Minnesotans are familiar with the perils of “snow blindness,” a temporary blindness caused by overexposure to ultraviolet rays from the reflection from snow and ice. It appears that Minnesota politicians and prosecutors have a type of mob blindness, where they cannot see crimes committed in front of them by the far left. That condition appears to be tragically evident in St. Paul, where City Attorney Irene Kao made an absurd denial of any criminal activity at the demonstration in the City Church on Jan. 18th. While claiming that there were no observable crimes, Kao’s decision just happened to be enormously popular with the mob-driven politics and polling in her state.
In January, dozens of anti-ICE protesters, and former CNN journalist Don Lemon, descended upon the church and disrupted a mass because a church official had connections to ICE.
The demonstrators could have been charged with such offenses as disorderly conduct, interfering with a religious observance, knowingly participating in a noisy assembly and making or continuing a disturbing or excessive noise.
There was a demonstrator who was able to get her misdemeanor charges dismissed earlier. However, Emily Phillips was arrested for her conduct outside of the church and actually responded to police demands that she stop using her bullhorn.
Her case is a good point of comparison. Protesting outside is vastly different from entering a church or event to disrupt it or shout down speakers.
These demonstrators entered a church, refused to leave when told to do so, and abused parishioners while stopping the services.
Kao offers little more than a shrug: “Following a careful evaluation of the video footage, investigative reports, and other available materials, prosecutors determined that the current evidence is insufficient to meet that standard for criminal charges under Minnesota state statutes.”
There are 39 people still charged by the federal government under the FACE Act.
Kao insisted, “The right to peacefully protest is protected, as is the right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. Balancing these equally important rights is paramount to our decision today.”
This is not protected free speech. It is conduct. Indeed, it is criminal conduct.
While Kao stressed that there was no property damage, it is not required under these criminal charges.
What is missing is not the basis for criminal charges but the will to prosecute them. Once again, Democratic politicians are yielding to the mob and refusing to see the criminal conduct.
It is reminiscent of CNN national correspondent Omar Jimenez reporting live from Kenosha, Wis., with a raging fire in the background over a chyron reading, “FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING.”
These politicians and state prosecutors hope to ride this rage wave back into power in Congress and the White House. Indeed, some have told voters to “let your rage fuel you.”
We have seen this pattern before in history. Establishment figures often try to harness the rage of the mob, only to be ultimately consumed by the rage themselves.
Irene Kao’s decision is a cynical concession to the mob. It is a decision that will give the Minnesota mob a further sense of license.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling books “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Isn’t this conduct an “insurrection” if we apply J6 legal standards. Throw them in jail for the rest of their lives.
Leftists are mentally-deranged monsters. That goes for the deranged Marxist church disruptors, and the woke prosecutor who doesn’t prosecute.
Wokeness is an agent of death. It is a cancer that kills the body. Yesterday PT wrote about wokeness killing academia, today it’s killing the rule of law.
Imagine that. Leftists committing criminal actions and conduct and Democrat DAs giving them cover. Kinda like leftist judges letting criminal out of jail only for the criminals to go an commit even more crime or Democrat letting in millions of criminal illegals who then commit crimes like rape and murder.
Cover? How about actually applying the law. Minnesota law and prosecutorial rules apply.
I guess as long as you include the words “leftist” and “activist judge” it’s automatically an injustice.
Your paranoia is hilarious.
Is it paranoia if it is a fact?
Horrid video of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska’s slaughter on Charlotte train is met with deafening silence from Dem leaders, media
“Liberal media and politicians have been accused of staying silent on the savage murder of a young Ukrainian refugee on a North Carolina train — after a career criminal with no fewer than 14 arrests was charged with her murder.
Iryna Zarutska, 23, was stabbed to death on a light rail train in Charlotte, with horrifying surveillance footage showing the moment the unsuspecting young woman was brutally attacked.”
https://nypost.com/2025/09/07/us-news/horror-video-of-ukrainian-refugee-iryna-zarutskas-slaughter-on-charlotte-train-is-met-with-deafening-silence/
Democrats hate women so much that they protested Iryna Zarutska’s image in a mural in Rhode Island, which then had to be erased. They favor violent murdering males over innocent female murder victims. They are, quite literally, demonic.
OldManFromKS,
Yeah, that one really was a head scratcher. And the owners of the bar that okayed the mural, gay.
They apparently hate Iryna Zarutska, an immigrant, all the more so because she immigrated legally.
After years of disparaging all maleness as “toxic masculinity,” Dems are not full-on embracing actual toxic masculinity, such as (a) the murder of an innocent young woman, and (b) a Nazi-tattooed creep who made a habit of sexting teenage girls while married.
Jewish Democrats seem to have no problem with the Nazi tattoo, because the guy is a Dem.
It’s all part of the Left’s two-tier system of injustice. The fury of both state and private actors for conservatives, immunity for people with the “correct” political beliefs.
So let’s do exactly the same thing Lemon and thugs did–only in a mosque and see what the lawfare corrupt judges say then.
Or as I mentioned below, do the same thing to a liberal mainline church celebrating the ordination of a gay priest and blessing same-sex marriages. We know how furious the authorities would be and how they would (correctly) charge the disruptors with a crime. Here, no crime was charged precisely because left-wing disruptors interfered with a worship service of a non-ultra-liberal church.
Yeah , because petty vindictiveness is more satisfying than acknowledging the law is not going to give you the results you want. Isn’t that ‘mob rule’?
You suggest disrupting a service out of spite, wow. So much for common sense and rule of law.
It is always amusing to see Turley shed fake tears over people getting away with crimes because Turley openly supports Trumps crimes.
Show us where the good professor has openly supported anything of Trump.
Show us the crimes Trump has committed.
Sally: Perhaps you can be so kind as to tell us exactly what Trump crimes Turley openly supports. You make a libelous assertion, back it up.
Looks like George/X is being paid today to spout his usual lies and ignorance. Remember people: every word out of his mouth is a lie. That is a rule to which I have yet to see an exception.
What are the lies? Point them out. I bet you can’t.
George, everything from your keyboard are lies and falsehoods. Proof you demand? Read your comments, that’s proof.
What specifically have I said today is a lie? Point it out. I’m sure you can since you keep saying they are lies. You’re the one accusing me. Prove what I posted today are lies.
What specifically have I said today is a lie? Everything George.
You can’t prove what you wrote is a fact. So, just prove your statements.
Yes you can. You didn’t even try? I know you know how to use google.
§ 248(a)(2): Prohibits the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of worship.
Where was the physical obstruction? Interruption is not the same as obstruction in the legal world.
And why are you defending yourself?
That you resort to the liars defense… The ‘prove me wrong argument’ is proof enough.
Because I can. You can’t show what I said today is a lie. You’re the one accusing me of lying without showing what specifically are the lies on this topic. It’s your accusation. Show us what the lies are.
You can’t produce them because you know they are not. If you can’t prove I posted lies on this topic how do you know they are? That would make YOU a liar.
your stupid and dishonest denial of https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.72/pdf
Nope. Did you read the WHOLE thing?
Did you notice the very bottom note?
“note:%20In%20State%20v.%20Hensel,%20901%20N.W.2d%20166%20(Minn%202017),%20subdivision%201,%20clause%20(2),%20was%20held%20unconstitutional%20under%20the%20First%20Amendment%20to%20the%20United%20States%20Constitution%20because%20it%20is%20substantially%20overbroad.%22
Because the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down Clause (2) as a violation of free speech, that specific law no longer exists. A prosecutor who tries to charge someone under Clause (2) for disrupting a church service would have the case immediately thrown out by a judge, because you cannot charge someone with a law that has been declared unconstitutional.
“(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or”
“Subd. 2. [Repealed, 1969 c 226 s 1]”
I’ll give you credit for trying though.
“NOTE: In State v. Hensel, 901 N.W.2d 166 (Minn 2017), subdivision 1, clause (2), was held
unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is substantially
overbroad.“
There it is.
The note applies to clause 2 but not clause 3, which also could apply in this case. Noisy conduct that reasonably causes anger or resentment.
X, you are just so smart! You know everything! You correct Turley on the law and the Constitution. You know everything about construction. You know everything about real estate. You know everything about building codes and maintenance. You know everything about rent. You know everything about college admissions. You know everything about college faculty. You know everything about everything!
You sound jealous. DaVinci was also a “know it all”. I’m not saying I’m comparing myself to him. But you seem more jealous about the idea that one can research and learn about many things even not being an expert.
Google is a big source of info. Perhaps you should try learning more instead of reacting from ignorance.
X, you are just so smart! You know everything! I feel so thrilled that you corrected me!
Well let’s just consider a hypothetical X. What if a service held in a black church was disrupted by racists. No violence happened. The service was just interrupted. According to your logic the right to religious peaceful assembly in this case would also not apply and the charges against the racists should be dropped. I understand. To hard for you to comprehend.
Thinkitthrough, If a group of racists entered a Black church in Minnesota and disrupted a service without committing physical violence or property damage, the state-level charging restrictions would not change. Local prosecutors would still be bound by the same constitutional limits, but the legal system would respond aggressively.
Because the hypothetical involves racial animus, federal prosecutors would also apply Federal Hate Crime Statutes (18 U.S.C. § 247 – Damage to Religious Property and Obstruction of Persons in the Free Exercise of Religious Rights).
The racists’ charges would not be “dropped.” They would be bypassed at the local misdemeanor level so the federal government could prosecute them for major federal civil rights violations if any were in evidence.
If the law requires physical violence for a specific charge, a prosecutor cannot invent a charge just because the speech was racist or offensive.
Filing a legally deficient state charge simply to satisfy public outrage—whether the victims are conservative Christians, progressive activists, or members of a historically Black church—is an ethical violation. A judge would immediately dismiss the case for lack of probable cause, wasting public resources.
It’s not hard to comprehend at all.
But X is so smart! Just the other day he schooled that John Say guy about real estate, building codes and maintenance despite John Say having owned real estate and being a landloard! Just look at all X comments today and how he corrected everyone!
I say we make a trade with Canada: Minnesota for Alberta. Alberta has way more oil, its citizens are eminently more sensible than the left-wing double hell hole of the Twin Cities. No enclaves would be created since Minnesota already borders Canada and Alberta already borders the US.
Besides, we would trade one NHL team for two, and level-up our Northwest Angle by orders of magnitude at the same time!
Fabulous idea!
We should insist they take Wisconsin and the north half of Illinois (and their debts and deficits) as part of the bargain.
Professor Turley is a lawyer. He wonders aloud why the Minnesota AG is not pressing charges because he believes the protesters were not exercising speech, because he deems their actions conduct. The problem, which he should know, is that even the conduct is not illegal. Minnesota law does not recognize the conduct that occurred at the church as criminal for a few simple reasons. There was no physical violence, vandalism, or obstruction. Being loud and interrupting a service is not a criminal offense.
Plus charging them would be redundant since the protesters were already being charged under the FACE act. Turley is using the fact that the evidence does not meet MN state law requirements to press charges to paint the AG as a ‘far left lackey’. Far from it. The AG is following state law.
Furthermore the professor didn’t mention the fact that the DOJ will have a real hard time proving the protesters violated the FACE act.
Under the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a vocal interruption of services is legally distinct from physical obstruction.
The FACE Act does not outlaw generalized disruptions, nor does it contain a catch-all “interruption of services” clause. Instead, the statute explicitly defines “physical obstruction” under 18 U.S.C. § 248(e)(4).
“ “…rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility […] or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.”
To prove obstruction, the government must show the defendants physically blocked people from moving into or out of the sanctuary, doorways, aisles, or parking lots.
An interruption involves auditory or visual interference—such as chanting, shouting down a speaker, or using bullhorns—which causes a service to halt. While an interruption violates church rules and local decorum, it does not automatically equal federal physical obstruction.
The FACE Act criminalizes “interference,” but defines it specifically as restricting a person’s freedom of movement. Loud chanting inside a room interrupts the service but does not physically trap people or stop them from walking away.
The demonstration happened during a scheduled service, the doors were unlocked and open. Protesters walked in through normal channels rather than forcing their way past a physical boundary.
Video evidence shows a chaotic, loud scene, but defense attorneys will argue that congregants were still physically capable of leaving or moving around the space. Without proof that passage was rendered “impassable” or “hazardous,” the statutory definition of obstruction is not met.
Turley is miffed because additional punishment was not added to the protesters and is accusing the MN AG of being lenient because she’s “ far left”. No. She is following the law AND exercising her legal discretion.
Re: “Professor Turley is a lawyer’….Absent the ‘physical’ it appears that the definition of verbal assault applies here as detailed in the link..You have not addressed that in your analysis. Surely that would have been appropriate. Fair and balanced, if you will. How does Minnesota law treat of same? https://www.google.com/search?q=verbal+assault+definition&oq=verbal+assautl&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgCEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEC4YDRiABDIJCAYQLhgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEJODc2NGowajE1qAIIsAIB8QUS2y35g6_U0A&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
ZZDoc, “Verbal assault” is not a recognized criminal charge in Minnesota, as state law requires an overt physical act and intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm to constitute assault, which political chanting does not meet. Under Minnesota statutes, aggressive speech or shouting is generally treated as protected, albeit disruptive, conduct rather than criminal assault.
It would be useful to know what you bring to the table in many of these exchanges. Are you admitted to the bar in Minnesota, or elsewhere for that matter, or merely the conveyor of thorough research combined with opinion?
I bring an opposing view through research/opinion and bring up valid points of view for discussion or contemplation.
Some accuse me of pretending to be a lawyer but I’ve never said I was or claimed to be one.
Professor Turley is a big proponent of free speech and healthy discourse involving different points of view or opposing ones.
Ah! Thank you for being candid. It is helpful for one to know upon what scale one should weigh your appearance of legal acumen. Adversaries in the law might argue the worth of pursing misdemeanor charges against offenders where the offenses do not rise to the level of criminal.
It’s a fair argument. However it all comes down to what the actual law requires. Since Minnesota law specifically requires physical confrontation and obstruction for charges, it would require evidence of such conduct. No evidence is present in the video. So would it be fair to conclude that charges are not legally sustainable under the law?
My wife, who practice personal injury law for 20 years, has viewed the videos and is of the opinion that physical confrontation and obstruction are certainly seen therein though physical contact may not be. The latter might be a factor of who was recording what, where, or when.
It is clear from the videos that when an individual is ‘ in your face’, standing in front of you, bodily confronting you with a video camera, shouting at you and recording at the same time, said behavior certainly can be construed and argued as confrontation and obstruction. An individual faced with such an experience could logically assume that the threat of imminent physical harm existed. It would require a citizen, so ill used and abused to bring an action in that regard to test the laws.
X says ” state law requires an overt physical act and intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm to constitute assault., Are you saying, X, that church service attendees, in the middle of a service, particularly the elderly and young members, knew in advance that the large group of people that disruptively BUSTED INTO the middle of the service, without warning, and who were personally unfamiliar to the church members, did not cause any alarm or fear of immediate bodily harm? You are so laughable in your efforts to tear down Turley and other lawyers.
To convict a protester of assault under Minnesota law, the prosecutor cannot merely show that the crowd was loud and intimidating. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific defendant acted with the explicit purpose of making a parishioner believe they were about to be physically struck, injured, or killed.
That did not happen.
Shouting political slogans (“ICE out of our city”) inside an open service—while incredibly disruptive, rude, and alarming—is legally classified as an exercise of abrasive political speech. Because the protesters’ stated and overt purpose was to disrupt a service and air a political grievance (not to execute or threaten physical battery), the legal element of intent to cause fear of bodily harm is completely missing.
The clause making it a crime to “disturb an assembly” was struck down as unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court (State v. Hensel).The clause targeting “noisy or offensive conduct” that causes alarm can only be applied to “fighting words” (direct invitations to a physical brawl).Therefore, while the protesters successfully caused “alarm,” Minnesota law explicitly blocks local prosecutors from weaponizing that alarm into a criminal conviction.
The clause making it a crime to “disturb an assembly” was struck down as unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court (State v. Hensel).
The clause targeting “noisy or offensive conduct” that causes alarm can only be applied to “fighting words” (direct invitations to a physical brawl).
Therefore, while the protesters successfully caused “alarm,” Minnesota law explicitly blocks local prosecutors from weaponizing that alarm into a criminal conviction.
Your emotional assumptions don’t trump actual law. It’s obvious you don’t have an argument. The evidence is not there to charge the protesters with what YOU think is a crime.
In Minnesota, disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor under Minnesota Statute 609.72 and includes brawling, disturbing lawful meetings, or using offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy language that alarms or angers others. Penalties can be up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine, with higher penalties for caregivers targeting vulnerable adults.
X: No doubt that you are familiar with the saying that a prosecutor can indict a “ham sandwich.” So too is the notion that a credible prosecutor should be able to come up with some colorable violation to punish this outrageous behavior. The lack of so doing is a gold plated invitation to other ne’er- do- wells to barge in on religious services and spread whatever is their rage of the day.
Tryingtoclarify!,
The phrase “a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich”—coined by former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler—applies exclusively to grand juries, not a local city attorney filing misdemeanor charges.
St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao is a municipal prosecutor who must file charges based on whether she can win a trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Misdemeanor charges do not use a grand jury, making the metaphor legally inapplicable here.
Prosecutors are bound by ethical codes and the Constitution. They cannot weaponize the legal system to stretch local statutes (like trespass or disorderly conduct) past their legal boundaries just because a group’s political chanting was deeply offensive.
Hope that…clarifies things for you.
X: Of course the ham sandwich was a reference to grand juries but – despite the imperfect analogy – the message was the same. That is, it is more likely than not that a good prosecutor could find something in the law to use against that outrageous behavior.
A good prosecutor knows the law cannot be made to fit the crime. The crime must fit the definition of the law says is a crime.
In this case the law is explicit in what constitutes obstruction and verbal assault. Neither apply to the conduct of the protesters.
X: While your opening paragraph is true, the facts of this case do not fit what you have expressed. There are applicable laws to cover what happened here. Note: Minn.Stat. 609.72 intentional disruption of a lawful gathering; Trespass; Interference with religious worship Minn Stat 609.28 for starters.
Given the video evidence, conviction should be a slam dunk unless you have a jury that thinks this type of behavior is acceptable.
This can be charged under federal law because the First Amendment guarantees FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!! Nowhere is there any right to disrupt peaceful religious services being held INSIDE A CHURCH! It sounds like this case will be moved to a federal court where, hopefully, constitutional justice WILL PREVAIL!
The Feds are already on it. Get out the popcorn!
Let me see. Trespass on private property (criminal). Refusing to leave when requested (criminal) and assault (criminal). Assault does not require that anybody or anything be touched or damaged. It is merely shouting at people in a threatening manner (criminal). All you have to do is watch the video and there were dozens of crimes committeed. You need to retake criminal law in law school.
Cities Church is a house of worship that was open to the general public for a scheduled Sunday mass. Protesters did not break into a locked, private area; they walked through open doors. Legally, they had an implied license to enter.
To prove criminal trespass for refusing to leave, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific individual was personally given a clear, lawful demand to leave by a person with authority, understood it, and willfully refused. Video showing a chaotic room with generalized, shouted commands to a crowd does not provide the individualized, specific intent evidence required to convict a single person in a criminal court.
For speech to elevate to an assault (or the closely related charge of terroristic threats), it must convey an immediate, credible threat of physical violence or death. Shouting political slogans (“ICE out of our communities”) or disrupting a service with noise is offensive and disruptive, but it does not legally constitute an intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm.
A prosecutor cannot charge a “mob.” They must charge individual human beings. A video showing a chaotic crowd making noise does not automatically identify which specific person committed which specific act, nor does it prove their individual mental state (mens rea).
Unlike Turley – I am not looking to make a huge deal of this. While there is some difference because this “protest” interfered with the rights of private individuals – it was NOT a protest against government and therefore the violation of the rights of others is significantly more serious.
However the NORM for those who are actually NON-VIOLENT but disorderly in protests against government is to arrest, charge and then dismiss the charges later.
That is what happened with the NON-VIOLENT protests at the WH in 2020. It iw what happened with non-violent BLM protestors.
It is what happened with all Kavanaugh protestors – including violent ones,
And it is what should have happened with J6 – but id not
Regardless – Turley is absolutely correct that this was conduct. Further it was a violation of the right of the people in that Church.
If you wish to protest Government – do so in public especially targeting those in government who CAN do something about what you wish.
Do NOT disrupt private individuals going about their lives.
A church is NOT public property – you are not welcome if you are not there to worship. You are not welcome if you are there to disrupt worship.
You are absolutely violating the rights of others BY FORCE and that is ALWAYS a crime.
While I MOSTLY do not have a problem with slaps on the wrist for non-violent protestors who are protesting Government in Public.
This is NOT that. these people deserve consequences – Most not draconian ones – but still consequences.
Further this encourages federal prosecutors and non left wing lunatic judges to slam the 39 charged under the FACE Act.
That would be wrong too. With few exceptions the people involved in this who do not have prior records should be charged and convicted and leniently sentenced.
Otherwise we will get more of this nonsense.
It is one thing to tolerate going over the line in a protest against Government when the rights of individuals are not violated
It is altogether different when you cross the line from interfering with government to interfering with the rights of individuals.
John Say states that the protesters were “violating the rights of others BY FORCE and that is ALWAYS a crime.” This is an incorrect definition of criminal force under both Minnesota and federal law.
To satisfy the legal definition of “force” or “coercion” in a criminal complaint, there must be an element of physical power, battery, or a localized threat of physical violence. None of that was present.
Because loud chanting inside an open public event is an auditory disruption rather than a physical deployment of force, local prosecutors lacked the statutory framework to charge a state-level violent crime.
John argues that dropping local charges is bad because it “encourages” federal prosecutors to “slam” the 39 defendants under the federal FACE Act, which he claims “would be wrong too.”
Yet, in the same breath, the he asserts that these people “deserve consequences” and should be “charged and convicted. Weird.
Also, the claim that “violent” Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation protesters had their charges dismissed is false. The overwhelming majority of the 2018 arrests were for non-violent civil disobedience (such as crowding, obstructing, or incommoding) under Washington, D.C. code. Those arrested paid a standard, non-refundable $50 “post-and-forfeit” fine, which is a form of resolving a charge through an administrative penalty, not an outright dismissal.
Also, the implication that peaceful January 6 defendants were uniquely targeted while other groups escaped prosecution ignores federal data. The Department of Justice systematically prioritized felony violence, destruction of government property, and conspiracy. Hundreds of J6 defendants who engaged in non-violent misdemeanor conduct (like parading or trespassing) received sentences consisting of probation, community service, or brief home confinement—consistent with federal guidelines for first-time offenders. He’s wrong on that as well.
Do you wish to claim that if there had been an equivalent disruption at a mosque, Minnesota AG Ellison wouldn’t have ordered a pre-dawn raid upon the demonstrators?
Doubt there are moslem ICE officers? A mob could invade Abrego Garcia’s catholic church in protest of illegal aliens, barring the doors of escape, also.
ICE is a job, work. They can’t live in that city, maybe state. Banned employment? Idk 😏.
Mob justice, don’t anger the mob.
“Redundant”?
Somebody needs to trad up on “dual sovereignty.”
X this is NOT a question of “beleif” – Was this an execercise of Free speech – Absolutely!
Was it also conduct that violated other peoples rights and was a crime – Absolutely!
You can not murder someone as part of a protest and use a free speech defense.
The right to free speech gives you that – the Right to speak – in public – not private property. Nor does it give you the right to violate the actual rights of others – such as their first amendment right to the free excercise of religion, nor their more consequential right to the beneficial use and control of their own property
A church is NOT a government fascility – While it is Open to the public – the Church does not shed its right to exclude people for any reason or their right to control the use of their property just because they have opened their doors.
And yes, Minesota Law absolutely recognizes this conduct as a crime. Maybe not an extremey serious one but still a crime.
AGain – the FACT that these people were engaged in Free Speech does NOT immunize their other conduct.
A church is NOT a government building, it is not public property – it is private property and you may not use force interfere with the right to use property however its owners wish.
No one “deemed” their actions conduct – they ARE. There are instances in which conduct is protected by the first amendment – conduct using FORCE is NEVER one of those.
” There was no physical violence”
There was pushing and shoving
There was physically resisting efforts to remove them – that is physical violence.
Even taking over a public building is physical violence. It may not be extreme physical violence – but it is still physical violence.
While the consequences for MOST of this conduct should be small – they are necescary.
Are you so much of an idiot that you actually beleive that you can interfere with the lives of other people particularly on their own property ?
Do you have the right to shut down a church because you do not like it ?
Do you have the right to deprive someone of the peaceful use of their home – because you do not like them ?
Turley is absolutely correct that Minnesota is blessing Mob Rule.
Was there vandalism – I beleive there was.
Was there obstruction – Absolutely. These people stopped worshippers from conducting their service in their church.
That is obstructing others in excercising their rights – both a general right and a specific first amendment right.
“Plus charging them would be redundant since the protesters were already being charged under the FACE act.”
Everyone was not charged under the FACE act – and while I interpret Double jeophardy far more broadly than the courts do,
I would agree that these people should face ONE set of charges and ONE trial for ONE array of conduct.
Still Our Courts – the Supreme Court have found otherwise.
The courts shredded double jeophardy when they allowed federal prosecutions of KKK members who were aquitted in the South
Most of us are also familiar with the Federal Prosecutions of the police who beat Rodney King after and an LA Jury let them off.
Ofc. Chauvin and his fellow offiers are rotting in jail under Federal and State convictions for the non-crime of being present when a drug addict overdosed.
All you succeed in here is raising the stakes and possible punishment in the Federal cases.
With the exception of the organizers the FACE act charges should have been dropped – NOT the state charges.
The state charges should have received deminimus sentences – for those who have no prior record.
This is ANOTHER reason that you prosecute and convict – even if the sentence is essentially nothing.
Because a second violation should get a severe sentence.
No the AG is not following state law.
Further, whie I do not outright reject prosecutorial discretion – it should NEVER be used to stop the prosecution of a clearly prosecuteable crime. Prosecutoria discretion is primarily apropriate when the case is weak and it is a waste of effort to prosecute someone you beleive is guilty but do not have sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
It should NOT be used when the prosecutor does not like the law, or when the prosecutor does not like the victim, or when the prosecutor, politically or otherwise favors the perpitrator.
“Furthermore the professor didn’t mention the fact that the DOJ will have a real hard time proving the protesters violated the FACE act.”
e4 is a definition –
The violations is
a2
“by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;”
You may not interfere with the right to free excercise of religion.
While A2 is specific to places of worship – the law is the same regarding Abortion clinincs
You can not fill the clinic with protestors – while allowing people to come and go.
But all you do it point out why this needed to be prosecuted by the AG.
Do you beleive people can come into the home of someone they do not like and occupy it – so long as that person can come or go ?
Do you beleive that people can come into a doctors office or hospital and fill it up – intentionally disrupting it ?
You seem to beleive that people who are engaged in free speech have carte blanche to commit any other crimes they wish.
And/or that people can use a free speech claim to shutdown anyone else’s excercise of their rights.
You are clueless regarding the law – you have gone past the hecklers veto of Speakers to allowing conduct – while also engaged in speech to thwart anyone anywhere from doing anything you do not like.
You have further Expanded YOUR right to free speech – to deprive others of any of their rights.
Claiming something is free speech – DOES NOT allow you to abridge the right of others.
Government many not legitimately preclude you from exercising your right to free speech in a government created public forum.
That does not change the FACT that you still can not interfere with the rights of others.
Doing so is ALWAYS a crime.
That is the core definition of a crime – the use of FORCE to interfere with the rights of others.
And yes – entering someone else’s property and refusing to leave is the use of FORCE.
“The FACE Act does not outlaw generalized disruptions, nor does it contain a catch-all “interruption of services” clause. Instead, the statute explicitly defines “physical obstruction” under 18 U.S.C. § 248(e)(4).”
No it contains the catchall phrase – “interferes with the excercise of the right to religious freedom”
““ “…rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility […] or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.””
That is ONE of many means you can violate the FACE Act.
Do you know what the word OR means.
“To prove obstruction, the government must show the defendants physically blocked people from moving into or out of the sanctuary, doorways, aisles, or parking lots.”
Which they obviously did.
Regardless, that is just ONE route to conviction under the FACE act.
If you use Force, threat of Force, intimidation. or interfere with the free excercise of religion – you are guilty.
“The FACE Act criminalizes “interference,” but defines it specifically as restricting a person’s freedom of movement”
Or the use of force or the threat of force or intimidation.
X – pro-life protestor have already tried this idiotic argument – the Lost.
You are massively misreading the law.
But you do that all the time
“The demonstration happened during a scheduled service, the doors were unlocked and open.
not relevant.
“Protesters walked in through normal channels rather than forcing their way past a physical boundary.”
Not relevant – even to your obsurd argument – while it is NOT necescary to block the aisles – which does restrict ingress and egress,
These criminals DID block the aisles. And they DID use Force or the threat of Force.
“Video evidence shows a chaotic”
While YOUR argument is nonsense – blocking ingress or egress is only ONE aspect of the FACE act.
Even by YOUR argument – merely making egress or ingress unreasonably difficult meets the Physical Obstruction standard.
But Physical obstruction is NOT the only means to violate the FACE Act.
The rule of law REQUIRES that government protect peoples rights from infringement by others
Prosecutors actually prosecuting those who do so is core to the rule of law.
The entire social contract purpose of government is the protection of peoples rights.
Your arguments are incredibly stupid.
While you get “physical obstruction wrong” – the core to your argument – is that I am free to violate the right of others – so long as I can make some stupid and tortured linguistic claim that the law did not quite prevent me from interfering in the rights of others.
The FACE act is federal law that subsumes a portion of state law – specifically with respect to abortion clinics and places of worship.
At the state level it is a crime to interfere with ANYONE’s freedom to make use of their own property.
Obviously these people did that – Obviously they violated state law.
Watch the video – if people did that in your home – that would clearly be a crime.
If they do that to any other private property – that would clearly be a crime.
You NEVER are free to deprive others of their rights.
That is the core of what is a crime.
Regardless with respect to the FACE act – are you saying that Pro-Life protestors can make it impossible for a clinic to operate – so long as they do not lock the doors ?
Are you so stupid as to claim that if you must push your way through people who are intentionally seeking to deny you of your rights – that is not physical obstruction ?
The USE of force includes – passively but physically interfering with the right of others to excercise their rights.
The prosecutors will seek to prove physical obstruction sufficient for the FACE Act. It will be up to the jury to decide whether they succeed. You cannot know at this point what the outcome will be.
Seems to me that loud boisterous conduct, shouting, the use of a bullhorn and behavior that folks in the church found threatening does in fact constitute a violation. It clearly was intended to disrupt. It’s very difficult to have a worship appropriate environment with people yelling.
Professor Turley notes, “Democratic politicians are yielding to the mob and refusing to see the criminal conduct.”
Democratic politicians are yielding,–neither on a basis of jurisprudential sagacity NOR specious protection of First Amendment rights, –but in reality,–on a basis of considering the effect(s) on big-tent growth of the Democratic Party and on election votes .
Lin, come on. You’re a lawyer. You should know better.
The St. Paul City Attorney’s decision not to file local misdemeanor charges was an exercise of jurisprudential rules, not political calculation.
Prosecutors are ethically bound to only bring charges they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Following an evaluation of video evidence, local prosecutors found insufficient evidence of individual criminal intent or physical violence.
Pursuing minor local misdemeanors (like disorderly conduct) while the DOJ is already prosecuting the exact same individuals for major federal offenses would be an unconstitutional or redundant duplication of public tax dollars.
Besides even the federal charges are not likely to stick because interrupting a service is not considered ‘obstruction’ under the FACE act definitions.
X: “following an evaluation” by the local prosecutors is the heart of the matter. Two people can look at the same thing and see entirely different things. In this case, one has to question the prosecutors motivation. Apparently, they didn’t see the trespass, the disturbance, or the failure to leave. They apparently saw no violation of any state or local law where others plainly see clear punishable wrongdoing. You paint the prosecutors as ethical, while most others paint them as complicit.
Nope.
Again another stupid argument from you.
Can the proud boys or patriot prayer or the oath keeper come into you hot yoga or pilates class, or your greenpeace meeting and make it impossible for you to continue ?
Of course not – it is a Crime to interfere with other people excercising their rights.
That is the definition of crime.
That is the purpose of government – to protect those rights.
Lin,
I would argue Democrats got nothing to offer for big-tent growth other than fear, hate and rage.
And stupid and crazy stuff too like this little gem, Demented NY Dems Erase “Mother” From State Law, Replace Her With “Gestating Parent”
https://modernity.news/2026/06/04/demented-ny-dems-erase-mother-from-state-law-replace-her-with-gestating-parent/
Someone referred to me as a “non-gestating parent” I’d hit em.
Politically-driven prosecutors like this breed murderers. I just watched The Crash, and it became clear Mackenzie Shirilla’s parents bred a murderer through failing to impose any standards, and then claiming she was innocent after the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally killed two people.
Kao is sending the signal that standards won’t be enforced, so keep escalating your criminality so long as the victims are conservative Christians. If this had been an Episcopal Church celebrating same-sex marriage interrupted by right-wing disruptors, we know charges (correctly) would have been filed.
Besides that, Kao’s actions are in blatant violation of the 14th Amendment: Nor shall any state . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Oldmanfromkansas, what the heck? That’s a crazy false equivalence if I ever saw one.
Despite any alleged parental leniency or public denials, Ohio prosecutors vigorously tried Shirilla. A judge convicted her of 12 felony counts, resulting in a life sentence with 15 years until parole eligibility.
St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao did not hand down an “innocent” verdict. Rather, the federal government step-in took priority. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted 39 protesters on active criminal charges under the federal FACE Act. The claim that “standards won’t be enforced” is completely untrue; they are simply being enforced via the appropriate federal statutes rather than redundant state misdemeanors.
Under Minnesota state law, a misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct or trespass requires strict proof of localized physical intent, such as property destruction or personal violence. The City Attorney explicitly cited a lack of physical violence or damage as the barrier to a state-level conviction.
Plus, The Fourteenth Amendment prevents states from passing laws that codify discrimination against specific groups. It does not strip local prosecutors of their lawful discretion to review evidence and decline a case if they determine it lacks a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
The Equal Protection Clause is not violated because the victims are receiving the full protection of the law. The DOJ’s active civil rights prosecution under the FACE Act directly addresses the disruption of their religious services, rendering simultaneous local charges unnecessary.
“St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao did not hand down an “innocent” verdict.”
Of course she did – there will be no state prosecution for CLEAR state crimes.
“Rather, the federal government step-in took priority. ”
Not actually how things works.
If you actually wanted to argue that the FACE act is unconstitutional – because there is no Federal general Police power – I would agree – though SCOTUS has found the FACE act constitutional while accepting that the constitution does not create a federal generl police power.
Regardless, with the specific exceptions of crimes accross state lines or acts that are clearly crimes but outside the domain of the states – such as Treason or Piracy – the primary protector of individual right through criminal law is THE STATES.
When a state refuses to prosecute a clear crime – especially when that is likely to lead to anarchy and chaos, and where clearly they WOULD enforce the same law if the perpitrators were MAGA or oath keepers or …
Then absolutely the State has FAILED in its constitutional duty.
The Argument that the state need not prosecute because the Feds will is nonsense – while not unfortunately the exclusive domain of the states – criminal law is the primary responsibility of the states – not the federal govenrment.
“Under Minnesota state law, a misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct or trespass requires strict proof of localized physical intent, such as property destruction or personal violence. ”
False.
“2025 Minnesota Statutes
Section 609.72
609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
§Subdivision 1.Crime.
Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person’s disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.”
All the garbage you claim about MN law is FALSE
“The City Attorney explicitly cited a lack of physical violence or damage as the barrier to a state-level conviction.”
Read the law – no such criteria exists.
Nor would it ever exist.
Your reading of the law makes it lawful for individuals of groups to disrupt anything they want – so long as they do not actually strike someone of damage property – that is total garbage and if you used a few of your brain cells you would grasp that.
“The Equal Protection Clause is not violated because the victims are receiving the full protection of the law. ”
Actually it is, and that is LITERALLY the purpose of the 14th amendment – to assure that people all received the equal protection of the law.
Yep, In the name of St George Floyd what would you expect? Same type put people in prison for praying or peacefully protesting at abortion clinics.
Hopefully, the Feds will prosecute Lemon and pals whereupon those parishioners that were held through false imprisonment may sue the living Sh!t out of them.
Come On Man! Only APPROVED Houses of Worship are entitled to peace in practicing their rights! The MinneHAHA Thugs and Wokies do not care about the rights of those who disagree with them. Join the MOB or Die by the MOB!
Might the behavior of the mob and the complicity of the local law enforcement and judiciary constitute a violation of the churchgoers constitutional rights such that a US Attorney might entertain seeking an indictment?