Oklahoma Must Overturn Anti-Sharia Law & Pay Fees

[oneinkhorn]

Feds Force Oklahoma to Overturn Anti-Sharia Law & Pay Islamists $303,333





The US government has forced the state of Oklahoma to overturn its anti-Sharia bill, after a Muslim man named Muneer Awad sued the state for supposed violations against “freedom of religion.”

The bill has come due to the state’s effort to keep international law and Sharia law out of Oklahoma courts.

It wasn’t cheap.

Oklahoma must pay $303,333 for attorneys’ fees of the plaintiffs who challenged a measure approved overwhelmingly by voters on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled May 14.

The Oklahoma Legislature put the measure on the ballot.

Miles-LaGrange found it an unconstitutional infringement on individual rights.

Plaintiff Muneer Awad, an Oklahoma City Muslim man, said in the lawsuit that the measure would stigmatize him and others of his faith, limit the results they can receive in court and prevent his will from being probated in Oklahoma because his will references Sharia law, the Islamic law system.

On May 14, Miles-LaGrange approved a plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees, costs and nontaxable expenses.

Diane Clay, a spokeswoman for the Oklahoma attorney general’s office, which represented the state in the case, said her office does not compile a total of expenses it incurs in such legal defenses.

Micheal Salem, of Norman, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said there has never been any indication that Sharia law was being applied in Oklahoma courts in the first place.

“It created a solution where there was no problem that existed,” Salem said. He also said there are adequate constitutional protections that would prohibit court decisions grounded in religious theory.

He said the state has indicated it will pay the judgment over three years.

“This was just politicians optimistically looking for an issue,” he said. “Look what happened. Not only did the state question get struck down, but they’ll have to pay attorney fees and interest over three years.”

Rep. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond, said the state has no choice but to pay the legal fees.

“That is an obligation of the state,” he said.

Does the court decision show lawmakers never should have passed a resolution against Sharia law?

“I think that’s a disagreement with us and the courts,” Jolley said. “We passed that as a Legislature. We lost the lawsuit.”

[shazeep]

This is a farce. The state is not obliged to any such thing, and the ruling infringes upon state sovereignty. Think they'll appeal?

[aegsm76]

Google this "Judge" and you will really be amazed at what you find.

[Praxeas]

No link? Source?

[Praxeas]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3770021.html

[oneinkhorn]

http://newsok.com/state-of-oklahoma-...rticle/4835274

[Aquila]

It's a sad day in America when states can't trust the Fed to enforce Constitutional protections, that's what this is about. Can the Fed be trusted? Only time will tell. But people have doubts.

In my opinion, supporting any body of law that challenges the Constitution is treason.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's a sad day in America when states can't trust the Fed to enforce Constitutional protections, that's what this is about. Can the Fed be trusted? Only time will tell. But people have doubts.

In my opinion, supporting any body of law that challenges the Constitution is treason.

[shazeep]

Of course the Fed cannot be trusted. You guys all know who runs 'the world,' and yet constantly make statements like this? Wadr...your 'Fed' is entirely beholden now to the Rothschilds (= 'child of wrath,' hello)--how much more do you need?

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Of course the Fed cannot be trusted. You guys all know who runs 'the world,' and yet constantly make statements like this? Wadr...your 'Fed' is entirely beholden now to the Rothschilds (= 'child of wrath,' hello)--how much more do you need?

So, it's the Jews?