7/23/16  Keep scrolling down to find the 29 pages of this suit.  Can't put everything right at the top, but you are in the right place to find it.

Here are a few direct links to info about the Kennesaw mosque:

http://www.masjidsuffah.com/

https://www.facebook.com/KennesawMasjid

http://masjidsuffah.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Admissions-Form-2015.pdf 

https://www.salatomatic.com/spc/Kennesaw/Masjid-Suffah/kdhDmNaEzy

https://www.coursehero.com/file/18376865/Islam/

https://suffadawa.blogspot.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------

Davey Crockett

10/16/15 · 

AFTER ALL THE NONSENSE WITH THE SUFFA DAWAT MOSQUE HERE IS ANOTHER ONE OPENING UP. HOPE IT IS A DIFFERENT BUNCH RUNNING THIS ONE FROM THOSE LIARS AT THE JILES RD MOSQUE!

New mosque in the works for west Cobb

by Meris Lutz October 16, 2015 Special to the MDJ

WEST COBB — When Amjad Taufique first moved to Cobb from Houston, the entire observant Muslim population of the county could fit in the small office they rented for prayer services.

More than 25 years later, the community is preparing to celebrate the opening of the first mosque constructed in Cobb County.

There are five mosques already throughout the county, but all of them are in repurposed buildings, said Taufique, an active community leader who owns a repair management company.

Named Masjid Al Furqan, the about 45,000-square-foot mosque off Barrett Parkway, not far from the intersection with Dallas Highway, is expected to open early next year.

“The county is growing,” said Taufique. “It’s a good place to live, good for businesses. We’ve got a lot of Muslims who have businesses around here, doctors, we have a lot of them, so that kind of attracts a crowd.”

Fadi Ali, a management consultant who moved to Cobb County from Florida with his wife, a surgeon, and children two years ago, recently bought a house near the new mosque in order to attend prayers there.

Ali said being able to build a place of worship from the ground up is significant for the Muslim community.

“I think it makes a huge difference,” he said. “This is significant especially for me because I can take my children, my wife, my extended family and show them how we put this window here and that there.”

Ali also said it was important to him that the mosque be a resource not just for Muslims, but for the entire Cobb community, and talked about offering classes and activities.

When finished, Al Furqan will occupy a six-acre site that includes two existing houses, one of which will become administrative offices and the other will be available as the residence for the imam, who leads the congregation in prayer. The grounds will be encircled by a landscaped buffer and walking trail, which Taufique said would be open to the public.

The mosque is being built with funds donated by the community and is expected to serve a congregation of up to 300 people. Construction is estimated to cost $1.2 million, Taufique said, adding that the building was designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood, with a few nods to Islamic architecture, such as arches in the entranceway.

The property was previously owned by a church and already zoned to allow a religious institution.

“We are going to stick to the code like nobody ever did,” said Taufique. “We know where we are, we know our position.”

Taufique is hoping Al Furqan will be open for services by February or March of next year, and encouraged members of the public who were curious to reach out to arrange a tour.

“We would love for our neighbors to say, ‘Hey I just want to stop by,’” he said.

Construction of the mosque follows on the heels of a heated confrontation in Kennesaw in December that saw protests over a proposed storefront prayer hall in a shopping center. The Kennesaw City Council eventually reversed its vote not to allow the prayer hall after being threatened with legal action.

By contrast, both Ali and Taufique said they were not aware of any negative responses to the new mosque in west Cobb. In fact, they said, all of the neighbors have been very welcoming.

A handful of people have expressed alarm to the local county commissioner, Bob Weatherford, however.

Weatherford said he has received calls from “five or 10” constituents who called to complain.

“You get some that are far out there,” Weatherford said. “I don’t discriminate based on anything as long as it’s legal.”

He went on to say he supported freedom of worship as long as it did not infringe on the rights of others and it was done “peacefully.”

“My opinion of that particular religion is that they have a propensity not to be peaceful,” Weatherford said, adding he was speaking in general terms and not about the Muslim community of Cobb County.

Ali said he was not concerned about the kind of anti-Muslim sentiment that was on display in Kennesaw last year, where protesters held signs that read “ban Islam” and “Islam wants no peace.”

“I believe in our justice system and elected officials,” Ali said.

As a community leader, Taufique has often found himself in the role of ambassador of his faith, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Several years after the attacks, he recalled reading an article about a young Muslim couple who were interrogated by the FBI after their neighbors reported “suspicious” behavior, which, it turned out, included fixing their washing machine and cooking biryani, a popular South Asian and Middle Eastern rice dish.

“It made me start to think that the neighbors really don’t even know you. They’re just scared (for) no reason, so what can we do to change that?” he asked.

Taufique decided to invite his entire neighborhood association, representing more than 140 houses, to an open house at his home.

“We said, ‘Hey, we understand maybe you guys are a little concerned about who we are, what we are, so come in and see,’” he said.

About 100 neighbors showed up, many of them meeting for the first time in Taufique’s home.

Taufique calls the extra efforts made by Muslims to assuage their neighbors’ fears “the price we pay,” and takes it in stride. Since 9/11, he has built strong connections with local Jewish, Christian and other religious leaders and helps organize an annual interfaith Thanksgiving dinner.

“I built up good relationships with many people after that just because they called and we had lunch together,” he said. “It’s a process of education that we have to really put out there for the community to see who we are.

 my Facebook posts at: 

 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008587503434

--------------------------------------------------------------

8/27/15

Welcome to the new Kennesaw Mosque, a new one costing $800,000 is coming.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5/23/15

The only sign of the Suffa Dawat Mosque at the strip mall are 2 small signs on the 2 doors to the Mosque.

They read:   'besm ellah alrahman alraheem' which translates to:  'in the name of God the most gracious most merciful', it's a phrase Muslim say when they start something.

FROM:   http://suffadawa.blogspot.com/

CITY PAYS SUFFA DAWAT $18,000 TO SETTLE MOSQUE CIVIL SUIT

Finally the City has put up the minutes of this meeting and confirms that the storefront Mosque has cost the taxpayers $18K.

If the City had not previously approved a relegious usage for another store front they would have been on firm ground in their denial of the usage to the Mosque as the zoning in that center was incorrect for the usage, BUT, once you allow one group a variance you cant then deny the next group the same usage.

The matter was lost before it began and the City Attorney Mr Bentley, Planning and Zoning Admin Mr Simmons, the mayor and Council should have known this before hand. Very sloppy workmanship on the part of all involved at City. They made the whole City look foolish plus costing us 18K of our tax dollars!

MINUTES OF MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF KENNESAW

Council Chambers

Monday, February 16, 2015 6:30 p.m.

XXI. EXECUTIVE SESSION-Land, Legal, Personnel

A. Pursuant to the provisions of O.C.G.A. §50-14-3, the City Council could, at any time during the meeting, vote to close the public meeting and move to executive session to discuss matters relating to litigation, legal actions and/or communications from the City Attorney; and/or personnel matters; and/or real estate matters.

Motion by Councilmember Williams to enter into Executive Session as allowed by O.C.G.A. Sec. 50-14-3 for the purpose of discussing legal, motion seconded by Councilmember Sebastian. Vote taken, approved unanimously, 5-0. Motion carried.

6:55 pm Recess to Executive Session

Mayor, City Council, City Attorney Bentley, City Clerk and Assistant City Manager attended Executive Session.

7:27 pm Reconvene to Open Session

Councilmember Williams read the Board back into Open Session and directed the Mayor and City Council to execute an affidavit in compliance with O.C.G.A. Sec. 50-14-4, motion seconded by Councilmember Welsh. Vote taken, approved unanimously, 5-0. Motion carried.

Motion by Councilmember Welsh to authorize the City Attorney to proceed with the settlement of the pending lawsuit by the Suffa Dawat Center, not to exceed $18,000, and authorize the Mayor to execute any related documents, motion seconded by Councilmember Sebastian. 

Vote taken, approved unanimously, 5-0. Motion carried.

XXII. ADJOURN

More info on this topic at: http://suffadawa.blogspot.com/

Suffa Dawat Center Issue

Kennesaw Georgia is located about 20 miles NW of Atlanta, in Cobb County. In November 2014 a small group of Muslims wanted a Mosque to be added to a retail strip center. The City said 'No' as the zoning was for general business. Here are...

SUFFADAWA.BLOGSPOT.COM

Like · Comment · Share

3/15/15

  Kennesaw Suit is Now Dismissed

NOTE: 1)  The City Council Sessions of March 2nd and Feb. 16 are now available online, they run 23 and 29 minutes. The only interesting item is that at min. 28 of the 2/16 meeting it seems that the City will be paying the Suffa Dawat Mosque $18,000 in settlement.

The agenda minutes for this date are not published yet. Sounds to me like the City got screwed out of 18K. The suit by them against the City was dismissed, presumably this is their legal costs that we are paying.

Keep up with this at: http://suffadawa.blogspot.com/ and http://suffadawatsuit.blogspot.com/

2)  The 34 pages of this Civil Suit can be found at:  http://suffadawatsuit.blogspot.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/14/15

While the Suffa Dawat Mosque may end up dismissing the Civil Suit 'if' the City Council action to change their vote on the store front Mosque stands, it is still alive in Federal Court and as of 1/14/15 a 60 day extension for the City to file a reply has been put in place. 

The deadline to reply is now March 9, 2015.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1/14/15

Avec mon nouvel iphone5 ecran 4 pouces on voit parfaitement qu'ils ont offense le prophete.

With my new iphone5 4 inch screen it is perfect to see that they have offended the prophet.

To see other cartoons go to:

http://search.aol.com/aol/image?q=Charlie+Hebdo+cartoons+

===============================================

"All is forgiven"

   

If Muhammad was returning

In a recent issue, Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon depicting a member of the Islamic State group beheading Muhammad.


Text:  If Muhammad was returning

"I am the prophet fool!

fuck, unfaithful!"

See full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html

je suis charlie

Click on above link:  La Marseillaise

Additional information on this issue is found at:  http://suffadawa.blogspot.com/


SUMMARY:  WHAT DOES THE MOSQUE WANT IN THEIR CIVIL SUIT?

(a) That this Court find the Defendant’s action constitute a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000cc; the United States Constitution; and the Georgia Constitution;

(b) That this Court declare and find that the denial of the Application
violates the Center’s constitutional rights of substantive due process, proceduraldue process, and freedom of religion, speech and association;

(c) That this Court declare and find that the Application should have been granted and that the Center is entitled to use the Property as requested;

(d) That this Court declare that Plaintiff has a clear legal right to approval of the Application as requested;

(e) That a writ of mandamus issue ordering Defendant to approve the
application as requested;

(f) That Plaintiff recover attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in this
matter; and

(g) That Plaintiff has any and all further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances and evidence presented.




SUFFA DAWAT SUIT AGAINST KENNESAW

One of the main arguments being used by the Mosque lawyers is a law referred to as RLUIPA, if you want into you can take a look at the 10 page summary put out by the DOJ titled "Statement of the Department of Justice on the Land-Use Provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)"

This is found at: 
http://www.justice.gov/crt/rluipa_q_a_9-22-10.pdf you might want to book mark it for future reference.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

Suffa Dawat Center, Inc., a non-profit corporation
Plaintiff,

v.

City of Kennesaw, Georgia, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Georgia
Defendant.

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Suffa Dawat Center, Inc., and files this Complaint showing the Court as follows:

1.
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable laws of the State of Georgia.  Plaintiff also seeks costs and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

2.
The City of Kennesaw unlawfully implemented a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden upon the rights of Plaintiff and its members to the free exercise of religion that are not the least restrictive means available to the City to protect its asserted governmental interest. Requiring churches and religious institutions to file a special use permit violates the equal terms provision of RLUIPA. In so doing, the City imposed land use regulations that unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions and structures within the City and has discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of its religious denomination.

Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

3.
Plaintiff, Suffa Dawat Center, Inc. (the “Center”) is a Georgia non-profit corporation with its principal office within the municipal limits of the City of Kennesaw, Georgia.

4.
The City of Kennesaw, Georgia, is a Georgia municipality located within Cobb County, Georgia, with its principal office (City Hall) located at 2529 J.O. Stephenson Avenue, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144. It is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court and may be served by delivery of summons and complaint to Mayor Mark Matthews at City Hall.

5.
Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. All parties are located within this district. All events giving rise to this action ccurred in this district.

6.
This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over the Center’s claims of violations of RLUIPA, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the claims regarding the deprivation under color of State law of rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

7.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Factual Allegations

8.
The Center is comprised of a small group of people who desire to have a place of religious worship at property located at 2750 Jiles Road, Suite #109, Kennesaw, Georgia (“Property”).

9.
The Center selected this location, in large part, due to the location of its members and the lack of a worship center in the general proximity.

10.
The Property is approximately 2,200 square feet of unoccupied space within a shopping center.

11.
The Property is currently zoned Highway General Business (HGB).

12.
For a permanent location of “churches, chapels, temples, synagogues, and other places of worship” in the HGB zoning, a special exception must be obtained.

13.
The HGB zoning district permits “clubs and lodges (noncommercial),”
“assembly halls,” and “cultural facilities (private)” in the HGB zoning district as a matter of right, without requiring a special exception.

14.
The City allows churches, chapels, temples, synagogues, and other places of worship to temporarily use certain property for religious worship while searching for a permanent place of worship.

15.
The temporary use is authorized through application and approval of a land use permit.

16.
The land use permit for a temporary worship location is generally limited to two years in duration.

17.
In the last two years, the City approved land use permits for at least three religious worship locations in Kennesaw.

18.
The Center submitted a land use permit application to the City requesting a permit to allow members to worship at the Property, LU2014-04 (the “Application”).

19.
The City’s Unified Development Code has twelve (12) criteria that are used to evaluate a land use permit application, including:

• Safety, health, welfare, and moral concerns involving the surrounding
neighborhoods.
• Parking and traffic considerations.
• Number of non-related employees.
• Number of commercial and business deliveries.
• The City’s general presumption that residential neighborhoods should not allow non-compatible business uses.
• Compatibility of the business use to the neighborhood.
• Hours of operation.
• Existing business uses in the vicinity.
• Effect on property value of surrounding property.
• Circumstances surrounding neighborhood complaints.
• Intensity of the proposed business use.
• Location of use within the neighborhood.

20.
The City’s Planning and Zoning Administrator, Darryl Simmons, evaluated the Center’s requested land use permit under the twelve (12) requisite criteria.

21.
Mr. Simmons recommended approval of the Permit for twenty-four (24) months with the stipulation that the property owner “address any current safety issues such as lighting and allocated parking for existing tenants with city staff prior to the issuance of CO’s or permits for any suite improvements.”

22.
On November 5, 2014, the City’s Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Application.

23.
The Planning Commission voted to approve the Application.

24.
At the Planning Commission, there was opposition to the Application.

25.
The people opposing the Application focused their opposition around the religion of Islam.

26.
On November 17, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing on the Application.

27.
Again, the opposition to the Application targeted their opposition toward the religion of Islam, not the land use criteria.

28.
After the public hearing was closed, City Council voted to defer the Application to the December 1, 2014 City Council meeting.

29.
The City Council requested the Center’s representatives meet with residents opposing the Application.

30.
On November 24, 2014, a public meeting took place.

31.
On December 1, 2014, the City Council considered the Application at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

32.
The City Council voted 4-1 to deny the Application.

33.
At the City Council December 15th meeting, the four members of City Council who voted to deny the Application each moved for unanimous consent of the City Council to change their votes from a denial to approval of the Application without conditions.

34.
The Center exhausted all administrative remedies available as a result of the City’s imposition of a land use regulation that, as applied to the Center, unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions and structures within the City of Kennesaw.

35.
As a result of the City’s actions, the Center has been damaged irreparably and does not have an adequate remedy at law.

36.
As a result of the City’s action, the Center has been forced to engage the services of the undersigned attorneys to represent its interests.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND

INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(Substantial Burdens)

37.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

38.
The City deprived and continues to deprive the Center of its right to the free exercise of religion as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (a), by imposing and implementing a land use regulation that substantially burdens the Center’s religious exercise.

39.
The City arbitrarily and unfairly applied the City’s Unified Development Code to prohibit the Center from using the Property to meet the religious needs of its congregation.

40.
Without a location for religious practice, prayer, education, and fellowship, the Center's ability to practice its religion has been unduly limited.

41.
The denial of the Application constitutes an individualized assessment by the City of the proposed use of the Property.

42.
Denial of the Application imposes a burden, which is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.

43.
The Center is entitled to a declaration that denial of the Application is a substantial burden to the free exercise of the Center’s religion, is not justified by a compelling government interest, and is in violation of the RLUIPA.

44.
The Center is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the City from enforcing any limitation upon the Center’s use of the Property for religious uses and requiring the City to take whatever actions necessary to permit the Center to undertake such use.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND

INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT

42 U.S.C. 5 2000cc(b) (Equal Terms and Discrimination)

45.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

46.
The Unified Development Code, as applied to the Center, treats this religious organization and institution on less than equal terms with non-religious assemblies and institutions in the City in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1).

47.
Defendant’s conduct was prompted or substantially caused by the Center’s religious exercise in attempting to open a place of worship at the Property and was clearly influenced by the level of sectarian opposition to the Center in Kennesaw.

48.
Defendant deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff of its right to be free from religious discrimination as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (b)(2) by implementing a land use regulation in a manner that discriminates on the basis of religion.

49.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application constitutes discrimination against the Center on the basis of religion.

50.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's expansion for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND

INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3) (Limitations and Exclusions)

51.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

52.
Defendant deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff of its free exercise of religion as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (b)(3) by imposing and implementing a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions and structures within the City of Kennesaw.

53.
Defendant had no constitutionally reasonable basis for their refusal to approve the Application as requested.

54.
The imposition of a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious assemblies within the City of Kennesaw constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act with no rational basis therefor.

55.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that denial of the Application, as requested, unconstitutionally limits and excludes Plaintiff's free exercise of religion.

56.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's use of the Property for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Free Exercise of Religion)

57.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

58.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. CONST. Amend. 1.

59.
The City, acting by and through the Council, has deprived and continues to deprive the Center of its right to free exercise of religion as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by discriminating against Plaintiff because of the Center's religious character and by substantially burdening the Center's right to freely exercise its religious faith.

60.
Without a location for religious practice, ministry, education, and fellowship, the Center's ability to practice its religion is seriously limited. The ability to provide religious activity is fundamental to the Center's mission.

61.
Defendant made an individualized assessment of the proposed use for the Property involved when they denied Plaintiff's Application.

62.
Denial of the Application constitutes a burden on Plaintiff's religious exercise that is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.

63.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's use of the Property for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Establishment Clause)

64.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

65.
Defendant’s application of the Unified Development Code to the Center treats this religious organization and institution on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious assemblies and institutions in the City, thereby creating a denominational preference against the religion of Islam.

66.
Defendant’s conduct was prompted or substantially caused by Plaintiff's religious exercise and was clearly influenced by the level of opposition to the proposal based upon sectarian opposition to the presence of the Center in the City of Kennesaw.

67.
Defendant deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff of its right to be free from religious discrimination in violation of the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by implementing a land use regulation in a manner whose purpose and effect is to discriminate on the basis of religion.


68.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's use of the Property for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Freedom of Speech)

69.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

70.
Defendant deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff of its right to speak on matters of religion as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by discriminating against Plaintiff based on the religious nature of its expression and by inhibiting its right to freely and fully express its religious faith to its Muslim members and the community.

71.
Without a properly located facility with adequate space for religious practice, ministry, education and fellowship, the Center's ability to practice its Islamic religion and communicate its messages of faith and fellowship has been unduly limited.

72.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that denial of the Application is a
violation of its First Amendment right to free speech.

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Freedom of Assembly)

73.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

74.
Defendant deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff of its right to freely assemble for religious purposes as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by  prohibiting the Center members from assembling in an adequate place for the purposes of religious exercise.

75.
Without a properly located facility with adequate space for religious practice, ministry, education, and fellowship, the members' ability to assemble has been greatly burdened. The Center is unable to provide to its members the space to properly assemble and practice their religion as a result of Defendant’s refusal to approve the Application as requested.

76.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application by the City is a violation of its First Amendment right to freedom of assembly.

77.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's use of the Property for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT VIII

VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Equal Protection)

78.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

79.
Defendant deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff of its right to equal protection of the laws as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by unlawfully discriminating against the Center in the application of the City Code on the basis of religious status and on the basis of Plaintiff's exercise of its fundamental rights to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly.

80.
Denial of the Application is unconstitutional in that it imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the Plaintiff. Defendant has not demonstrated that imposition of that burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

81.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application by the City is a violation of the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.

82.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's use of the Property for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT IX

VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Substantive and Procedural Due Process)

83.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

84.
Defendant deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff of its right to due process of the laws as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by unlawfully depriving Plaintiff of its right under the City's Unified Development Code to a use permit.

85.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's use of the Property for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT X

VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT

TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

86.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

87.
Defendant’s denial of the Application as requested constitutes a taking by the City of the Center's private rights without payment of just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by unlawfully discriminating against the Center in the application of the City Code on the basis of religious status and on the basis of Plaintiff's exercise of its fundamental rights to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly.

88.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's use of the Property for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT XI

STATE LAW CLAIMS

89.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

90.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application limitations by the City is unreasonable and void and bears no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morality, or general welfare.

91.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant had no objective factual basis to deny the Application and, as such, Defendant violated Plaintiff's due process rights, which are protected by the Georgia Constitution Article I, § I,¶ 1.

92.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application by the City discriminates between the Center and other similarly situated individuals and institutions in violation of Plaintiff's right to equal protection under the Georgia Constitution Article I, § I, ¶ 2.

93.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application imposed on the Center by the City interferes with Plaintiff's right to exercise its religion in accordance with Plaintiff's freedom of conscience as secured by Article I, § I, ¶ 3 of the Georgia Constitution.

94.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application by the City interferes with Plaintiff's right to freedom of religion as secured by Article I, § I, ¶ 4 of the Georgia Constitution.

95.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application by the City interferes with Plaintiff's right to freedom of speech as secured by Article I, § I, ¶ 5 of the Georgia Constitution.

96.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application by the City interferes with Plaintiff's right to assemble as secured by Article I, § I, ¶ 9 of the Georgia Constitution.

97.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of the Application by the City interferes with and damages Plaintiff's property rights without just and adequate compensation first being paid, as provided by Article I, § 3, ¶ 1 of the Georgia Constitution.

COUNT XII

MANDAMUS

98.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

99.
A defect of legal justice would ensue if mandamus is not issued ordering Defendants to approve Plaintiff's Application.

100.
A defect of legal justice would ensue if mandamus is not issued and Plaintiff has no other specific legal remedy.

COUNT XIII

INJUNCTION

101.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

102.
Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing any limitation upon Plaintiff's use of the Property for religious uses, and requiring Defendant to take whatever actions necessary to permit Plaintiff to undertake such use.

COUNT XIV

ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS OF LITIGATION

103.
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 102 above.

104.
Plaintiff is entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs herein as secured by 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

RELIEF

105.
This action has been necessitated by Defendants' denial of the Application and by Defendants' failure to comply with the Georgia and United States Constitutions and the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of its attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-2(a).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:
(a) That this Court find the Defendant’s action constitute a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000cc; the United States Constitution; and the Georgia Constitution;

(b) That this Court declare and find that the denial of the Application violates the Center’s constitutional rights of substantive due process, procedural due process, and freedom of religion, speech and association;

(c) That this Court declare and find that the Application should have been granted and that the Center is entitled to use the Property as requested;

(d) That this Court declare that Plaintiff has a clear legal right to approval of the Application as requested;

(e) That a writ of mandamus issue ordering Defendant to approve the application as requested;

(f) That Plaintiff recover attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in this matter; and (g) That Plaintiff has any and all further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances and evidence presented.

Submitted this 30th day of December 2014.

WEISSMAN, NOWACK, CURRY & WILCO, P.C.

/s/ Julie L. Sellers

G. Douglas Dillard

State Bar of Georgia No. 221900

Julie L. Sellers

State Bar of Georgia No. 984708

Attorneys for Plaintiff
One Alliance Center, 4th Floor
3500 Lenox Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
404.926-4588 | F 4788
juliesellers@wncwlaw.com