I have an overview of the bill package with links to individual bills here: [link]

One thing that puzzles me, though, is why the Ann Arbor Chronicle hasn’t been as thorough in exploring the potential for judicial bias in this case. Suppose this were a case about a provocative abortion rights advertisement (imagine, for example, a bloody coat hangar and some language about driving women back into the hands of unsafe back-alley abortionists) and it turned out that, according to public records, the assigned federal judge was a leading member of an organization staunchly and actively opposed to abortion, he had proudly sent his minor daughter to intern with Operation Rescue, and was a significant investor/donor to militant anti-abortion groups.

In such a case, can anyone doubt that the judge’s political activities and inclinations would be a matter for journalistic scrutiny? I understand that the Plaintiff in this AATA case has chosen not to raise the question of judicial bias but does that completely negate the matter? I don’t think so. This case is about everyone’s 1st Amendment rights and the independence and fairness of federal judges is a matter that should concern us all. Then, too, there are conflict of interest/bias issues concerning the AATA Board and its corporate counsel that have also not been explored by the Ann Arbor Chronicle and other mainstream media. Why not put some hard, probing questions to the people on the public payroll in this matter?

I’ll close with some remarks from Ambassador Charles W. Freeman, published by the Wall Street Journal in 2009 on the occasion of the withdrawal of his nomination to serve on the National Intelligence Council:

… there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so.

See [link]

One point I would like to make that I have not seen adverted to previously in any of the articles.

The recent filngs make reference to Professsor Aaron Ahuvia, a University of Michigan business professor who alleges to have expert opinions about how the prospective ad may impact ridership. It has previously been disclosed that Professor Ahuvia is being compensated for his services at the rate of $250.00 per hour.

Aaron Ahuvia has been published extensively about his views advocating a two-state solution to the Palestine question. He has pointed that most American Jews accept a two-state solution however there exist two extreme camps – one that advocates one “Greater Israel” and another that denies the legitimacy of the State of Israel – and he has been critical of both of these two camps.

If Professor Ahuvia is called as a witness, I would expect his expert opinions to be possibly impeached by his own views on the Palestine issue in which he would disagree with Blaine Coleman’s position that questions the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.

I also find it interesting that there was a closed session. My view that a major issue the AATA may be facing in the near future is a possible motion to award attorney fees to Plaintiff as a prevailing party in obtaining the granting of a preliminary injunction – one that the AATA has not discussed publically. Even if the AATA can convince Judge Goldsmith not to allow the ad as submitted – the probabilty is significant of a significant award of attorney fees to Coleman and the ACLU that may have to be paid with public funds.