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.”
. Indeed, some have told voters to “let your rage fuel you.”
===
This sounds so familiar…. But WHERE have I come across it before…???? Anyone…Oh, wait….
https://youtu.be/9Xc-WxSoYp4?t=4
Why hasn’t the DOJ stepped up to the plate?
Conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest?
https://kstp.com/accountability/possible-appearance-of-conflict-of-interest-in-question-as-st-paul-city-attorney-declines-charges-in-church-disruption-case/
Irene Cow would never stray from the truth or her ethics.
Irene Cow would never engage in negligence or dereliction of duty as the St. Paul City Attorney.
Idiom: TIME heals all wounds
The Democrats play this game of let Time quietly pass and it will disappear.
re: Don’t You know that you are supposed to forget about it (by now).
So yesterday’s News is yesteryear’s forgotten memory.
It’s what the Dem’s are playing Us for now regarding; Brennan, Comey, Wary, H. Clinton, Biden’s Admin … THE LIST.
Yep, They count on it, You should forget about it and move on, so that it all slowly fades away into the darkness of your mind my old friend.
Political Media Amnesia
Silence like a Cancer grows. That is “The Sounds of Silence” the Democrats play.
I sure hope Harmeet Dhillon is on this case!
i want justice don corleone
X must be paid according to the number of words posted. Who is funding the operation and will the IRS determine whether any amounts received are reported as income.
I generally skip over X because my interactions have shown me that he consistently lies and misstates the situation. However, he does successfully disrupt everyone else from having a reasonable discussion, by posting lengthy screeds seemingly hundreds of time per hour, thus making it nearly impossible to follow a discussion by others. This, no doubt, is what he’s being paid to do. I wish the moderators would take notice.
But X is the smartest person here! He knows everything! He corrects Turley about the law and the Constitution! He knows everything about construction! He knows everything about real estate and being a landlord! He knows everything about building codes and maintenance! He knows everything about college admissions! He knows everything about college faculty! He knows everything people are thinking! He corrected me twice today!
From a previous exchange:
X: Clive Johnston was using a bullhorn.
Me: No, he wasn’t. I just looked it up.
X: Okay, he wasn’t, but I was still right when I said he was.
Yeah, you said it was a microphone when a microphone makes no sound. It was hooked to a unit that includes a power supply, an audio amplifier, and a speaker. Which are the components of a bull horn but with far greater loudness than a bull horn can produce. All the exchange proved is you don’t know what you are talking about because what Clive Johnston was using was louder than a bullhorn.
oldman wins this round. go back to bed.
Plus george knows everything about aircraft. Just ask him.
I find it hilarious that you or anyone else thinks I’m getting paid. It’s just plain ol’ fashioned passionate expression of an opposing view. That’s it.
What IS evident is how so many don’t show I’m posting anything factually inaccurate about the topic. Even John Say who posts the longest posts in rambling fashion has not shown what I posted is inaccurate.
The whining about disrupting discussion of others seems to be more about showing how misinformed or inaccurate some posters are.
X, you tell them! You are the smartest person here! You prove it with all your smart comments! And I do not believe them when they say you use AI! You are clearly too smart for that! Or them!
X is a useful idiot.
I respectfully disagree.
I do not want him or anyone else banned.
I specifically want to hear the arguments made by all sides.
It is the fact that X is the best that the left can do that is damning to the left.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
It is the poor quality of X’s arguments that are the strongest support for what he argues against.
I read him to find out if there actually is any validity to anything from the left.
If he is the best the left has to offer – they are doomed.
John Say,
Your reliance on a John Stuart Mill quote about understanding the “opposite side” is ironic, given that your post entirely avoids engaging with the actual facts, statutes, and binding case law presented throughout this thread. Insulting the quality of an argument while remaining completely unable to refute its underlying data isn’t a critique; it is a concession.
Let’s look at the reality of what has been posted versus your complaints:
The Arguments Are Grounded in Black-Letter Law, Not “Left-Wing” Ideology.
You claim my posts represent “the best the left has to offer,” but there is nothing partisan about reading the plain text of criminal statutes. Pointing out that Minnesota Statute § 609.72 (Disorderly Conduct) has an official revisor note stating that the “disturbing an assembly” clause was struck down as facially unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court (State v. Hensel) is not a left-wing opinion. It is an unassailable legal fact. Whining about the “poor quality” of an argument because it cites binding constitutional precedent only exposes an inability to counter the law itself.
You frame the discussion as though the left is “letting people off lightly,” yet you continuously ignore the massive elephant in the room: the protesters are actively facing federal prosecution. Bypassing weak, legally deficient state misdemeanors that a local judge would immediately dismiss—exactly what happened to an initial state charge in this very incident—is standard procedure when the U.S. Department of Justice intervenes with a comprehensive federal indictment of 39 individuals under the FACE Act (18 U.S.C. § 248). Pointing out how the dual-sovereignty framework actually functions isn’t political spin; it is basic civics.
If you truly want to live by the words of John Stuart Mill and understand an opinion in its “most plausible and persuasive form,” you have to stop fighting strawmen. No one here has argued that invading a church service is acceptable conduct or that it shouldn’t face consequences. The argument has been entirely about jurisdiction and statutory requirements.
To legally convict someone of criminal assault in Minnesota, the law explicitly requires proving a specific intent to cause fear of immediate physical violence or death. A loud, abrasive political demonstration inside an open church—while deeply offensive—does not meet that statutory definition.
Complaining that my arguments are “poor quality” while failing to provide a single counter-statute, a single overturned precedent, or a single piece of conflicting case law proves that this isn’t a debate over validity—it’s a text-based reality check that your political narrative cannot survive. The facts remain undefeated, and no amount of philosophical quoting can rewrite the Minnesota criminal code or the federal docket.
I waver between John Say being a graduate student working for Turley or some schmuck working a propaganda farm in a Moscow suburb. Some days the difference is hair thin.
“I specifically want to hear the arguments made by all sides.”
Must be difficult when you stuff cotton in your ears.
Isn’t this conduct an “insurrection” if we apply J6 legal standards. Throw them in jail for the rest of their lives.
Not under the Left’s two-tier system of injustice. Words have different meanings depending on whether the conduct is by liberals or conservatives.
Yeah, Edward. The Bernie Bros are as mean and stupid as Trumpers.
By the most generous definition, exceeding the speed limit on a Federal highway is insurrection.
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.
OldManFromKS,
Can this get any stranger? Graham Platner accuser Lyndsey Fifield slams NY Times for watering down bombshell story as ‘gift’ to Democrat’s campaign
https://nypost.com/2026/06/05/us-news/graham-platner-accuser-lyndsey-fifield-slams-ny-times-for-watering-down-story-as-gift-to-democrat/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
What does that have to do with this case? No violence occurred. You’re just throwing out random acts and conflating them with this case. It’s pretty stupid.
Interesting. “Silence is violence,” “speech is violence.” But when people loudly disrupt a church service, “no violence occurred.”
You said I was paranoid.
I just proved you wrong by pointing out a career criminal who should not have been out on the streets, was released out on the streets and then killed an innocent young woman.
You stupid clown. You proved nothing. Well… only that you’re a old moron with too much time on your hands. Do something constructive… like suicide.
A Massachusetts juvenile court judge found Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter for her role in the 2014 death of her 18-year-old boyfriend, Conrad Roy III. Carter sent Roy dozens of text messages and made phone calls over several weeks actively encouraging him to take his life. When Roy grew scared and stepped out of his truck as it filled with carbon monoxide, Carter instructed him via text and phone to “get back in.”
I proved you wrong. Again.
You’re stupid.
Farmer, Trump has looked the other way as Putin destroys Ukraine. Why does one, Ukrainian refugee warrant more sympathy than the entire nation?
Wasn’t that Joke Buydem?
The fact that she was Ukrainian is irrelevant.
She was a innocent young woman who was murdered.
Your attempts to deflect failed. Again.
Wrong Prez you moron.
On an average day US police kill 3 people. If every murder was covered there would not be time for any other programming on any TV station. Why does this immigrant matter to you more than the 1000 people or more who have been murdered since?
I know that deep down, it’s not about her. It’s about using her death as an arguing point. Were it a Black woman you’d be pumping your fist and stamping your feet.
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.
You Clearly miss Everything.
OMFK is pointing out that this is CLEARLY Biased application of the law.
If as OMFK noted – this was the Oath Keepers disrupting a same sex marraige Kao would be prosecuting BEYOND the full extent of the law – and YOU would drop every single argument you have made here – and be cheering her on.
It is not vindictive or spiteful to demand that the law be applied consistently – without regard to ideology or beleifs.
You talk about spite and vengefulness – but you are find with left wing loons wreaking havoc on the rights of those they disagree with.
The Rule of law REQUIRES that you enforce the law uniformly without consideration of the values or beleifs of those violating it.
You can not punish people more severely because you do not like their values.
You can not let them off lightly because you like their values.
Justice is obligated to be blind to the values and beleifs of those involved.
You and I have argued about intent in the past.
As a rule criminal intent means – your acts were NOT accidental – that when you did the deed you did so intentionally.
It does NOT mean – you had good values or bad values or beliefs.
While Juries like to beleive you had a reason for your actions – the reason for your actions is completely irrelevant to whether they are a crime.
It does not matter whether you disrupt a conservative ministers service condemning all homosexuals to hellfire and perdition or you disrupt a liberal minister marrying a gay couple. Disrupting the service is a crime.
Numerous people have provided to you the ACTUAL Minnesota law on disorderly conduct and tresspass – which in plain text contradicts your idiotic claims.
Remove the board from your own eye before seeking to remove the mote from someone elses.
You are not respected – and not deserving of respect because you FAIL to deal with ANYTHING consistently.
Your arguments are ALWAYS – the actions of left wing nuts are legally justified, while the actions of anyone on the right is a capital crime.
I do not like the FACE act – it is unconstitutional – not because the actions it defines as a crime are Not a crime – they clearly are.
But because the federal government has no general police power. Anything that can be prosecuted by the state should be.
But SCOTUS has disagreed and we are stuck with that.
Regardless, there is ZERO doubt that these people violated the FACE act, that they violated numerous state laws.
As a rule such violations of the law tied to public protests against GOVERNMENT should be treated deminimus – THE FIRST TIME
We do NOT want to chill free speech against government by broadly and rigidly enforcing the law – protestors should get the benefit of the grey areas.
But NONE of that applies – when you are interfering with the actual rights of individuals privately.
If you disrupt a gay marraige, a pilates class, a hot yoga class, a greenpeace meeting or a fire and brimstone church service – YOU ARE A CRIMINAL and should be prosecuted.
Which side of politics you are on is IRRELEVANT.
If you do not have that – you do not have the rule of law – you are headed towards anarchy.
John Say,
Great comment.
John Say,
Your argument relies entirely on a hypothetical political double standard to claim biased enforcement, while completely ignoring the actual text of Minnesota law and the active legal realities of this case. The rule of law requires checking the specific statutory elements of a crime, not imagining how a prosecutor might react in a fictional scenario.
You claim that if the “Oath Keepers disrupted a same-sex marriage,” St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao would be prosecuting them under state law. This is a classic false equivalence.
If a right-wing group entered a church and shouted political or religious slogans without committing physical violence or property damage, a Minnesota state prosecutor would face the exact same brick wall. The law does not change based on who is chanting. If a prosecutor attempted to file weak state charges simply to satisfy public outrage, a judge would do exactly what happened to the initial state-level charge in this very incident: dismiss the case for a total lack of probable cause.
You claim that the “plain text” of Minnesota’s disorderly conduct and trespass laws contradicts this analysis. Let’s look at that plain text:
Disorderly Conduct (Minn. Stat. § 609.72): Subdivision 1, Clause (2) explicitly bans “disturbing an assembly.” However, the official revisor note right at the bottom of the statute explicitly states that the Minnesota Supreme Court struck this clause down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment (State v. Hensel, 2017). Clause (3) regarding noisy language has been strictly narrowed by decades of precedent to apply only to “fighting words” (direct, individualized invitations to a physical brawl). Political chanting does not meet this standard.
Criminal Trespass (Minn. Stat. § 609.605): To convict an individual for refusing to leave a public-facing facility during open hours, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific person was given a personalized, lawful demand to leave by someone in authority, understood it, and willfully refused. A video showing a chaotic crowd surrounded by generalized shouting does not provide the individualized mens rea (criminal intent) evidence required to convict a single defendant.
So your argument fails.
You correctly note that criminal intent means an act was not accidental. But you miss the next step: the intent must match the specific element of the crime charged.
To prove criminal assault under Minnesota Statute § 609.224, the intent cannot just be “the intent to be loud and disruptive.” The state must prove a specific intent to cause fear of immediate physical violence or death. A loud, obnoxious political demonstration—while entirely inappropriate inside a church—lacks the legal element of an explicit threat of physical battery.
The ultimate flaw in your “anarchy” narrative is the claim that these individuals are being let off lightly. Under the principle of dual sovereignty, local municipal attorneys routinely drop weak, legally vulnerable state-level misdemeanors when a comprehensive federal civil rights prosecution takes over.
The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t wait for your hypothetical; they stepped in and indicted 39 protesters under the federal FACE Act (18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2)). They are currently being prosecuted in federal court, where they face severe federal penalties for interfering with religious freedom.
Demanding that a local prosecutor manufacture weak, unsustainable state-level misdemeanor charges while a major federal civil rights case is already actively underway is not “demanding the rule of law”—it is demanding redundant legal theater.
Umm, X has not made any arguments supporting these horrible people.
X does not believe anyone should invade and disrupt a church service.
He does think they should get away with it scot free though, for ‘politics’.
X, you haven’t weighed in on your stance on chuch invasion. Are you avoiding supporting these terrorists?
Let’s hear it.
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.
We tried that already. nothing shuts sally up faster than a challege. Sally’s insincere in every facet. She won’t respond.
Sally knows Trump hasn’t commited any crimes and is only here because Trump! is doing so well, and it totally squashes lefty dreams.
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.
Surprise! “insincere sally” is nowhere to be found.
Then you could point out ACTUAL crimes.
When has Trump violated anyones actual rights ?
John Say,
In May 2023, a federal jury in New York found Donald Trump legally liable for sexual abuse and defamation against private citizen E. Jean Carroll. The jury concluded that Trump violated her right to physical safety and subsequently violated her legal rights under tort law by defamating her character when she spoke out. A second federal trial in January 2024 resulted in a total judgment of $83.3 million against him for continuing to violate her rights through ongoing defamation.
In May 2024, a New York jury convicted Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. In a criminal court, laws are designed to protect the collective rights of the public to fair, transparent processes. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump intentionally falsified corporate documents to illegally conceal a scheme aimed at influencing the 2016 presidential election, thereby violating state laws enact.
In 2016, Trump agreed to a $25 million settlement to resolve multiple class-action lawsuits brought by New York State and thousands of private citizens. The courts found that Trump University systematically violated consumers’ and students’ rights by using deceptive, fraudulent marketing practices to strip them of their money under the guise of an accredited educational institution.
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.
Blocking the aisles is physical obstruction. But I would NOTE that the law says OR.
You may not use force or the threat of force.
Again you are lying – you either have not actually read the laws you refer to – or you have ignored the parts that you do not like.
Anything that restricts free movement is physical obstruction.
Without any doubt at all – there is case law on this.
Somewhere sometime – pro life protestors staged a sit in at an abortion clinic and were prosecuted under the FACE act.
But the FACE act is not the BIG issue here – the REAL issue is YOUR (and Kao’s) politicization – and weaponization of the law.
Is there a single person that doubts if the shoe was on the other foot – you would be arguing for long custodial sentences.
J6 was a protest at a Government fascility – the preiminent forum for free speech in the world.
It was also petitioning Government
There clearly can be no tresspass on a government fascility specifically the Capital while congress is in session – that would infringe on the first amendment right to petition governent – We do not have a star chamber government.
But here we have far less orderly disruption of a private church service.
We CLEARLY have defiant tresspass – a felony – they were asked to leave.
A church is NOT a government legislative space – there is not first amendment right to petition government there.
A church is NOT a public space in that by law anyone is free to come and go.
Churches frequently ALLOW anyone in – and they have the right to then throw them out.
A church is NOT a public forum for free speech.
While the constitutions free excercise clause makes these crimes worse
It is still irrelevant what the purpose of the private assembly that these protestors disrupted was.
You can not go into a resturaunt and disrupt it.
You can not go into a yoga class and disrupt it.
You can not go into a greenpeace or act blue meeting and disrupt it.
These are all crimes.
Either you are a total moron – or you KNOW that you are lying.
We have heard you rant endlessly about January 6th.
Well this is WORSE.
We have a RIGHT codified in the first amendment and the constitution to a voice in our government and our elections.
WE do NOT have a right to a voice in someone else’s church.
It is OUR government – it is NOT These protestors Church.
John Say,
Nope. You haven’t proven I lied.
Your latest rant fails to prove a lie because you are fundamentally misunderstanding the statutory mechanics of the laws you are quoting, while injecting completely false historical and constitutional equivalences.
You claim that because the FACE Act uses the word “OR,” the lack of force doesn’t matter because “physical obstruction” occurred. You are wrong. Let’s look at the actual text of 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2):
“by force, threat of force or by physical obstruction”
The word “OR” means they are separate statutory paths. To prove the “physical obstruction” path, you must meet the strict statutory definition of that exact phrase found under Subdivision (e)(4):
“rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility […] or rendering passage […] unreasonably difficult or hazardous.”
A group walking through open doors during a public service and shouting inside a sanctuary does not automatically satisfy “physical obstruction” unless they actively barricaded doors or physically blocked bodies from moving. Loud shouting and auditory interruption are legally distinct from a physical blockade under federal jurisprudence.
You lose.
Your claim that there “clearly can be no trespass on a government facility… while Congress is in session” is a massive constitutional and factual falsehood.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled (Adderley v. Florida) that the government, no less than a private owner, has the power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.
Hundreds of J6 defendants were legally convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1752 (Entering or Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds). Having a “right to petition the government” does not give citizens a legal right to breach barricades, bypass police lines, or roam the halls of Congress uninvited.
You confidently declare that the church protesters committed “defiant trespass—a felony.” Under Minnesota Statute § 609.605, there is no such thing as felony defiant trespass for this conduct. Trespass in Minnesota is explicitly classified as a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor under very narrow circumstances (such as trespassing on school property or bringing a weapon). Calling it a felony is a complete fabrication of state law.
No one is arguing that disrupting a church, a restaurant, or a yoga class is acceptable behavior. It is disruptive and obnoxious. But the rule of law means you must use the right legal tool for the job.
Because Minnesota’s state law against “disturbing an assembly” was struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court (State v. Hensel), local prosecutors lacked the tools to convict. Instead of forcing a weak state misdemeanor case destined for a judicial dismissal, the case was absorbed by the U.S. Department of Justice, which has already indicted 39 individuals under the federal FACE Act.The perpetrators are not getting a pass; they are being prosecuted in federal court. Demanding that local authorities invent non-existent state-level felonies just to satisfy your political outrage isn’t defending the rule of law—it’s a demand for legal fiction.
John yours making stuff up to “prove” I lied. That’s bad, even for you.
X, are you saying you support their reprehensible behavior? I dare you to reply. I know you re-read your comments compulsively.
X did not reply because there is no defense for their behavior.
X you lied: obstruction doesn’t need to be physical, just ask any judge. You framed it as requiring physical and it doesn’t. dishonesty is lying. slipping.
Would it be obstruction if the same behavior occurred in a court room? Yah.
Intimidation is also easily proven, watch the video. this is commie justice but they can still sue big time.
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.
“You can’t show what I said today is a lie. ”
I did – and so have several others.
Nope, see my response above. You have not been able to show exactly what the lie is.
YES HE DID! re-read!
I did . re-read for the 5th time.
Trump would keep the new 747-8.
Yeah you lied jerk.
That aircraft belongs to the taxpayers
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.
Minnesota courts ruled that Clause (3) can only be used to prosecute speech or expressive conduct if it constitutes “fighting words.“
Under the First Amendment, the government cannot criminalize speech simply because it “reasonably causes anger or resentment.” For speech to be prosecuted under Clause (3), it must consist of face-to-face, individualized insults that are inherently likely to provoke an immediate physical brawl.
That did not happen.
Because the anti-ICE protesters were chanting political grievances rather than directing personalized, violent provocations at individual congregants to trigger a physical fight, Clause (3) cannot legally be applied to their speech.
Please read the actual case – MN supreme court decided that the law did not apply to quietly holding a sign in a government public meeting.
State v. Hensel is specific to non-disruptive free speech in a Government public meeting.
The defendent allegedly blocked some peoples views with signs.
That is a far cry from disrupting a private religious service.
Further State v. Hensel, is an as applied challenge.
This is similar to the 18 US 1502(c) challenge that succeeded with respect to J6ers.
DOJ APPLIED the law in an overly broad way.
Your claims do not apply in this case.
Regardless Section 3 still applies and was violated.
John Say,
Your most glaring legal error is claiming that State v. Hensel was an “as-applied” challenge. It was exactly the opposite. The Minnesota Supreme Court explicitly ruled that Clause (2) of the disorderly conduct statute was facially unconstitutional because it is substantially overbroad.
When a court strikes down a law for facial overbreadth, it means the law itself is void and completely dead. The court found that the statute’s ban on “disturbing an assembly” was written so broadly that it could apply anywhere, at any time—including a private dinner table or a street corner—chilling protected expression. Because it was struck down facially, Clause (2) no longer exists. A prosecutor cannot use a non-existent law to charge the church protesters, making your distinction between a government meeting and a private church service completely irrelevant.
Your comparison to the January 6th challenge (the Fischer Supreme Court case regarding 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)) completely undermines your point.
In the J6 case (Fischer), the Supreme Court ruled that the DOJ stretched a financial/shredding statute to cover physical rioting in an unauthorized way.
That is exactly what you are demanding local Minnesota prosecutors do here. You are demanding they stretch a restricted, narrow state-level misdemeanor statute past its legal limits to satisfy political outrage. Deferring to a specialized federal statute explicitly written for this conduct—the federal FACE Act—is the exact opposite of weaponization; it is applying the law properly.
You stubbornly insist that “Section 3 still applies and was violated.” Section 3 covers “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy language.” But as the Minnesota Supreme Court has mandated for decades, Clause (3) cannot be applied to speech unless that speech constitutes “fighting words.”
To meet the legal definition of fighting words, the language must consist of face-to-face, individualized insults inherently likely to provoke an immediate physical brawl. Abrasive, highly disruptive political chanting (“ICE out”) inside a church is obnoxious and highly disrespectful, but it remains protected political speech under the First Amendment and does not meet the strict statutory requirements for a state-level criminal conviction.
You keep losing these arguments because you clearly don’t understand how the law works.
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!
Yep. You’re jealous.
X, thank you so much for pointing out how jealous I am of your smarts! Today is such a good day!
X – you are either a liar or a moron. You are not smart – you are not even close to smart.
Few here are as able to take the same facts and patterns and always blindly spin them to the conclusion they want – regardless of the self contraditions involved.
A public protest demanding that congress not certify a fraudulent and lawless election – is an insurrection in your world.
While invading and disrupting a private church service is free speech
Only a left wing nut loon could reconcile the cognative disonance and be blind to the hypocracy.
Yet every day you repeat.
You are correct – no one can prove to you that you are lying – because you will never admit even to yourself that you are wrong and engaged in misrepresenation.
You are a hateful vile an immoral creature.
Fortunately for you – that alone is not a crime
You are free here to spout all the nonsense you wish.
And While no one can prove to YOU that you are a liar.
It has been repeatedly proven to the world – many times just today.
John Say, your latest post completely abandons legal substance in favor of personal insults and an emotional grievance. You are accusing me of “blindly spinning” the facts, yet you are the one ignoring federal indictments, state statutes, and binding Supreme Court precedent to manufacture a political double standard that does not exist under the law.Let’s strip away the name-calling and look at the actual, verified legal realities that dismantle your arguments:
A Church is Not “Free Speech” Under the Law—And It Is Being ProsecutedYou claim that in my world, “invading and disrupting a private church service is free speech.” That is an outright falsehood. I have stated before, not on today’s topic, but in the last one, that what these protesters did was disruptive, and obnoxious.
The core fact you continuously ignore is that these people are currently being prosecuted. The U.S. Department of Justice has indicted 39 individuals under the federal FACE Act (18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2)). They face severe federal penalties, including potential prison time. Recognizing that local prosecutors dropped weak, legally unsupportable state misdemeanors because a massive federal civil rights prosecution took over isn’t “left-wing spin”—it is an accurate understanding of how the American dual-sovereignty legal system works.
You accuse me of cognitive dissonance regarding January 6th, but you are confusing political rhetoric with statutory elements.
In a courtroom, judges and juries don’t care about your political feelings; they care about the exact wording of criminal statutes:The Capitol Defendants: Hundreds of individuals on January 6th were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1752 because they physically breached police barricades, bypassed security lines, and entered a restricted government building closed to the general public.
The Church Protesters: The anti-ICE demonstrators walked through unlocked doors into a house of worship that was actively open to the general public for a scheduled service. Because they had an initial implied invitation to enter, state-level criminal trespass charges under Minnesota law require proving individualized, explicit intent to remain after a personal, lawful command to leave was issued to that specific person. A video of a chaotic crowd does not provide the individualized mens rea (criminal intent) required to convict a single person in a state court.
You are angry because the law does not bend to your personal sense of outrage. You want local prosecutors to force charges like criminal assault or felony trespass against these protesters.
But as we have already proven using the plain text of Minnesota law:
Assault (Minn. Stat. § 609.224): Requires an overt act with the specific intent to cause fear of immediate physical violence or death. Loud, offensive political chanting does not meet this statutory definition.
Disorderly Conduct (Minn. Stat. § 609.72): The clause regarding “disturbing an assembly” was struck down as facially unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court (State v. Hensel), and the clause regarding noisy language is strictly limited to “fighting words” (direct invitations to a physical brawl).
When a local prosecutor attempts to force weak charges without proper statutory backing just to satisfy public anger, judges dismiss the case for a total lack of probable cause, exactly as a Minnesota judge already did to an initial state-level charge connected to this very incident.
The ACTUAL law.
Demanding that the legal system fabricate non-existent state-level crimes to punish people you politically detest is a rejection of the rule of law. The law must be applied uniformly based on the strict text of the statutes, not the political ideology of the offenders. The church protesters are facing justice where the appropriate legal tools actually exist: in federal court under the FACE Act.
You keep getting slapped down on your erroneous claims every time. I cite actual text, law and court cases. You’re not not winning.
and now that original X has decided to start using the word “post’ after seeing it here this past week. (not that it hasn’t been used before, but not so much by X. Not only is he the brightest star on this blog, but he also blinks so that others can look more carefully
John Say,
“ And While no one can prove to YOU that you are a liar.
It has been repeatedly proven to the world – many times just today.”
ROFL!!!
Who has proven it? Certainly not you. You have not pointed out exactly what I said that is a lie. Point it out John. Go right ahead. I’ll wait.
X says ““Some accuse me of pretending to be a lawyer but I’ve never said I was or claimed to be one.”
So why don’t you tell us if you are or are not.
You may be, but lost your license or were reprimanded or have too many errors in your arguments to be considered valid.
Your word and logic games hint at deceit.
Go ahead and just tell us that you are not, and have never been, licensed as a lawyer.
Dare you.
You avoided it when asked earlier today.
“Who has proven it? Certainly not you.”
I proved you a liar many times, even copying what was said to prove it.
S. Meyer, you barely understand what is put in front of you. You have no argument on this topic.
You are lying right now. Your lies are so frequent you don’t notice them.
Re:”X, you are just so smart! ” I got a bad feeling about this. We may be dealing with a clever AI ‘cut and paste” artist.
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.
you have just lied about the Face act, lied about miniesota law, lied about the rule of law, lied about spite and vengefullness.
And that is just a subset of your lies today.
John Say, what were the lies? Point them out.
Just saying so isn’t proof.
What was factually incorrect about my posts today?
Come on John, what exactly did I lie about on my posts today? Point out exactly what are the lies.
Which exact statements were lies?
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.
John Tapper,
In personal injury law, a plaintiff only needs to prove a case by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning it is more likely true than not, or 51%). A criminal prosecutor, however, must prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt (near 100% certainty). Correct?
In criminal law, a video showing a chaotic crowd acting aggressively is legally insufficient. A prosecutor must identify the exact individual behind the camera or bullhorn and prove their specific criminal intent (mens rea). Would your wife agree?
Someone standing “in your face” with a camera and shouting constitutes a “threat of imminent physical harm” (assault). Under Minnesota Statute § 609.224, this is legally incorrect.
Holding a video camera or smartphone and recording someone while shouting a political grievance—no matter how rude, obnoxious, or physically close—is classified as expressive conduct. Courts routinely recognize filming in public or semi-public spaces as protected activity, not an act of physical violence.
For speech or gestures to constitute a criminal assault in Minnesota, the actor must display an immediate, physical capability and intent to strike or injure the victim (e.g., raising a fist or drawing a weapon). Shouting political slogans (“ICE out”) while filming lacks the explicit, localized threat of physical battery required by state law.
Minnesota Statute § 609.50 (Obstructing Legal Process): This statute applies almost exclusively to interfering with police officers, firefighters, or military personnel performing their official duties. It cannot be used to charge protesters for blocking or confronting private churchgoers.
Because the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down the state’s law against “disturbing an assembly” (State v. Hensel), local prosecutors have no statutory tool to charge someone for an auditory or spatial obstruction inside a church service.
The city prosecutor did not drop the case because she failed to see the “confrontation”; she dropped it because the federal government possesses the exact statutory tools needed to prosecute it, rendering local misdemeanor charges completely redundant. Does that make sense to you?
“Some accuse me of pretending to be a lawyer but I’ve never said I was or claimed to be one.”
So why don’t you tell us if you are or are not.
You may be, but lost your license or were reprimanded or have too many errors in your arguments to be considered valid.
Your word and logic games hint at deceit.
Go ahead and just tell us that you are not, and have never been, licensed as a lawyer.
Dare you.
“So why don’t you tell us if you are or are not.”
He is not. There are smart lawyers and dumb ones. He is not even a dumb lawyer. Even the dumbest of the dumb need to know how to think, at least a little.
Svelaz X doesn’t even know what trespass is.
He’s entirely right to be “candid” and captivated by his own voice; after all, he’s the only one listening to it and believing it.
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.
John Say, but the problem is that particular section of the law is void.
That disorderly conduct includes “disturbing lawful meetings.” While this text remains printed in old versions of Minnesota Statute § 609.72, Subdivision 1, Clause (2), it is completely void.
In the landmark case State v. Hensel (2017), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Clause (2) is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.
Because the high court struck it down, that specific section of the law effectively does not exist. A local prosecutor cannot charge the protesters for disturbing a church meeting using a dead statute.
You claim the statute criminalizes “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy language that alarms or angers others.” Under decades of U.S. and Minnesota constitutional law, this is an illegal standard for a criminal conviction.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Clause (3) can only punish speech if it rises to the level of “fighting words”—meaning face-to-face, individualized insults inherently likely to provoke an immediate physical brawl.
The anti-ICE protesters were chanting political grievances and slogans. The First Amendment strictly protects loud, boisterous, and highly offensive political shouting from being criminalized simply because it causes “anger or resentment” in an audience.
YOU of all people should understand that.
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.
Tryingtoclarify,
That specific part of the law was struck down by the Minnesota Supreme Court. It’s no longer applicable. I’ve explained it in detail up thread.
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).
OPEN FOR SUNDAY MASS – NOT OPEN FOR CRIMINAL TRESPASS, HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, ABUSE, DISTURBANCE OF THE PEACE, ASSAULT AND BATTERY, ET AL.
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?