American Freedom Defense Initiative et al v. Suburban Mobility Authority For Regional Transportation (SMART) et al

Filing 18

TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 07/13/2010. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Cheryl Daniel) (Number of Pages: 35) Redaction Request due 10/20/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/1/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/28/2010. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Daniel, C.)

1
American Freedom Defense Initiative et al v. Suburban Mobility Authorit...ansportation (SMART) et al

Doc. 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: -v-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION A M E R I C A N FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE, Plaintiff, Case No .

S U B U R B A N MOBILITY AUTHORITY F O R REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION (SMART), Defendant. ___________________________/ EXCERPTS FROM HEARING ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BEFORE THE HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD United States District Judge 237 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building 231 Lafayette Boulevard West Detroit, Michigan 48226 Tuesday, July 13, 2010

F O R THE PLAINTIFF:

D A V I D YERUSHALMI, LAW OFFICES 1 8 9 2 W THOMPSON WAY P . O . BOX 6358 C H A N D L E R , AZ 85246

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

Dockets.Justia.com 2

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

( A P P E A R A N C E S CONTINUED) F O R THE PLAINTIFF: R O B E R T J. MUISE, T H O M A S MORE LAW CENTER 2 4 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DRIVE P . O . BOX 393 A N N ARBOR, MI 48106 F O R THE DEFENDANT: A V E R Y E. GORDON, A N T H O N Y K. CHUBB, SMART 5 3 5 GRISWOLD STREET, SUITE 600 D E T R O I T , MI 48226

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

3

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WITNESSES

INDEX

PAGE

B E T H ANN GIBBONS D I R E C T EXAMINATION BY MR. YERUSHALMI CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GORDON REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. YERUSHALMI P A M E L A GELLER D I R E C T EXAMINATION BY MR. YERUSHALMI C R O S S EXAMINATION BY MR. GORDON REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. YERUSHALMI 23 26 32 5 16 21

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

4

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiffs.

T u e s d a y , July 13, 2010 Detroit, Michigan At approximately 2:00 p.m. T H E CLERK: Calling case number 10-12134,

American Freedom versus Suburban Mobility Authority. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Plaintiffs, put

your appearances on, and then the Defendants. MR. MUISE: Robert Muise from the Thomas

More Law Center for the Plaintiffs. MR. YERUSHALMI: David Yerushalmi for the

MR. GORDON:

Good afternoon Your Honor.

Avery Gordan on behalf of Defendants SMART, Gibbons and Hertel. MR. CHUBB: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Anthony Chubb also on behalf of SMART, Hertel and Gibbons. (Subsequent proceedings held in open Court regarding argument on preliminary injunction were stenographically recorded but not ordered transcribed.) T H E COURT: So your objection is granted in part and denied in part, and I'm ready to proceed. MR. YERUSHALMI: Gibbons to the stand. THE WITNESS: My name is Beth Ann Gibbons; Plaintiffs will call Ms.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

5

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

G I B B O N S. BETH ANN G I B B O N S , after being

first duly sworn, was examined under her oath and testified as follows: DIRECT B Y MR. YERUSHALMI: Q. Ms. Gibbons, you understand you're testifying here on behalf of SMART, correct? A. Yes. MR. YERUSHALMI: Witness, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. MR. YERUSHALMI: copy? THE COURT: Well, I don't know what it is. Is it a document already attached? MR. YERUSHALMI: THE COURT: Yes. Would the Court like a May I approach the EXAMINATION

Is it Exhibit G? It is Exhibit G.

MR. YERUSHALMI: THE COURT:

And I don't think I need another

copy of it if you're following the same exhibit numbers as your attachments, you just need to identify what it is attached to so the record will be clear. And I think that G is attached to your -MR. YERUSHALMI: Pamela Geller Declaration.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

6

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T H E COURT:

I have it as Exhibit G to your

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. And in that Table of Contents it is listed

as Atheist Bus Advertisement? MR. YERUSHALMI: Yes, Your Honor.

B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. C o u l d you take a look at what has been handed to Are you familiar

you as Exhibit G on the front page. with this advertisement? A. Q. A. Yes. C o u l d you describe it, please?

I t is an ad that says, "Don't believe in God? DetroitCoR.org".

You are not alone. Q.

T h i s was the ad that ran on SMART buses in

February/March of 2010? A. Q. Yes. A n d when SMART reviewed this ad to determine

whether it satisfied its advertising policies, guidelines and procedures, it determined that this ad was in compliance, correct? A. Q. Yes. W h e n SMART determined that this ad was in

compliance with its advertising policies, guidelines and procedures, it examined just the ad copy and the artwork, correct?

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

7

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Q.

Yes. I t didn't look to things extrinsic to the

advertising itself to determine that? A. Q. Correct. S M A R T determined that this advertising copy was

not political? A. Q. Correct. A n d it determined that it was not scornful or

disparaging of Christians, Jews or Muslims or any other groups? A. Q. No. S M A R T further determined that this ad was purely

religious? A. Q. Yes. A f t e r this ad ran on the SMART buses, were they

subject to vandalism? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes. W e r e they subject to extensive vandalism? I don't know what that means. There was more than one ad that was vandalized? Yes. I n fact, one ad was scratched where it says,

"Don't believe in God?" On this particular exhibit, the "Don't" is scratched out? A. Yes.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

8

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

A n d there was another instance where the "Don't"

was ripped off? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. W e r e there other instances of vandalism? N o t that I'm aware of. A n d after this vandalism, there was quite a local

controversy in the media? A. Q. Yes. A f t e r the controversy and all the media

surrounding the vandalism of the "Don't believe in God?" Ad, SMART took a decision that it was going to replace the ads and put them back on the buses? A. Q. No. D i d SMART take a decision to repair the ads that

had been vandalized? A. Q. No. T h e ads that were vandalized were left on the

buses as is? A. Q. A. No. W h a t happened to those ads? They were replaced with CBS Outdoor who made that

decision. MR. YERUSHALMI: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, you may. B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING:

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

9

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

I ' v e handed you what has been marked as Exhibit B

to the Pamela Geller Declaration filed in support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. the second page? A. Q. Yes. T h i s is the ad that the Plaintiff submitted for Do you see the ad on

approval by SMART? A. Q. Yes. S M A R T determined that this particular ad violated

its policies and guidelines? A. Q. Yes. A n d it determined that it was not purely

religious? A. Q. nature? A. Q. Yes. A n d further determined that it held a group of Yes. A n d they determined that it was political in

people up to scorn and disparagement? A. Q. Right. T h e r e are, in fact, no policies written or

available elsewhere by SMART that provide you with the -- strike that. Beyond the ad guidelines that are provided in the contract between SMART and CBS Outdoor and the ad

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

10

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

g u i d e l i n e s that are provided on the Web site of SMART that have been entered into the record, are there any other written guidelines or policies or manuals available? A. Q. No. I n what way is the ad before you that was

provided by my clients political? A. I t was determined not -- it was not based on the

content, it was based on the knowledge of what had happened in Miami with Miami Dade Transit that declared it political. Q. S o when you examined this ad, there was nothing

about the ad itself that was political? A. Q. Correct. I t was nothing about the ad itself that

disparages or scorns any particular people? A. Q. N o , it was not political than the content. I ' m not sure I understood that. T h e r e is nothing in the ad that disparages or scorns any particular people? A. C o r r e c t , yes. THE COURT: I'm not sure. Correct what?

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. THE COURT: You're not sure whether it scorns any particular people; is that your answer?

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

11

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Honor. confer) question.

T H E WITNESS:

Right.

B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. O n the face of this ad, the content in this ad,

what makes it political and the atheist ad that we looked at earlier not political? THE COURT: Well, that is a compound

MR. YERUSHALMI: Strike the question. MR. YERUSHALMI: now, Your Honor. THE COURT:

I'm sorry, Your Honor.

I believe we're done for

This is the now.

This is the

time you have to examine. MR. YERUSHALMI: THE COURT: Yes. May I have a second?

( W h e r e u p o n Mr. Muise and Mr. Yerushalmi

MR. YERUSHALMI:

A few more questions, Your

BY MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. W h e n the atheist ad that we looked at earlier was

put back up by CBS Outdoor, who paid for that? A. Q. A. C B S Outdoor. A n d that was agreeable to SMART? W e had no knowledge of it at the time.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

12

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

B u t you agreed that the ad, notwithstanding the

controversy, should continue? A. Q. I t was part of the contract. It did not violate any policy, advertising policy

or guideline with SMART? A. Q. No. W h e r e in the SMART guidelines and policies and

procedures does it spell out the distinction between a political ad and a nonpolitical ad? A. I t is in Section 5.107(B). THE COURT: THE WITNESS: advertising guidelines. MR. YERUSHALMI: May I approach, Your Honor? You said 5.07(D)? "B", as in boy, where we have

THE COURT: You may. B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. I ' v e handed you what has been marked as Exhibit A Do you

to your Opposition Brief to the Motion. recognize this document? A. Q. Yes.

I n fact, this is the Section of the SMART CBS

Outdoor contract that you were referring to earlier, 5.07(B), correct? A. Q. Yes. C a n you point to me the language that indicates

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

13

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

t h e distinction between a political ad and a non-political ad? A. W e have a listing of five categories of Political or political campaign Is not allowed. Offers are

advertising.

advertising is one of them.

not allowed for political or political campaign advertising. Q. voice. A. Q. A. Q. I ' m sorry. A r e you referring to Subsection (B)(1)? Yes. ( B ) ( 1 ) merely states: "Political or political campaign advertising." A. Q. Yes. W h e r e in the SMART guidelines, policies and If I may ask the Witness to just raise your

procedures does it distinguish between that which is political and that which is not political? A. Q. I ' m not sure I understand what you're asking. Y o u testified earlier that the Atheist Ad was Yes?

purely religious and was not political. A. Q. Yes.

A n d the Atheist Ad took certain positions

relative to people's belief in God or nonbelief in God?

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

14

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Q.

Yes. Y o u indicated that the Plaintiff's ad that was

handed to you earlier on "Leaving Islam" was, in fact, a political ad? A. Q. Yes. I ' m simply trying to understand what were the

policy guidelines, procedures used by SMART to distinguish between the earlier ad, the Atheist Ad being non-political and this ad being political? M R . GORDON: Your Honor, I object. This

assumes facts not in evidence specifically that the policy in some fashion explains the difference between what is a political ad and not a political ad. THE COURT: whether it does. Aren't you asking that? MR. YERUSHALMI: THE COURT: question is? THE WITNESS: Now I do, thank you. Yes, Your Honor. That's what he is asking,

Do you understand what the

Each ad is looked at with -- on its own against these policies. And so the determination was That it did not or

made that this was a political ad.

it fell into this guideline that we do not allow political and political campaign advertisement.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

15

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. S o in fact, there is no policy or guideline or

training manual or anything else that would set out why this is political and the Atheist Ad is not political? A. Right. M R . YERUSHALMI: Your Honor. THE COURT: again. (Whereupon Mr. Muise and Mr. Yerushalmi confer.) M R . YERUSHALMI: question. BY MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. I just want to confirm that Islam as content for I apologize, one more Your Colleague is standing I have nothing further,

an ad is acceptable religious content according to SMART's policies and guidelines? THE COURT: I don't -well, I'm not sure I

understand your question. MR. YERUSHALMI: Let me retry.

B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. T h e ad before you is relating to Islam in some

fashion, right? A. Yes. THE COURT: And you're referring to B?

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

16

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

M R . YERUSHALMI: T H E COURT: Okay.

I'm referring to Exhibit B. Proceed.

B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. I just want to confirm that Islam is not a

forbidden content and that it is a religious content and religious content is permitted by SMART? A. Yes. M R . YERUSHALMI: No further questions.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions? MR. GORDON: CROSS B Y MR. GORDON: Q. M s . Gibbons, Mr. Yerushalmi asked you one or two Yes, Your Honor. EXAMINATION

questions about the Pinckney Pro-life ad; do you recall that just a few moments ago? A. Q. No. T e l l me, you're familiar with the Pinckney

Pro-life ad, are you not? A. Q. Yes. A n d Your Honor, that was attached as Exhibit B to

Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Can you tell me, please, Ms. Gibbons, when that ad was posted, had you been aware of any controversy related to it?

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

17

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Q. A. Q.

T h e Pinckney Pro-life ad was not posted. A n d that was because of why? B e c a u s e it was determined to be political. A n d Mr. Yerushalmi was asking you about the

Atheist Awareness ad? A. Q. Yes. A n d can you tell me were you aware of any

controversy relating to that ad prior to the ad being submitted for posting? A. Q. No. A t some point FDI submitted an ad by way of CBS;

is that correct? A. Q. Yes. A n d can you tell me at the time that you received

that ad, had you been made aware of any controversy, any political issue relating to that ad? A. Q. A. Yes. A n d how did you become aware of that? I received an electronic newsletter called,

"Transportation Communications Newsletter" and that lists out various articles or informational documents on topics on alternate transportation. And in that

particular issue that I received, there was an article from the Miami Herald on the Miami Dade Transit issue with the Islam ads.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

18

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Honor?

I have a copy of that, may I approach, Your

THE COURT:

You may.

And have you shown

this to Opposing Counsel? M R . GORDON: him as well. THE COURT: MR. GORDON: THE COURT: And this consists of two pieces? Yes, Your Honor. Let's mark them so we will have I have. And I have a copy for

a way of referring to them on the record. What exhibit number are you at at the end of your pleadings? Is it H? I believe that is correct. So we're marking them I? Yes, Your Honor. And J.

MR. GORDON: THE COURT: MR. GORDON: THE COURT:

You don't have any objection to them being marked I and J, right? MR. MUISE: THE COURT: No objection, Your Honor. Alright, thank you.

B Y MR. GORDON, CONTINUING: Q. M s . Gibbons, attached is the Miami Herald article

that the link refers to, is it not? A. Q. Yes. T h e Court will not hold you to the details, but

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

19

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

c a n you tell us approximately how far in advance of your receipt of the proposed advertisement on SMART buses that you became aware of this controversy? A. A b o u t a day after I received the Transportation

Communications Newsletter. T H E COURT: THE WITNESS: aware of it. THE COURT: article? THE WITNESS: B Y MR. GORDON, CONTINUING: Q. I would like to change topics now, Ms. Gibbons, Correct. Of the issue in the news I'm not sure when that is. About April 17th I became

and ask you one or two questions following up on a question that Mr. Yerushalmi asked you regarding the political content of the FDI ad. In both reading the controversy surrounding the Miami Dade Transit issue, can you tell us whether you were able to determine that the FDI ad was political? A. I knew that it was of concern in that there is

controversy on both sides of the issue on whether they should be posted or shouldn't be posted. Q. I see. D i d you have reason to believe that the

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

20

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

p r e s e n t a t i o n of the ad to SMART was a continuation of the political controversy and the political campaign that was begun at the Miami Dade Transit property? MR. YERUSHALMI: Objection, Your Honor,

misstates the testimony and no foundation. THE COURT: it is not leading. I think you need to phrase it so

You may rephrase your question. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. GORDON:

B Y MR. GORDON, CONTINUING: Q. M s . Gibbons, what did you learn, if anything,

about FDI's intention following their efforts in Florida? MR. YERUSHALMI: speculation. THE COURT: speculation. Overruled. THE WITNESS: They were -that it was an No, I don't think it calls for Objection, calls for

issue that they were carrying forward into the Detroit market. BY MR. GORDON, CONTINUING: Q. D i d you learn of any other markets they might be

going into? A. N o t that I'm aware of. M R . GORDON: THE COURT: No other questions, Your Honor. Any other questions?

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

21

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

M R . GORDON:

Your Honor, I'm sorry, can the

Court indulge me for just one moment? THE COURT: Yes, you may.

Do you have any follow-up questions? MR. YERUSHALMI: THE COURT: Yes. EXAMINATION Redirect, Your Honor?

REDIRECT B Y MR. YERUSHALMI: Q.

A f t e r the controversy relating to the Atheist Ad

that we looked at earlier, you added some material to your Web site titled, "Advertise with SMART"? A. T h a t page was always there -- yes, you're right,

I'm sorry. Q. In other words, you added information related to

the advertising guidelines? A. Right. We clarified that we did not arbitrarily,

you know, make decisions on what ads can be placed and not placed on our buses and that we do have advertising guidelines that we review. Q. A n d other than the advertising information the

guidelines provided on the Web site, and other than the contract that we looked at earlier, Section 5.07, there are no other written guidelines, policies or manuals available? A. No.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

22

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

Y o u testified regarding the placement of ads by

my clients in Miami Dade; do you recall? A. Q. Yes. Y o u indicated that as a result of a newspaper

article, you determined that my client's ad was political? A. Q. T h a t it was a political issue, yes. Y o u had already testified earlier that the

content was not political but that you looked at what occurred in Miami? A. Q. Correct. A n d all you know about what occurred in Miami is

the article that you looked at earlier that you referenced? A. Yes. M R . YERUSHALMI: MR. GORDON: THE COURT: I have nothing further.

Nothing further, Your Honor. You may step down, thank you. I would like to call Pamela

MR. YERUSHALMI: Geller. PAMELA

G E L L E R , after being first

duly sworn, was examined under his oath and testified as follows: DIRECT B Y MR. YERUSHALMI: EXAMINATION

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

23

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. A. Q.

Y o u ' r e one of the Plaintiffs in this action? I am. A n d you're the Director of American Freedom

Defense Initiatives? A. Q. E x e c u t i v e Director. W h y did you run the ad which is the subject of

this litigation? A. Q. I ran the ad in defense of religious liberty. A n d could you explain what you mean by religious

liberty? A. W e l l , I have been an investigative journalist, a The field of my study, intense study

published author.

for the past eight years has been Islam, and I saw an increasing trend -MR. GORDON: going to object. (Interposing) Your Honor, we're

Ms. Geller's intent on why she would

run the ad is really irrelevant I think. THE COURT: Counsel? Your Honor, if the

MR. YERUSHALMI:

Defendants are prepared to concede that all of the earlier testimony by Ms. Gibbons regarding the intent and what took place not within the content, the four corners of the ad itself, then we don't need to get into this. THE COURT: I don't know what you mean by

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

24

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that. Do you know what he means by that? MR. GORDON: No. And I don't believe Ms.

Gibbons testified to intent. MR. YERUSHALMI: Your Honor, earlier Counsel

for the Defendants asked Mrs. Gibbons what she had learned of the intent of the Plaintiffs in running the ad. The whole point of the cross examination was that

the ad itself was not political but that it somehow stirred a political controversy elsewhere and that there was a political campaign being run. I'm simply trying

to get at the purpose for this particular ad. THE COURT: MR. GORDON: I'm going to allow that. Your Honor, the Complaint

already admits to the political nature of the ad within its four corners and the efforts that took place at paragraph 8. If I may, Your Honor, I would be happy to read that. THE COURT: you. No, you don't need to, thank

Your objection is noted and preserved. You may answer. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: An increasing trend in -(Interposing) Well, wait a

minute.

Before you do that, perhaps you should pose

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

25

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

y o u r question again because this doesn't sound like the answer to the question you posed. don't know that yet. But it may be, I just

So pose your question again.

B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. A n d when you say you ran the ad for religious

liberty purposes, what do you mean by religious liberty? A. R e l i g i o u s choice. The ability to choose any

religion free of harm in America. Q. Y o u indicate -- strike that. Where else have you run this ad? A. T h e y ran in Miami, they ran in New York City,

they're running in San Francisco. Q. A. I n fact, they did run in Miami? T h e y did run in Miami. Probably not one but two

articles, opinion pieces, if I might note, written basically from a press release from unindicted co-conspirator in Hamas Lin-kaia (ph). Other than that,

they were up and they ran with an additional 20 buses at 50 percent off. Q. H a s there been an instance as far as you know of

vandalism of your ads that have run in Miami, New York, Brooklyn and San Francisco? A. Nothing. And in New York City, it is the

complete five Boroughs. M R . YERUSHALMI: I have nothing further,

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

26

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Y o u r Honor. THE COURT: Alright, thank you.

Do you wish to examine this Witness? MR. GORDON: questions. CROSS B Y MR. GORDON: Q. G o o d afternoon, Ms. Geller. You know I'm the EXAMINATION Yes, Your Honor. Just a few

attorney for SMART. A. Q. G o o d afternoon . M y name is Avery Gordon. Ms. Geller, did the ad that was run in Miami create controversy? A. Q. A. Q. A. No. I t didn't? N o , sir. H a v e your ads created controversy anywhere? T h e r e has been discussion about my ads. There Political controversy?

has been discussions, but we believe that any opposition to these ads shows support for the death penalty for Apostates. Q. M s . Geller, did you have an opportunity to review

the Complaint that was filed in this case before it was filed? A. Yes. Or my lawyer's.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

27

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

M s . Geller, I'm going to read one or two I'll tell you which

sentences out of the Complaint. paragraphs -A. Q. A. Q. O f my Complaint? Y e s , Ma'am. Oh, yes, of course. P a r a g r a p h 8 states:

"FDI promotes its political objectives by, inter alia, sponsoring anti-jihad bus and billboard campaigns, which includes seeking advertising space on SMART vehicles." Is that true? A. FDI is a human rights organization devoted to Well, freedom of

freedom of speech, religious liberty. speech is a political issue. were not political. ads.

The ads, the bus ads,

Those were religious liberty bus

I'm doing other things. MR. GORDON: Your Honor, can I ask the Court

t o direct her to answer the question? I'm trying to ask the question? THE COURT: Yes. Can you pose the question

again, and then please answer the question directly, okay. BY MR. GORDON, CONTINUING: Q. M s . Geller, Paragraph 8 of your Complaint states:

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

28

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Honor. question. A. Q. A. Yes.

" F D I promotes its political objectives by, inter alia, sponsoring anti-jihad bus and billboard campaigns which include seeking advertising space on SMART vehicles."

I s that a true statement? N o t about that particular bus ad, but that is not FDI does not just do that particular

all that FDI does.

bus ad, we're involved in many different initiatives. Q. I understand that, but your Complaint in this You named SMART and two of its

instance sues SMART.

employees, and so my question to you is did the paragraph number 8 that I just read -- let me read it again. THE COURT: No, we heard it. Just pose your

THE WITNESS: With a -THE COURT: (Interposing) Excuse me, we need

a question so we have an answer. Not meaning to interrupt you all, but if I don't have a question and an answer, it doesn't help. MR. GORDON: Of course. Thank you, Your

BY MR. GORDON, CONTINUING: Q. M y question to you, Ma'am, is, is that a true

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

29

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

statement? A. Q. Geller. A. Q. I f religious liberties -( I n t e r p o s i n g ) This is a yes or no question, Ms. Is it a true statement? Y e s , it is a true statement. A n d I can't help but notice absent -- conspicuous Can you

by its absence is the word "religious speech". tell me was that intentional on your part? A. Q. A. Q. A. R e l i g i o u s liberty? R e l i g i o u s speech? R e l i g i o u s liberty. R e l i g i o u s objectives? Y e s , there was a religious objective.

Those

girls are in trouble and they have no where to go and there is a crying need for those ads. just -Q. ( I n t e r p o s i n g ) Thank you, Ms. Geller. I And I think it is

appreciate your answer. I'd also like to read to you Paragraph Number 9 if I may. says: "Plaintiff Pamela Geller is the Executive Director of FDI, and she engages in political and religious speech through FDI's activities, including FDI's anti-jihad bus This one relates to you, Ma'am. It

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

30

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 statement? A. Q. Yes.

a n d billboard campaigns." My question to you first is, is that a true

A n d can you tell me, the anti-jehad bus campaign,

was SMART part or one of the campaigns that was mounted by you? A. I t was, but part of other -- see I didn't expect

to get rejected because Detroit was the only one who rejected me. Q. I had other ads as well. You said

W e l l , let's take a moment here.

Detroit rejected you. A. Q. A. Q. SMART, excuse me. I wasn't specific.

D i d the City of Detroit reject you? I t was D DOT and SMART, was it not? I t is D DOT, the Detroit Department of So actually, your testimony

Transportation and SMART.

of just a second ago that you were rejected only by Detroit is not true, you were rejected by Detroit and SMART? A. Right. As one -well, it was one entity. It

was one city. Q.

It is the only city that rejected me.

M s . Geller, finally I would like to read to you Paragraph

from Paragraph Number 1 of the Complaint.

Number 1 of the Complaint, under Introduction, says that

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

31

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

y o u are challenging, and I'm going to quote: "...challenging Defendants' restriction on Plaintiffs' right to engage in political and religious speech in a public forum." Is that correct? A. Q. Yes. L e t me ask you another question. Your blog

today, your online blog today indicated that you would be in Detroit, did it not? A. Q. Yes. A n d you said you would be loaded for bear. Did I

get that right? A. Yeah. I'm fighting for religious liberty, and I

think it is the one of the major issues of our time, religious freedom. Q. A. Q. M s . Geller, there is no question now. T h e r e is no questioning that, yes. I said there is no question yet. THE COURT: MR. GORDON: Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Counsel? MR. YERUSHALMI: Short redirect, Your Honor. Do you have any other questions, Well, let's pose one. No further questions, Your

THE COURT: You may.

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

32

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 liberty. Q.

REDIRECT B Y MR. YERUSHALMI: Q.

EXAMINATION

Y o u r organization, FDI, intended on running

additional ads beyond the religious liberty ad that you sought to place on SMART? A. Q. Yes. A n d in fact, you had an entire campaign which

included political speech as well as religious speech? A. Y e s , because FDI is a human rights organization

devoted to freedom of speech, religious liberty, and individual rights, and we fight them on many fronts. And yes, we use media. In this particular case, it was religious

A n d you will agree with Ms. Gibbon's earlier

testimony that there is nothing in the content of this ad which is political? MR. GORDON: Objection, Your Honor. Her

agreement with Ms. Gibbons is truly irrelevant. THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase your question so it just asks for the answer without requiring that she agree with another witness. MR. YERUSHALMI: Fair enough.

B Y MR. YERUSHALMI, CONTINUING: Q. T h e content of this ad was purely religious and

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

33

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

r e l i g i o u s liberty? MR. GORDON: Leading. THE COURT: permit it. THE WITNESS: purely religious. MR. YERUSHALMI: Honor. THE COURT: I have a question, and if you Nothing further, Your The content of the ad was It is leading, but I'm going to Objection, Your Honor.

all object to my questions, you should say so for the record; otherwise, your objection is waived. understand that, both sides? MR. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. Do you

MR. YERUSHALMI: THE COURT:

In these other communities, I

think it's, you said, Miami, New York City, Brooklyn, and San Francisco, do you have the same ad that's being proposed here running? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: running? THE WITNESS: tops of taxi cabs running. THE COURT: I had a campaign in Chicago on It is a different campaign. Exactly. And do you have any other ads

It is a different campaign on

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

34

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

t h e top of Chicago -THE WITNESS: THE COURT: (Interposing) taxi cabs. But in these others, Miami, New

York City, San Francisco, they are all bus ads? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yes. Are they all the same ones? Yes. There have been no other ads

that have been proposed to any of those? THE WITNESS: Well, there is another ad that The

has been proposed, but it is a different campaign.

contract has not yet been signed, the artwork has been -- we're in the last stage of the artwork. THE COURT: So there is not an existing ad

already proposed to them? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: else? MR. GORDON: THE COURT: No, Your Honor. You may step down. Thank you. No, Ma'am. That's all I have. Anything

(Subsequent proceedings held in open Court were stenographically recorded but not ordered transcribed.) **************

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134

35

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE I , CHERYL E. DANIEL, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER , after being first duly sworn, say that I stenographically recorded the foregoing proceedings held on the day and date hereinbefore recorded; that upon order of the Court or counsel, I caused those stenotype notes to be reduced to typewritten form via computer-assisted technology, and that this transcript constitutes a true, full and complete transcript of those proceedings so ordered. I further certify that I am not related to any party to these proceedings nor have any interest in the outcome of said proceedings.

/S CHERYL E. DANIEL, FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE

v SMART, et al - CASE NO. 10-12134