1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

KEVIN J. MURRAY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official 

capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Treasury; and BOARD OF 

GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL 

RESERVE SYSTEM, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 08-15147

FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

[FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION] 

Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849) John R. Coleman (Va. Bar No. 70908) 

24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Trial Attorney 

P.O. Box 393 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

Ann Arbor, MI 48106 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 6118 

rmuise@thomasmore.org Washington, DC 20530 

(734) 827-2001 john.coleman3@usdoj.gov 

Fax: (734) 930-7160 (202) 514-4505 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Fax: (202) 616-8460 

 Counsel for Defendants

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YERUSHALMI, P.C. 

David Yerushalmi, Esq. (Ariz. Bar No. 009616; 

DC Bar No. 978179; Cal. Bar No. 132011; NY Bar No. 4632568) 

P.O. Box 6358 

Chandler, AZ 85246 

david.yerushalmi@verizon.net 

(646) 262-0500 

Fax: (801) 760-3901 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff Kevin J. Murray (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, brings 

this First Amended Complaint against the above-named Defendants, their employees, agents, and 

successors in office, and in support thereof alleges the following upon information and belief: 
2

INTRODUCTION 

1. This civil rights action is an as-applied challenge to the “Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008” (or “Act”) (12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq.) enacted by the United States 

Congress pursuant to Congress’ taxing and spending power, which appropriated and expended, 

to date, $70 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States 

government’s majority ownership interest in American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”), which 

engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities and religious indoctrination. It also seeks to 

prevent any future expenditure of taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Act that will be 

used for such illicit purposes. 

2. The use of taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund Shariah-based 

Islamic religious activities and religious indoctrination, including the use of such funds to 

acquire government ownership and control in a company that engages in such activities, violates 

the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

3. The use of federal taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund 

Islamic religious activities and religious indoctrination conveys a message of endorsement and 

promotion of Shariah-based Islam and its religious beliefs and an accompanying message of 

disfavor of and hostility toward Christianity and Judaism and their religious beliefs in violation 

of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

4. As our history reveals, this Nation was founded upon values that acknowledge the 

importance of religion, respect for the right of conscience, and respect for the free exercise of 

religion. These values are enshrined in the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the United 

States Constitution. 
3

5. The Shariah-based Islamic religious practices, activities, and indoctrination that the 

government-owned AIG engages in—activities that are funded and financially supported by 

American taxpayers, including Plaintiff, who is forced to contribute to them—are antithetical to 

our Nation’s values, customs, and traditions with regard to religious liberty, religious tolerance, 

and the proscriptions of the First Amendment. These government-funded activities not only 

convey a message of disfavor of and hostility toward Christians, Jews, and those who do not 

follow or abide by Islamic law based on the Quran or the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, 

but they also embody actual commercial practices which are pervasively sectarian, which seek to 

indoctrinate non-Muslims, and which disfavor Christians, Jews, and other “infidels,” including 

Americans. 

6. The Act and the policies, practices, and actions of Defendants with regard to Shariahcompliant finance as set forth in this First Amended Complaint send a message to those who are 

non-adherents to Shariah-based Islam that they are outsiders, not full members of the political 

community, and an accompanying message to those who are adherents to Shariah-based Islam 

that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. 

7. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional 

rights as set forth in this First Amended Complaint; a declaration that Congress’ disbursement of 

public funds to AIG violated the Establishment Clause; a declaration that the United States 

government’s policy and practice of approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and supporting 

Shariah-compliant finance violates the Establishment Clause; a declaration that the United States 

government’s ownership interest in and the use of taxpayer money to financially support AIG 

and its Takaful insurance business, which is pervasively sectarian, violate the Establishment 
4

Clause; and a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the impermissible disbursement of 

public funds to AIG, enjoining the United States government’s ownership interest in AIG’s 

pervasively sectarian businesses, and enjoining the United States government’s policy and 

practice of approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and supporting Shariah-compliant finance. 

Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (the Equal 

Access to Justice Act), and other applicable laws. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This action in which the United States is a defendant arises under the Constitution and 

laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1346. 

9. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief are 

authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and by the general legal and equitable powers of this Court. 

10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because this is the judicial district in which 

Plaintiff resides. 

PLAINTIFF 

11. Plaintiff Kevin J. Murray is a United States citizen, a resident of Washtenaw County, 

Michigan, a federal taxpayer, and a devout Catholic. Plaintiff is also a former U.S. Marine who 

served honorably in harm’s way to defend our country against Islamic terrorists. 

12. On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by fundamental principles of Shariahmandated jihad against “infidels,” attacked U.S. soil and killed thousands of innocent American 

civilians. Shortly thereafter, the United States went on the offensive by engaging Islamic 
5

terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced a foreign 

threat to its national security, American service men and women were called to action. Plaintiff 

Murray answered the call. 

13. From March 2003 to October 2003, Plaintiff was deployed overseas in support of 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During this time, Plaintiff served as 

a Marine infantryman and was tasked with providing security for vital refueling and arming 

points throughout the initial combat phase of the war. These duties consisted of countless and 

stressful hours devoted to convoy security, manning perimeter defensive positions, and 

conducting combat patrols in hostile enemy territory in numerous locations throughout southern 

Iraq. 

14. Later in his deployment, Plaintiff was tasked with providing anti-terrorism defenses for 

Camp Commando, Kuwait—the hub of Marine Corps operations throughout the Iraqi theater. 

15. As a Christian, a federal taxpayer, and a former U.S. Marine veteran of the war against 

Islamic terrorism, Plaintiff objects to and is harmed by the appropriation and disbursement of 

public funds to AIG and being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic 

beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law, which is hostile to his religious beliefs and 

practices and which forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United 

States in particular. Plaintiff also objects to and is harmed by the United States government’s 

policy and practice of approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and supporting Shariahcompliant finance as set forth in this First Amended Complaint. The government’s endorsement 

of Islamic law sends a message to Plaintiff, who is a non-adherent to Islam, that he is an outsider, 
6

not a full member of the political community, and an accompanying message to those who are 

adherents to Islam that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. 

16. As a result of the United States government’s use of federal funds to acquire a majority 

ownership interest in and to support the operations of AIG for the benefit of federal taxpayers, 

Plaintiff is a beneficiary of, and has a stake in, the federal government’s ownership and control 

of AIG. 

DEFENDANTS 

17. Defendant Timothy F. Geithner is the Secretary of the United States Department of 

Treasury. At all times relevant herein, Timothy F. Geithner, or his predecessor, former Secretary 

of the U.S. Department of Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, was charged by Congress with 

administering the Act, including the “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (12 U.S.C. § 5211). 

During former Secretary Paulson’s tenure, Defendant Geithner was the president of the Federal 

Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”). 

18. As Treasury Secretary, Defendant Geithner is also responsible for creating, adopting, and 

implementing the United States government’s policy and practice of approving, endorsing, 

promoting, funding, and supporting Shariah-compliant finance. Defendant Geithner is sued in 

his current official capacity. 

19. Defendant Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Fed”) is an agency of the 

United States government. At all times relevant herein, the Fed was acting as an instrument of 

the United States government. 
7

20. The Fed was created by and derives its authority from Congress. According to the Fed, it 

is charged with, inter alia, “maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing 

systemic risk that may arise in financial markets,” which is a public function. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

I. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. 

21. Pursuant to its authority under the taxing and spending clause of Article I, section 8 of the 

United States Constitution, Congress passed the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008” (12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq.), which is an express congressional mandate and a specific 

congressional appropriation to expend taxpayer funds. The Act took effect on October 3, 2008. 

22. The Act authorizes Defendant Geithner to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

(or “TARP”) (12 U.S.C. § 5211) “to purchase, and to make fund commitments to purchase, 

troubled assets from any financial institution.” 

23. As defined by the Act (12 U.S.C. § 5202), the term “financial institution” means, inter 

alia, “any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, 

security broker or dealer or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the 

United States . . . and having significant operations in the United States.” 

24. According to the Act, the term “troubled assets” means, inter alia, “any other financial 

instrument that [Defendant Geithner], after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System [the Fed], determines the purchase of which is 

necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, 

in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.” 
8

25. Decisions by Defendant Geithner pursuant to the Act are subject to congressional control 

and oversight. The taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Act may not be used at the sole 

discretion of Defendant Geithner. These funds are not general appropriations provided to the 

Executive Branch to support its day-to-day activities. 

26. The Act seeks to “maximize[] overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States.” (12 

U.S.C. § 5201). Consequently, as an owner of AIG, the United States government has a vested 

interest in ensuring the success of AIG and stands to profit by that success, thus creating an 

excessive government entanglement with the activities of AIG. 

27. When Congress passed the Act, it understood that AIG would be a direct beneficiary of a 

significant sum of the appropriated taxpayer funds. Congress also understood that AIG was a 

“market leader” in Shariah-compliant financial products such as Takaful insurance, as AIG 

announces on its website and in other public documents. 

28. Pursuant to the Act, Congress authorized and directed Defendant Geithner to expend, to 

date, $70 billion in taxpayer funds to purchase preferred stock in AIG, which further supports 

and funds the United States government’s earlier acquisition of a 79.9% ownership position in 

AIG. 

29. The Act does not require Defendant Geithner, the Fed, or any other officer or agency of 

the federal government to police the expenditure of taxpayer funds to ensure that they are not 

being used for impermissible purposes, such as funding Islamic beliefs and practices or 

promoting religious indoctrination as set forth in this First Amended Complaint. In fact, the Act 

does not provide any mechanism by which the federal government or its agents could police such 

expenditures. 
9

30. Pursuant to the Act, the federal government has injected AIG with tens of billions of 

dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. 

II. United States Governments’ Acquisition and Control of AIG. 

A. AIG: “Too Big to Fail.” 

31. In early to mid September 2008, Congress, the Fed, the FRBNY, and the U.S. 

Department of Treasury believed that AIG was imminently in danger of collapsing, which would 

have had a devastating effect on the financial markets. It was believed that AIG was “too big to 

fail.” 

32. During this time, Congress was in the process of working out the details of the Act in 

order to gain control of AIG, authorize the use of federal taxpayer funds to financially support 

the operations of AIG, and to prevent AIG’s collapse. 

33. Prior to the passage of the Act, Defendant Geithner, who was then president of the 

FRBNY, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and then Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, who were 

closely collaborating and essentially operating as co-equal partners, determined that it would be 

necessary to immediately expend massive sums of federal funds to acquire and gain federal 

control over AIG. This unprecedented decision was made with the confidence of knowing that 

Congress was working out the details of a federal taxpayer-funded bailout, which it would soon 

enact, but possibly not soon enough to prevent the collapse of AIG. 

34. To accomplish this unprecedented task, Defendant Geithner, Paulson, and Bernanke, with 

the approval of Congress, decided that the United States government must take over the 

ownership and control of AIG by acquiring a super-majority equity interest in the company. 
10

35. The unprecedented sums of money that would be “loaned” from the Fed or the FRBNY 

to AIG would merely serve as a “placeholder” for the federal taxpayer funds that would soon be 

arriving pursuant to the Act. Any “loans” from the Fed or the FRBNY would thus be tied to 

funds that would be forthcoming from the Act. 

36. Rather than simply provide a bridge loan from the Fed or the FRBNY to AIG, the 

government’s plan was to wipe out the shareholders and put AIG under government control since 

it would ultimately be taxpayer money from Congress that would fund AIG and prevent its 

collapse and bankruptcy. 

37. Prior to the acquisition of AIG by the federal government, neither the Fed nor the 

FRBNY had ever been authorized to acquire large, controlling equity interests in non-member 

financial institutions. 

38. Consequently, AIG is a corporation that is owned and controlled by the federal 

government. The federal government acquired the ownership and control of AIG through the 

expenditure of federal funds, including the expenditure of federal taxpayer funds authorized by 

the Act. 

39. By virtue of the Act and the actions of the federal government prior to and subsequent to 

the Act, all of which were done to effectuate the government’s ownership and control of AIG, 

AIG has become a government entity and an instrument of the government such that its acts may 

fairly be attributed to the federal government. 

40. By acquiring a majority ownership interest in AIG, maintaining a vested interest in the 

success of AIG, and standing to profit from that success, the United States government now 

exercises such coercive power or provides such significant encouragement, overtly and covertly, 
11

that in law the choices of AIG are deemed to be those of the federal government. Consequently, 

through the ownership and control of AIG, the United States government is engaging in Islamic 

religious activities and religious indoctrination. 

B. Federal Taxpayer Funding Scheme of AIG 

1. The First $40 Billion of Federal Taxpayer Funds. 

41. On or about September 22, 2008, an agreement was reached among Defendant Geithner, 

Paulson, Bernanke, and AIG, with the knowledge and approval of Congress, to accomplish the 

ultimate goal of funneling tens of billions of taxpayer funds to AIG in exchange for a supermajority equity interest in the company that would put the company under the control of the 

federal government. The September 22, 2008, agreement was memorialized in the AIG Credit 

Facility Agreement putatively entered into between the FRBNY and AIG (the “Credit Facility 

Agreement”). 

42. The Credit Facility Agreement purportedly authorized the FRBNY, pursuant to the 

emergency powers granted to the Fed by Congress under § 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 

U.S.C. § 343), to open up a credit facility to loan AIG up to $85 billion in federal funds. In 

consideration, AIG agreed to provide the FRBNY with a security interest in effectively all of 

AIG’s assets, which were available for collateralization pursuant to a Guarantee and Pledge 

Agreement that was also dated September 22, 2008. 

43. With the expectation that Congress would pass the Act in a matter of days, the Credit 

Facility Agreement obligated AIG to transfer into a trust (the “AIG Credit Facility Trust” or 

“Trust”) for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury, which is essentially Congress’s “account” to be 

used pursuant to its authorized powers, approximately 79.9% (later reduced to 77.9%) of the 
12

aggregate voting power of AIG’s common stock and a like percentage of any of AIG’s dividend 

payments. This massive transfer of voting power and dividend payments was obligated 

notwithstanding that neither the AIG Credit Facility Trust, the U.S. Treasury, nor the U.S. 

Department of Treasury were named parties to the Credit Facility Agreement. 

44. While the Credit Facility Agreement is an attempt to give the appearance that a supermajority controlling interest in AIG was transferred to the U.S. Treasury in consideration for 

loan funds from the FRBNY, in reality the massive transfer of ownership and control over AIG 

to the U.S. Treasury (and thus, the federal government) was in consideration for at least $40 

billion of TARP funds authorized under the Act 11 days later. Thus, $40 billion of the FRBNY 

loan funds were a “placeholder” for the real consideration—funds authorized by Congress under 

the Act. 

45. Consequently, after the expected passage of the Act on October 3, 2008, and pursuant to 

the prior agreement, then Secretary Paulson, in coordination with Defendant Geithner and 

Chairman Bernanke, and with the approval of Congress, authorized the transfer of $40 billion of 

TARP funds to AIG on the condition that AIG transfer those funds to reduce the outstanding 

balance due under the Credit Facility Agreement, thereby completing the real transaction 

contemplated by the federal government through the Credit Facility Agreement. This second 

agreement was memorialized in the Securities Purchase Agreement dated November 25, 2008, 

between AIG and the U.S. Department of Treasury. 

46. While the Securities Purchase Agreement nominally identifies the consideration for the 

$40 billion of TARP funds as 4,000,000 shares of Series D Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual 

Preferred Stock (“Series D Preferred”) and a warrant to purchase 53,798,766 shares of AIG’s 
13

common stock, given the market value of AIG and its balance sheet at the time of this 

transaction, this consideration was trivial in comparison to the super-majority controlling interest 

transferred for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury (and thus Congress and the federal government) 

via the Series C Perpetual, Convertible, Participating Preferred Stock (“Series C Preferred), 

which was the actual consideration for the $40 billion of TARP funds authorized by the Act. 

47. The “redemption” provision of the $40 billion Securities Purchase Agreement (i.e., 

TARP funds to acquire Series D Preferred) entered into between the U.S. Department of 

Treasury and AIG requires AIG and its shareholders, now effectively the government, to grant a 

liquidation preference to the Series D Preferred over the earlier acquired Series C Preferred. 

This is best explained in the context of the placeholder agreement: the purpose of Series C 

Preferred was to transfer 77.9% of the voting rights of AIG to the government through debt and 

the purpose of the Series D Preferred was to provide the liquidation preference over all other 

shareholders, including other preferred shareholders, through equity. The end result is that the 

government gained super-majority controlling voting rights and liquidation preference with a 

TARP equity investment. 

48. In sum, the circular, quid pro quo nature of the placeholder transaction allowed 

Defendants to provide taxpayer funds to support AIG’s operations and to effect government 

ownership and control of AIG. First, the FRBNY paid for the super-majority controlling voting 

rights through the Credit Facility Agreement. Second, a “Trust” was established to exercise 

those voting interests, but the Trustees are required to act and vote their interests on behalf of the 

public and the government’s concerns, mirroring the responsibilities of a government agency and 

not those of a private, profit-driven shareholder. Third, to control these Trustees the Fed 
14

maintained absolute discretion and authority over the powers, term, and even existence of the 

Trust itself. And, finally, the U.S. Department of Treasury used TARP funds pursuant to the Act 

to acquire $40 billion of Series D Preferred, which provided substantial capital to AIG so that 

AIG could continue its operations and purportedly pay down the loan funds FRBNY used to 

acquire the voting rights provided by the Series C Preferred in the first instance. 

49. Consequently, the Fed and the FRBNY, with the knowledge, advice, and consent of 

Defendant Geithner, Chairman Bernanke, then Secretary Paulson, and Congress, provided an 

unprecedented amount in federal loans to AIG to fund its general operations with the 

understanding that at least $40 billion of those funds would be immediately replaced with federal 

taxpayer funds pursuant to the Act. Thus, at least $40 billion of the loan funds were in actuality 

federal taxpayer funds appropriated and expended pursuant to the Act. 

2. The Next $30 Billion of Federal Taxpayer Funds. 

50. On April 17, 2009, pursuant to the authority granted under the Act, Defendant Geithner 

entered into an agreement with AIG to provide an additional $29.835 billion of TARP funds to 

AIG. Under the April 17, 2009, agreement, AIG is free to draw on this equity line at its 

discretion to fund all of its operations and activities, including its Islamic religious activities. To 

date, AIG has expended at least $1.15 billion of these additional TARP funds. 

51. Unlike traditional grants of federal money that are provided for a specific purpose, there 

are no restrictions on AIG’s use of federal taxpayer dollars that are provided pursuant to the Act. 

Instead, these federal funds are provided to support the overall operations and vitality of AIG, 

which is now a government entity, agency, or instrumentality as a result of the expenditure of 

taxpayer funds pursuant to the Act. 
15

52. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars remain available to Defendants to fund AIG and 

its operations and activities, including its religious activities, pursuant to the Act. 

III. AIG Is an Entity, Agency, or Instrumentality of the United States. 

53. By financially supporting and funding its ownership interest in AIG with $70 billion in 

taxpayer money, maintaining a vested interest in the success of AIG, and standing to profit from 

that success, Defendant Geithner and the United States government have insinuated themselves 

into a position of interdependence with AIG so that they are in effect joint participants in the 

challenged activities of AIG. Consequently, as a result of the Act and in conjunction with the 

federal government’s prior ownership interest, Defendant Geithner and the United States 

government have created a symbiotic relationship with AIG such that AIG’s activities can be 

fairly attributed to the federal government. 

54. AIG is a corporation that Congress rescued from collapse and extinction by virtue of the 

appropriation and expenditure of federal tax funds pursuant to the Act and placed under 

governmental control for the specific purpose of achieving a governmental objective (namely, to 

avert the threatened collapse of the financial markets in the United States). Consequently, AIG 

exists today because of congressional action, which specifically includes the appropriation and 

expenditure of significant sums of federal tax funds pursuant to the Act. 

55. On or about September 17, 2008, then Secretary Paulson forced the ouster of AIG’s Chief 

Executive Officer Robert Willumstand, and on or about September 18, 2008, Paulson forced the 

appointment of Edward Liddy as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to run AIG on 

behalf of the federal government. Liddy was compensated $1 a year for his service. 
16

56. In March 2009, while testifying before Congress, Liddy stated, “Six months ago I came 

out of retirement to help my country. At the government’s request I’ve had the duty and 

extraordinary challenge of serving as chairman and chief executive officer of American 

International Group, or A.I.G.” 

57. On May 13, 2009, Liddy again testified before Congress, admitting that as a result of 

“[t]he infusion of substantial U.S. Government capital to AIG,” the Fed and the U.S. Department 

of Treasury have become AIG’s “primary day-to-day partners in government.” 

58. Upon stepping down from the post in the wake of congressional criticism, Defendant 

Geithner publicly praised Liddy for his work, stating that Liddy “shouldered this burden out of a 

strong sense of duty and patriotism.” 

59. Government officials are intimately involved in the operations of AIG, which remain 

under close congressional oversight and scrutiny. Federal agents and officials routinely attend 

and participate in operational planning meetings of AIG. 

60. AIG is entwined with governmental policies, and the federal government is entwined in 

its management and control. 

61. The AIG Credit Facility Trust, which was created in anticipation of the passage of the 

Act in order to facilitate the transfer of federal taxpayer funds to AIG, is effectively an 

instrumentality of the federal government that provides government control of AIG. 

62. The AIG Credit Facility Trust was created by the Fed pursuant to its authority under 12 

U.S.C. § 343. The Trustees were appointed by the FRBNY, but only after consultation with the 

U.S. Department of Treasury. Replacement Trustees must also be subject to U.S. Department of 

Treasury consultation. 
17

63. All acts by the Trustees must be for the sole benefit of the U.S. Treasury. The Trustees 

are required to exercise their voting rights to ensure that corporate governance of AIG is 

beneficial to the U.S. Treasury and to protect the overall stability of the economy (which itself is 

unusual for a shareholder). Thus, unlike a private shareholder who acts for his own profit 

motive, the Trust has a public function by operating for the federal government and for the 

benefit of federal taxpayers and the public interest. 

64. All funds collected by dividend or disposition of AIG stock are paid into the U.S. 

Treasury for the use of Congress acting on behalf of and as representative for federal taxpayers. 

As a result, all interests of AIG are now subservient to the interests of the federal government 

and serve to promote a public function and the public interest. 

65. The Trustees have the authority and power of an independent agency of the federal 

government precisely because their sole duty is to act in the place of and for the benefit of the 

government. All of the beneficial interests of the Trust belong to the U.S. Treasury, which is 

ultimately controlled by Congress for the benefit of federal taxpayers. The Trust as a 

governmental authority is also eclipsed and controlled in whole by the Fed. The agreement, by 

its own terms, may be set aside unilaterally by the federal government at any time. Section 1.03 

of the Trust provides explicitly that the Fed has unfettered authority to revoke or amend the Trust 

at will. 

66. Given the circular control (the Fed controls the Trust and its very existence and terms; the 

Trust controls the voting rights of AIG shares; the voting rights of AIG shares control the board’s 

composition and even by proxy actions on specific matters), the federal government could at any 

time unilaterally alter any and all agreements it had entered into with AIG by forcing a 
18

shareholder meeting and proxy or by simply replacing the board with those who would follow its 

orders (the agreements could also be unilaterally changed to allow the Trustees, the Fed, the U.S. 

Department of Treasury, or Congress to appoint its own board members). 

67. On May 13, 2009, the Trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust made the following joint 

statement to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of 

Representatives: “The Committee has posed this question: ‘Is the U.S. taxpayer investment in 

AIG being adequately protected?’ This is the critical question; it motivates all of our 

considerations and all of our actions. Under the Trust Agreement, we are charged with 

exercising the voting rights of the shares held in the Trust in the best interests of the U.S. 

Treasury and with a view towards maximizing the value of the AIG stock held by the Trust. Of 

course, we are not the only actors with this goal. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the 

“FRBNY”), the Federal Reserve Board, the U.S. Treasury Department, this Committee and the 

U.S. Congress also have as a goal the maximizing the value of the taxpayers’ stock so that the 

taxpayers can be paid back for the extraordinary financial assistance given to AIG.” 

68. During this congressional testimony, the Trustees stated, “As representatives of the 

majority shareholder—the U.S. Treasury—we have pursued and will continue to pursue our 

obligation with the utmost vigor and in the public interest.” The Trustees further stated, “In 

defining our role as Trustees, we recognize that other agencies and instrumentalities of the 

government have significant roles in AIG’s future—especially the Federal Reserve and the 

Treasury Department. Each is involved in issues that range from AIG’s financial performance 

and evolving restructuring plans to its compensation policies and corporate governance, risk 

management and control practices.” 
19

69. AIG is an entity, agency, or instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of 

individual rights guaranteed against the government by the Constitution, including the 

Establishment Clause. 

IV. AIG’s Use of Federal Taxpayer Funds to Promote Islam. 

70. AIG employs consolidated financing; all of its funds are fungible and they flow through a 

single port. Therefore, all funds going to AIG, including those public funds provided in 

anticipation of the passage of the Act and the funds appropriated by Congress pursuant to the 

Act, are used to financially support all of AIG’s activities, including its Islamic religious 

activities. Consequently, taxpayer money is being used to directly fund and financially support 

Islamic religious activities and religious indoctrination. 

A. AIG’s Shariah-Compliant Financing. 

71. AIG engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, 

including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically 

includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities. 

72. An example of Shariah-compliant financing offered by AIG is Takaful Insurance plans. 

According to AIG, Takaful Insurance is “[i]nsurance that avoids prohibited elements in 

accordance with the Sharia law.” According to AIG, its Takaful products are Islamic because, 

inter alia, AIG “do[es] not invest in anything that is haram” and it “do[es] not borrow, lend or 

enter into any financial transaction that is unIslamic.” According to AIG, “haram” is 

“[p]rohibited elements in Islam according to Sharia.” 

73. The Takaful Insurance business of AIG is pervasively sectarian. Its secular purposes and 

its Sharia-based Islamic religious mission are inextricably intertwined. Consequently, federal aid 
20

in the form of taxpayer funds is flowing directly to a pervasively sectarian entity. And by virtue 

of the use of federal funds, including those funds appropriated and expended pursuant to the Act, 

the federal government owns and controls a pervasively sectarian entity that is engaged in 

Islamic religious activities and indoctrination. 

74. According to AIG, it is “expanding its scope and vision to global proportions providing a 

range of Takaful products, including property & casualty, energy, accident & health, financial 

lines, motor, [and] personal contents just to name a few. The phenomenal growth of the Takaful 

market is something that [AIG] as a market leader recognize[s].” AIG’s Sharia-compliant 

financing “benefit[s] from AIG’s disciplined global underwriting and standards and 89 years of 

experience in delivering innovative insurance solutions to the international community through a 

network that currently spans more than 130 countries and jurisdictions, reaching 74 million 

customers.” AIG has a “global expansion strategy” for its Sharia-compliant financing, seeking 

to expand its products to non-Muslims. 

75. According to a December 2008 AIG news release, AIG has introduced “a series of 

Shari’ah-compliant (Takaful) product offerings in the U.S.” These “newly announced Takaful 

products are compliant with key Islamic finance tenets.” 

76. In the December 2008 news release, AIG states, “The introduction of Takaful products in 

the U.S. represents an important and emerging growth opportunity for AIG Commercial 

Insurance.” Citing Ernst & Young’s 2008 World Takaful Report in the news release, AIG 

claims that “Takaful was estimated to be a $5.7 billion market globally with over 130 providers 

in 2006. The Takaful market is estimated to be in excess of $10 billion by 2010.” 
21

77. According to AIG, its efforts to market Shariah-compliant insurance products globally, 

including in the United States, to non-Muslims is not to accommodate pent-up demand, but as a 

way to “introduce[] them to a new way of life.” Thus, AIG is seeking to indoctrinate nonMuslims into a Shariah-based view of Islam. 

78. Consequently, AIG, which is under the ownership and control of the federal government, 

is engaging in religious indoctrination, and AIG’s Shariah-compliant financing is benefitting 

directly from federal taxpayer funds. 

B. Shariah Law and Islam. 

79. Shariah, while often referred to as Islamic law, is considered by Islamic religious 

authorities to be the divine law of Allah which is articulated directly to man through the Quran

and indirectly through the canonical stories of Mohammed’s life as told through the Sunna. AIG 

describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on Quran and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH).” 

The “teachings of the Prophet” are a reference to the canonized Sunna. 

80. The Quran is considered by Islam to be the perfect expression of Allah’s will for man. 

Every word is considered perfect and unalterable except and unless altered by some subsequent 

word of Allah. The Sunna—stories of Mohammed’s life and behavior—are also considered 

binding authority of how a Muslim must live. 

81. Islam holds that Allah is the sole true sovereign. He revealed to Mohammed all matters 

of life, politics, and religious law. Consequently, the religion of Islam is not merely one segment 

of life; it regulates life completely, from the social and the political to the diplomatic, economic, 

and military. This combination of religion and politics as one is the foundation of Islam, an 

inseparable political/religious doctrine of Islamic governments, and the basis of Muslim 
22

loyalties. In this respect, the theo-political doctrine of Islam is contrary to the dictates of the 

First Amendment’s religion clauses. 

82. As explained by two international authorities of Shariah-compliant finance, Mervyn K. 

Lewis, a professor of finance in Australia, and Latifa M. Algaoud, a senior official in the Bahrain 

Ministry of Finance, in their collaborative work, Islamic Banking: 

Since Islamic law reflects the will of [Allah] rather than the will of a human 

lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest to a 

secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and religious 

practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution [sic] matters, as well as 

many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the concern of the 

secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such thing as a separate 

secular authority and secular law, since religion and state are one. Essentially, the 

Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a religious entity established 

under divine law. 

83. In Shariah-based Islam’s view, the world and mankind are divided into two irreconcilable 

groups: Dar Al Islam, the house of Islam, which is made up of adherents to Islam and where 

Islamic law rules; and Dar Al Harb, the house of war, which is made up of nonadherents and 

where “infidels” (known as kuffars, or nonbelievers) live. Included among the “infidels” are 

Christians and Jews. 

84. According to Shariah-based Islamic teaching, all people will one day accept Islam or 

submit to its rule. The Quran commands, “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to 

Allah.” (Quran 8:39). 

85. Jihad is another component of the theo-political doctrine of Shariah. It is considered a 

communal religious duty for all Muslims throughout the world. The Quran informs its followers 

that there is always a holy war being waged, and instructs them to participate. For example, the 

Quran sura 9:29 commands adherents of Islam to “fight against those who do not believe in God 
23

or the judgment day, who permit what God and his messenger have forbidden, and who refuse 

allegiance to the true faith.” This Quranic verse is codified as normative law among all extant 

schools of Islamic jurisprudence. 

86. The objective of jihad is not only to convert people to Islam, but also to gain political 

control and exercise Islamic authority over a population so that society lives and abides by the 

principles of Islam—that is, so that society ultimately becomes Shariah compliant. 

C. AIG’s Shariah Authority. 

87. Compliance with Shariah with regard to war, politics, or financial matters is achieved by 

having a Shariah authority issue a fatwa or legal ruling which mandates a certain behavior or in 

the case of Shariah-compliant finance, approves the particular investment or type of financial 

transaction. 

88. The role of the Shariah authorities is central to all Shariah adherents. As explained by 

Professors Frank Vogel and Samuel Hayes, two of the leading experts and proponents of 

Shariah-compliant finance: 

Islamic legal rules encompass both ethics and law, this world and the next, church 

and state. The law does not separate rules enforced by individual conscience from 

rules enforced by a judge or by the state. Since scholars alone are capable of 

knowing the law directly from revelation, laypeople are expected to seek an 

opinion (fatwa) from a qualified scholar on any point in doubt; if they follow that 

opinion sincerely, they are blameless even if the opinion is in error. 

89. With the aid of public funds provided by the Act, AIG employs a “Shariah Supervisory 

Committee,” which is comprised of the following members: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from 

Bahrain, Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf 

Usmani from Pakistan. Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi 

Usmani, who is the leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world and the 
24

author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to 

explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or 

government. 

90. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review our operations, supervise 

its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and 

our investments.” 

D. AIG’s Compliance with Shariah Law. 

91. Shariah compliance in financing is achieved by the avoidance of interest, risk (typically 

understood as uncertainty or speculation), and certain types of prohibited industries (relating to 

activities considered haram or “forbidden,” such as the pork and alcohol-beverage industries, 

pornography, gambling, interest-based financing, and industries supporting the United States 

military). According to AIG, its Shariah-compliant subsidiary does not enter into any financial 

transaction that is “unIslamic.” 

92. Shariah compliance also includes a focus on “purification,” which has two separate 

elements. One element of this “purification” is a form of obligatory charitable contribution 

called zakat, which is considered a spiritual purification. Zakah (sometimes referred to as zakat), 

which literally means purification, is a form of religious tax for assisting, inter alia, those that 

“struggle [jihad] for Allah.” The amount is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source 

of the wealth. 

93. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities,” some of which 

have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels,” 

which includes Christians and Jews. The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, 
25

recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example 

of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. A Catholic charity, however, is not 

qualified to receive this religious tax because Catholicism is considered kufr or idol worship, 

which is a far more serious “crime” under Islamic law than even pornography. 

94. As a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended by the Act to 

purchase and financially support AIG, the United States government is now the owner of a 

corporation engaged in religious indoctrination and in the business of collecting religious taxes 

to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels” under 

Islamic law. 

95. The other “purification” element is the purification of a Shariah-compliant investment or 

financial transaction that has been tainted with forbidden revenue, whether from interest, illicit 

speculation, or a forbidden commercial enterprise, such as the pork industry or an industry that 

supports the United States military. In this latter meaning of “purification,” the forbidden funds 

must be disgorged by donating the money to an acceptable Islamic “charity,” but this charitable 

donation will not count toward a Muslim investor’s zakat requirement. Acceptable Islamic 

“charities” necessarily exclude any Christian or Jewish charity. 

96. Shariah compliance requires strict adherence to Islamic law; it is not “moderate” in its 

application of the dictates of Islam as set forth in the Quran and the Sunna. 

V. Defendants’ Promotion and Support of Shariah-Compliant Financing. 

97. In addition to the government funding and owning of AIG through the appropriation and 

expenditure of taxpayer funds, Defendant Geithner has adopted on behalf of the United States 

government a broad policy and practice of approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and 
26

supporting Shariah-compliant finance. This policy and practice has been adopted by the Fed, 

and it was implemented through the federal government’s ownership of AIG. 

98. In November 2008, then Secretary of the Treasury Paulson sponsored on behalf of the 

federal government a “forum” for the staffs from U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress, 

the U.S. Department of Treasury, and other parts of the Executive Branch. This governmental 

forum was conducted in association with the Islamic Finance Project from Harvard Law School 

and was directed toward government policy makers. The forum, entitled “Islamic Finance 101,” 

was a government approval, endorsement, and promotion of Shariah-compliant financing and 

thus a government endorsement of the Islamic religion and its beliefs. 

99. This policy and practice of approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and supporting 

Shariah-compliant finance is applicable throughout the United States government and its 

agencies. 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(First Amendment—Establishment Clause) 

100. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all above-stated paragraphs. 

101. By reason of the aforementioned Act, which was enacted by the United States Congress 

pursuant to Congress’ taxing and spending power, Congress appropriated taxpayer money and 

authorized Defendant Geithner to expend, to date, $70 billion of this money to directly fund and 

financially support the government’s majority ownership interest in AIG and to directly fund and 

financially support Islamic religious activities and indoctrination. As a direct consequence of the 

Act, Defendant Geithner has authorized the use of taxpayer money to fund Islamic religious 

activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American. The use of these taxpayer 
27

funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund Islamic religious activities and practices 

that are hostile to Christians, Jews, and other “infidels” violates the Establishment Clause of the 

First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

102. Defendants’ policy and practice of approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and 

supporting Shariah-compliant finance as set forth in this First Amended Complaint violates the 

Establishment Clause. 

103. The United States government’s ownership interest in and control of AIG, which includes 

AIG’s Takaful insurance, a pervasively sectarian business that engages in Islamic religious 

activities and indoctrination, violates the Establishment Clause. 

104. The use of taxpayer money to directly fund and financially support AIG’s Takaful 

insurance, a pervasively sectarian business, violates the Establishment Clause. 

105. The appropriation and expenditure of taxpayer funds to AIG pursuant to the Act and the 

policies and practices of Defendants with regard to Shariah-compliant finance as set forth in this 

First Amended Complaint send a message to Plaintiff, who is a non-adherent to Islam, that he is 

an outsider, not a full member of the political community, and an accompanying message to 

those who are adherents to Islam that they are insiders, favored members of the political 

community in violation of the Establishment Clause. 

106. The appropriation and expenditure of taxpayer funds to AIG pursuant to the Act and the 

policies and practices of Defendants with regard to Shariah-compliant finance as set forth in this 

First Amended Complaint lack a valid secular purpose, have as their primary effect the 

advancement of the Islamic religion, and require excessive entanglement between the federal 

government and the Islamic religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. 
28

107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Establishment Clause of 

the First Amendment, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of his 

constitutional rights, entitling him to declaratory and injunctive relief. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court: 

A) to declare that Defendants violated the Establishment Clause of the First 

Amendment to the United States Constitution as set forth in this First Amended Complaint; 

B) to declare that Congress’ disbursement of public funds to AIG pursuant to the Act 

violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as 

set forth in this First Amended Complaint; 

C) to declare that Defendants’ policy and practice of approving, endorsing, 

promoting, funding, and supporting Shariah-compliant finance violates the Establishment Clause 

of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as set forth in this First Amended 

Complaint; 

D) to declare that the United States government’s majority ownership interest in and 

control of AIG violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution as set forth in this First Amended Complaint; 

E) to permanently enjoin the improper disbursement of public funds to AIG as set 

forth in this First Amended Complaint; 

F) to permanently enjoin Defendants’ policy and practice of approving, endorsing, 

promoting, funding, and supporting Shariah-compliant finance as set forth in this First Amended 

Complaint; 
29

G) to permanently enjoin the United States government’s improper ownership 

interests in and control of AIG as set forth in this First Amended Complaint; 

H) to award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2412 (the Equal Access to Justice Act), and other applicable law; 

I) to grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER 

/s/ Robert J. Muise

Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849) 

 

 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YERUSHALMI 

 /s/ David Yerushalmi

David Yerushalmi, Esq. (Ariz. Bar No. 009616; DC Bar No. 

978179; Cal. Bar No. 132011; NY Bar No. 4632568) 
30

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on February 8, 2010, a copy of the foregoing FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom 

counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties 

may access this filing through the Court’s system. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing 

has been served by ordinary U.S. mail upon all parties for whom counsel has not yet entered an 

appearance electronically: None. 

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER 

/s/ Robert J. Muise

Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)