 328 Ark. 705. 1997
The Church has no legal interest in the welfare of children.The Church is alleging that repeated child abuse investigations and pre-hearing removals constitute harassment against the Church. The disposition of the state case will not have an impact on future investigations or pre-hearing removals.
A sufficient interest on part of applicant seeking to intervene as of right is not conclusive; if disposition would in no way affect applicant's ability as a practical matter to protect its interest, intervention is denied.
Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 24(a). UHS of Arkansas, Inc. v. City of Sherwood, 1988, 296 Ark. 97, 752 S.W.2d 36.
The basis of the Church's federal claim is that the defendants' investigations, amongst other things, constitute a pattern of harassment. The child abuse investigations solely on the basis of association with this Church create a state of terror and fear that is causing the church to lose membership. The disposition of a state dependency case has no bearing on that, and as such, intervention would be denied.
To intervene as a matter of right an applicant must show that he has a recognized interest in subject matter of the primary litigation, that his interest might be impaired by disposition of the suit, and that his interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. (emphasis added)
Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 24(a)(2). Billabong Products, Inc. v. Orange City Bank, 1983, 278 Ark. 206, 644 S.W.2d 594
Even if the harassment of the church was a legitimate interest for the purposes of intervention, it is not a recognized interest in that there is no prior caselaw establishing this right.
Generally, if one seeking intervention will be left with his right to pursue his own independent remedy against the parties, regardless of outcome of the pending case, then he has no interest that needs protecting by intervention of right. (emphasis added)
Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 24(a)(2). Billabong Products, Inc. v. Orange City Bank, , 278 Ark. 206, 644 S.W.2d 594. 1983
The Church has a remedy on their own to pursue the Constitutional deprivations at the hands of the state through federal court. Since they have another remedy available, they would not be permitted to intervene into the state case. There is no interest that can only be protected through intervention in the state case (as required above). Further, the disposition of the state case doesn't impair the Church's ability to protect its interests because they can still go to federal court.
The Defendants urge this Court to refrain from exercising federal, subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the principals expressed in the case of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 [1971] The Supreme Court held in Younger that federal courts as a rule should abstain from exercising jurisdiction when asked to enjoin pending State proceedings. This doctrine of federal abstention reflects the public policy that frowns upon federal intervention in State business based upon the principals of comity and federalism. See, Ronwin v. Durham, 818 F. 2d 675, 677 [CA. 8, 1987] [citing Younger]
The Younger Abstention Doctrine is not, however, an absolute prohibition against federal intervention in State proceedings. The courts have recognized that certain circumstances create an exception to the Younger general rule. There are certain principals and guarantees inherent within a constitutional democracy that are of a superior value over the general considerations of comity and federalism. The courts have recognized that in certain cases the federal courts have a duty to vindicate and protect federally guaranteed rights and this duty must prevail over the policy against federal intervention of State proceedings. This is especially true in the area of First Amendment guarantees of religious expression, free association and privacy liberties. Federal courts will act despite the Younger doctrine when a State proceeding threatens a party with "great and immediate irreparable injury." Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 485-87, 85 S. Ct. 1116, 1120-21, 14 L. Ed.2d 22 [1965]; Collins v. County of Kendall, 807 F. 2d 95 [CA. 7, 1986]; Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F. 2d 524 [CA. 11, 1982]; Lewellen v. Raff, et al., 843 F. 2d 1103 [CA. 8, 1988]
The injury threatened is both great and immediate when "defense of the State's criminal prosecution will not assure adequate vindication of constitutional rights." Dombrowski, 380 U. S. at 485, 85 S. Ct. at 1120. In Heimbach v. Village of Lyons, 597 F. 2d 344, 347 [CA. 2, 1979], the State criminal prosecution was found to unduly chill First Amendment rights so that the Younger prohibition did not apply. A prosecution brought to discourage First Amendment rights will justify federal intervention despite Younger even if the prosecution would be successful. Fitzgerald v. Peek, 636 F. 2d 943, 945 [CA. 5, 1981]
In short, the Church has no legitimate forum to protect its First Amendment claims other than federal court.
Standing is a strong requirement for anyone seeking the remedy of intervention. See, American Civil Liberty Union of Arkansas, Inc. v. State, 5 S. W. 3d 418 [1999]. It is strange that the Defendants in this case are contesting the standing of the Church to bring this action and at the same time are requiring the Church to intervene in the State dependency action. The Defendant's cannot have it both ways.