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.”
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?