Separation of Church and State Law

Home » Uncategorized » Articles, etc. chronicling and analyzing the attacks, including and beginning with the Northfield MN attacks, against OPBC street preachers

Articles, etc. chronicling and analyzing the attacks, including and beginning with the Northfield MN attacks, against OPBC street preachers

Click here to go to links to articles on:
Attacks on First Amendment Protection of Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, and Association

Latest Development: April 6, 2016. Northfield News prints a libelous, biased, slanted one-sided attack against OPBC street preachers. Response and further developments will be included. Read the whole story as it develops at: Citizen v. Citizen: Some Northfield, Minnesota Citizens Seek to circumvent First Amendment

Very instructive concise teaching: An Abridged History of the First Amendment

Contents of this page:

a. Preface
b. Introduction
c. Relevant facts concerning the first attack in Northfield (including link to audio of actual events and links to relevant sermons)
d. Updates
e. Highest Law
f. United States Constitution
g. Minnesota Constitution
h. 
Northfield, Minnesota Code of Ordinances and Charter

February 16, 2014 (The attack  of the officer seems to have been that of a “lone wolf” police officer – video included of prior proper police conduct.)
March 30, 2014 
(Courteous Northfield officer approaches OPBC preachers in response to a complaint, mentioned certain city ordinances, but did not arrest or cite anyone in that he needed clarification. The ordinances are quoted and the audio of the encounter is included.)
March 31, 2014 
(OPBC member calls Alliance Defense Fund for possible legal representation in the even the city violates the First Amendment. Police inform Pastor Cooley that the city attorney told him there was nothing they could do. Etc.)
June 21, 2014
 (On June 21, 2014, some OPBC men went to Faribault MN to preach in the public forum. Complaints were called in and police threatened the preachers with citation and arrest. See how this played out by reading the story below and the article linked thereto.)
August 17, 2014 (Business owners unsuccessfully tried to shut down street preaching in Northfield MN. The obtained a permit for the purpose of preventing the street preaching. The OPBC preachers returned the first week after the permit was issued and nothing was done to them because of First Amendment law.)
September 12, 2013 (Debate on the First Amendment as a result of Old Paths Baptist Church street preaching. Includes op-ed article by Jerald Finney, “Street Preaching: A Misunderstood Blessing.”)
October 11, 2014 Link to report and testimonies on the “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry activity in St. Paul. The enemy continues to oppose the preaching of God’s word.
April 18, 2015. (On this date, OPBC men went to Minneapolis, MN to preach in the public forum. Some were assaulted. The police came and told them to leave in 5 minutes or be arrested, thereby violating their civil rights (First Amendment speech rights). Read the whole story as it unfolds by clicking: April 18, 2015 encounter with unlawful police officer in Dinkeytown, Minnesota and subsequent actions by the offended parties.)
August, 2015. Police try to chill rights of OPBC street preachers, but they hold their ground: 2 videos.
October 21, 2015. Advance letter to “The Halloween Capital of America” concerning street preaching by the men of Old Paths Baptist Church
April 6, 2016. Northfield News prints a libelous, biased, slanted one-sided attack against OPBC street preachers. Response and further developments will be included. Read the whole story as it develops at: Citizen v. Citizen: Some Northfield, Minnesota Citizens Seek to circumvent First Amendment

  1. Highest Law (God’s Law)
    f. United States Constitution and relevant case excerpts which interpret that law
    g. Constitution of the State of Minnesota
    h. Northfield, Minnesota Code of Ordinances and Charter

a. Preface

This page was inspired by an attack against street preaching in Northfield, Minnesota by a lone ranger police officer and citizens who were unfamiliar with the law. As it turned out, many of the Northfield citizens appreciated the street preaching and the freedoms we have in America.  This page covers run-ins with law enforcement and citizens in Northfield and other towns and cities initiated by the uninformed. The information on this page should be helpful to anyone who wishes to speak in the public forum in America.

Right now, in America, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, press, assembly, press, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted First Amendment freedom of speech to include speech in the public forum (in government owned property such as streets and parks). Even with this clear condition of the law, those who preach the gospel in the public forum are attacked by individuals (including so-called “Christians”) and by peace officers who threaten them, push them around, abuse them, attack them, etc. 99+% of Americans have no clue as to the true history of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment and the importance of those freedoms. They just know that the preaching offends them and they want it shut up. The day when God’s children (not the religious crowd) will be severely persecuted in America. What does the Bible say about what Christians should do then? For the answers to this and other related questions see “Preparing for the Underground Church in America.” That article links to other resources including a great sermon series by Brother Russell Hildebrandt on the Underground Church. The street preachers of Old Path Baptist Church are among those who suffer the mild “persecution” in America when they preach in the public forum.

As to speech in the public forum the job of peace officers is not to shut it down when someone complains; their job is to enforce the law by (1) protecting street preachers and others speaking in the public forum and (2) informing people who would disrupt and/or violate the rights of street preachers of the law concerning free speech in America. I street preached in Austin, Texas for 20+ years. The police in Austin understood and enforced the law. They protected us (and others speaking in the public forum) on numerous occasions. The Minneapolis Police Officer in the following video understands that his job is to protect those involved in First Amendment protected speech:

Street Preaching, Dinkeytown, and Spiritual Warfare/Luciferianism, Enochian Magick, Aliester Crowley & Dinkytown Witches

Apostate Minnesota Pastor Attends Black Sabbath 2016 & Assaults Street Preacher (July 2016)

Since many towns and cities have not been exposed to speech in the public forum, their peace officers are not familiar with the law and initially take the side of those offended ones who complain and not the side of those citizens who appreciate the public speech and know what a blessing it is to live in a nation which honors God-given rights. However, when the alternatives are presented to them – either learn the law and start doing your job or continue to violate the law and be subject to suit for injunction or damages – they start doing their job.

The Old Paths Baptist Church “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry was appropriately named and, according to its name, has created “no small stir” in Northfield MN. It has served as an educational tool and encouraged a debate in the city. See “Constitution Day events aim to remind Northfielders of their rights, spark discussions” a September 12, 2014 article in the Northfield News. See the updates below which demonstrate that Northfield has now been educated about First Amendment rights and now honors freedom of speech in the public forum. Included in the updates are OPBC encounters with uninformed peace officers in other cities.

Featured Sermons:
Cut To The Heart – Being Severed By The Sword” or “Street Preaching Produces Bible Explained Results” on sermonaudiocom (051015)(Click here for Youtube of this sermon.)
The Pricked Heart: Are You Kicking Against The Pricks?” or “The Positive Results Of Preaching” on sermonaudiocom (051015)(Click here for Youtube of this sermon.)

Left click here to go to OPBC Street Preaching Page
Click here to go to the PDF of tract Street Preaching in America: Is It Legal?
Click here to listen to 12/27/14 blogtalk radio show with discussion of the 12/22/14 illegal actions of the police officer against the Northfield, MN street preachers (The introduction of the broadcast is about 6 minutes long. The street preaching discussion resumes at the 38 minute 20 second mark.)

b. Introduction

We live in America, but forces are working throughtout the world and in the United States to destroy First Amendment protections. Leading forces are those who are seeking to bring in the New World Order (Catholicism, members of groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Counsel on Foreign Relations, Islam, homosexuals, etc.). Police Arrest US Street Preacher In Scotland For Calling Homosexuality A Sin (011014). 

This encounter which is occurring in Northfield, Minnesota would not happen in a city like Austin, Texas. Jerald Finney, the author of this blog, was part of a street preaching ministry in Austin, Texas for 20 years, and led the ministry for many of those years. No peace officer ever interfered with their efforts in the public forum. Instead, the police monitored their street preaching activities and protected them from those who tried to physically interfere with the practice of their protected activities. The street preachers shouted their messages so that they could be heard. Because Austin is the scene of much public activism (by all types of activists from atheists to “Christians” to social activists both liberal and conservative) and the speech related thereto, Austin city, county, and district attorneys as well as law enforcement personnel have learned the law on these matters and the police in Austin are trained to know and protect the constitutionally protected speech of Americans within the city of Austin. Many smaller cities have never had the opportunity to look into the law concerning street preaching and therefore, as in Northfield, have to study it out. To this point, Northfield, Minnesota is now encountering protected speech in the public forum and is responding to complaints.  Northfield, to this point, has been very courteous and reasonable (except for one officer).

Even in Austin, Texas the legality of certain ordinances may be unclear and one may find himself in court. Jerald Finney has successfully handled two cases which dealt with such matters. The following link will take you to the briefs, final decision, etc. in one of those cases. The ordinances being looked into by the city of Northfield, Minnesota in regards to street preaching in that city certainly are unconstitutional if applied to street preaching in the public forum. Austin has ordinances similar to those being looked at by Northfield and, since city personnel understand the law, does not charge street preachers with violations thereof. The street preachers in Northfield are, according to their character (see Repentance, the new life, and the changed life for more on this) imparted to them when they were born again (see God’s Plan of Salvation for more on this), are courteous and careful not to obstruct highways or passageways, litter, or do anything else in violation of legitimate law while at the same time complying with the highest law (see IV below), and, in America federal, state, and city law (see V, VI, and VII below.). One can read the following briefs  for an understanding of the law in the United States.

I received the following e-mail which is very insightful and can be applied to the overall American state of mind:

From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:20 PM
To:
Subject: Taste of Northfield Celebration!!!!

Gentlemen,
See the attached advertisement for good food and fun times in Northfield’s very own Bridge Square [Click the following link to view the ad: CommercialCopier_20140527_234322].  Incidentally this is the same Bridge Square that many city folk have tried to get the preachers kicked out of by various methods.  I have just one question…Will anyone from good ole Northfield complain about the Awesome Live Music, guns going off with the Bank Raid Reenactment or even the sloppy drunks running around after a day and night of festivities in the Beer and Wine Gardens.  Oh…by the way…it’s “FUN FOR ALL AGES”?

I wonder if they’d mind if the Preachers came down there to “JOIN IN” on all the hubbabaloo and did a little Street Preaching…ya know…”Just to Fit In” with the community.

[]

Click here to see the briefs, final decision, etc. of a case handled by Attorney Jerald Finney which involved the issue of free speech in a public forum.

For the history of how Americans got freedom of religion, press, assembly, speech, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, click one of the following links:

(1) History of the First Amendment.
(2) Abbreviated version of the history of the First Amendment.

c. Relevant facts concerning the first attack in Northfield

Pastor Jason Cooley and some other men were street-preaching in Bridge Square Park in Northfield, Minnesota on December 22, 2013. They had preached there before with the observation and support of the Northfield Police Department.

BRIDGE SQUARE PARK IN NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA

Bridge Square Park is a city park in Northfield  and is therefore, for speech purposes, a free speech area according to the Highest Law as well as the United States Constitution. (To verify this, see http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/Index.aspx?NID=284see also, Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 50 – OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS >> ARTICLE V. OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC MORALS >> Sec. 50-116. Curfew for minors…. Public parks and walkways includes Sechler Park; Odd Fellows Park; Central Park; Babcock Park; Way Park; Riverside Park; Cherry Park; Sibley Marsh; Sibley Swale; Bridge Square; Riverwalkway from Second Street to Fifth Street; River Pedestrian Bridge; and any park, playground or walkway maintained by the city [Emphasis mine]. Relevant Northfield ordinances, including this one, are reproduced below. See also, the case excerpts below which interpret the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as to speech in a public forum.)

Hear the unconstitutional actions following the above mentioned street preaching of a police officer in Northfield, Minnesota on December 22, 2013 in Northfield, Minnesota: Street Preachers Rights Attempted To Be Chilled By the Police. After contacting the Northfield Mayor, City Council Members, the City Attorney, the Chief of Police, it appeared that the misguided actions of the officer in the encounter will not occur again. Certain citizens were happy about the results. Others mounted a misguided plan, which they never brought to fruition, probably because they learned the truth about freedom of speech in the public forum and knew that if they proceeded, they were doomed to failure and, also, would be the target of civil action by the speakers if they wanted to pursue civil action.

Hear the rest of the facts in the following message on sermonaudio.com: “Christmass Is Not About The Truth” or on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGLagkbzvJc

Links to other relevant sermons preached by Pastor Jason Cooley follow:

Submission To God In Trials (122913)-(Click here to listen to Youtube version)
Reasons For Submission To God In Trials (122913)-(Click here to listen to longer Youtube version which includes other matters)
Readings From The Lives Of Virginia Baptist Ministers (122913)(Regarding persecuted ministers in the colony of Virginia prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution)

Listen to this situation discussed on blog talk radio by clicking here.

d. Updates:

February 16, 2014 

After further talks with Pastor Jason Cooley and other men who have done street preaching in Northfield, Minnesota, the encounter with which this article was concerned appears to have been the act of a “Lone Wolf” acting without knowledge and on his own without the consent or authority of the city of Northfield. Before and since this incident, the men have not been wrongly interfered with in the practice of their First Amendment protections.

One example of this may be viewed on Youtube by clicking the following picture to go directly to the Youtube video:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpu5QnlWpnA&list=PLy6exNmJy7Ro4G1GticVrn_0iOycp_mQi&index=11)

The person who sent the above link to this attorney included the following message: “Brother Jerald Finney, look at the 4:23 min mark and you can see directly behind brother Ickes the three officer’s that were standing there, just shooting the breeze and didn’t bother us. They were standing there so ALL the people would STOP calling. The officer’s were letting everyone know hat we KNOW their preaching and their NOT doing anything wrong.”

You will also hear some good preaching on the above Youtube video, some of which explains why the men are in obedience to God by going outside the walls of a church meeting house and into the world to preach the Gospel.

Let us hope that this is the end of the matter. These street preachers are simply acting in obedience to biblical instructions for churches and believers, and violation of free speech protection in America brings about much unnecessary expense to the taxpayer in the resultant legal litigation against the offending government and the offending government officials. In addition, the street preachers who are wrongly interfered with will expend time and energy in contending for the faith through such litigation that could be better used directly preaching the Gospel in the public forum.

Reading the material and links in this article will be very helpful to one who wishes to understand the First Amendment protection of religion and speech from interference by government and government officials.

March 30, 2014 Update

Click here to listen to the March 30, 2014 encounter of street preachers with Police Sergeant Kevin Tussing in Northfield Minnesota

On March 30, 2014, Police Sergeant Kevin Tussing of the Northfield, Minnesota Police Department approached street preachers in Northfield, Minnesota and told them that a lady had complained and that she had stirred up other people. Sergeant Tussing was very courteous as he had been in the past; before, he had observed the street preachers and had not hindered their efforts. In this instance, he was responding to a complaint. Sergeant Tussing informed the street preachers that they were possibly in violation of two sections of the Northfield City Ordinance, but that he wanted to seek clarification from the city attorney. He did not order them to stop street preaching, nor cite them for any crime. The two sections of the city ordinance which the officer said he was looking at had already been included in this article below and discussed by Jerald Finney and Pastor Jason Cooley. Obviously, the officer – as he recognized by stating that he needed to talk to the city attorney about the matter – only looked at the Northfield ordinances and had not considered all the law, but only the selected laws taken out of context and possibly twisted (similar to the way many “Christians” interpret the Bible). All the laws include the laws of God, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, caselaw based upon the First Amendment which address speech protections for street preachers, the Minnesota Constitution, and all the ordinances of Northfield. This article does look at all the laws below. The two Northfield ordinances the officer cited were as follows:

Sec. 50-86. Disorderly conduct.
No person shall:
(1) Commit any assault;
(2) Engage in brawling or fighting;
(3) Disturb an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character;
(4) Spit upon any sidewalk or crosswalk;
(5) Appear in public or any exposed place in a state of nudity or in any indecent or lewd dress;
(6) Annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct or be offensive to others to a degree whereby a breach of peace may be or is likely to be occasioned;
(7) Fail or refuse to obey a police officer’s lawful order; or
(8) Be guilty of any indecent or obscene acts or any lewd, indecent or obscene conduct, language, or behavior.

Sec. 50-87. Noisy parties or assemblies.
(a) Any person who participates in any party or assembly of two or more people from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume or of sufficient nature to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any owner or tenant of the place at which a disturbance is occurring, who has knowledge of the disturbance and fails to immediately abate the disturbance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) A police officer may order all persons present at a noisy party or assembly prohibited in subsection (a) of this section, other than the owners or tenants of the place at which the disturbance is occurring, to immediately disburse. Any person who shall refuse to leave after being so ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Notice that Sec. 50-86. Disorderly conduct does not state that one is guilty of a misdemeanor as does Sec. 50-87. Noisy parties or assemblies.Section 50-87 provides for no punishment. Sec. 50-88. Social host states that  “Penalty. Any person who violates this section [Sec. 50-88] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both” but applies by its own terms only to Sec. 50.88.

The men will be calling the city attorney about this matter. Hopefully, this can be resolved according to the law of God and the law of man without further legal action.

March 31, 2014 Update

Jerald Finney tried to call the city attorney of Northfield, but he was unavailable until April 7, 2014 and would not take e-mails or voice mails until that date. He then contacted the Alliance Defense Fund (“ADF”) about getting an ADF attorney in Minnesota to take immediate legal action on bahalf of each and all of the street preachers should the city of Northfield violate the law and tell the preachers that they had to quit their street preaching or be issued citations. This action was taken because the work is so preeminent and interruptions delay and damage the work and the cause of Christ.

Then, Sergeant Tussing called Pastor Jason Cooley and informed him that the city attorney told him that street preaching is legal and there is nothing they can do to stop it. I applaud Sergeant Tussing for his vigilant approach to this most important matter. Many officers act unwisely, and take the law into their own hands. In this attorney’s experience, the attitude of most officers is “We are the  law;” most would prefer that the officers arrest would mean the end of the matter except for determination of the penalty. Sergeant Tussing understood that he did not know the law concerning street preaching (probably because he had never had to deal with it) and made sure that he knew what to do to comply with the law before he acted.

Also, I applaud the city attorney of Northfield who actually took the time, without outside input to make sure he correctly assessed the law. It appears to this point that Northfield is in very competent legal hands.

Officer Tussing did not seem pleased with the outcome because this whole thing was going to cause him a headache. He knows that some citizens will continue to call and harass the police in their attempt to try to get something done to stop the street preachers. If he only knew his importance in keeping the peace and enforcing the law in these matters, he would feel differently. Hopefully, this will be a springboard for teaching law enforcement and the complaining citizens the importance and history of street preaching and freedoms of religion, press, and speech in America. The compelling and forgotten history of religious freedom in America should be taught in every school and church in America. Sadly, that is not the case. That history can be read online at “The History of the First Amendment” or in shortened form at “An Abridged History of the First Amendment.”

This is a victory for the citizens and city of Northfield which was won over a long period of history at the cost of the lives of millions or martyrs and others who were imprisoned, tortured, and persecuted and/or lost all their earthly possessions just because they refused to bow down to the church-state alliances, starting with the Catholic alliance with the state and then continued by Protestant alliances which came to the American colonies where the persecution continued. The First Amendment resulted in the end of those persecutions in America and the waves of freedom gained thereby swept across other nations. Tragically, though, Christians are still persecuted and even martyred in nations throughout the world such as Korea, China, and many Muslim and Marxist nations.

Of course, true believers do not get their freedom from civil government, but from Christ. To understand this, read Section II of the article “Laws Protecting New Testament Churches in the United States: Read Them for Yourself.”

May 24, 2013 Update

Again, citizens complained about the street preaching. See the whole encounter at:

Cops Called – Preachers Know Their Rights

June 21, 2014 Update

Brother Paul Pearson, Pastor Jason Cooley, Brother Cooley (Pastor Jason’s dad) and some other younger men from Old Paths Baptist Church went to Faribault MN for street preaching, displaying signs, and handing out tracts. See the two recordings made by Pastor Jason Cooley at the end of this section. Faribault police officers approached them. One of the officers arguably assaulted (petty misdemeanor assault) Brother Pearson as he was preaching by poking his with his finger as he stood on a stand street preaching. As the officer poked Brother Pearson with his finger he told him, “Get down from there. I said get down from there.” Brother Pearson kept preaching. One female officer told them that if they did not leave, they would be cited and arrested. She threatened them by saying they would cite them for violating Section 17-42(a) of the Faribault City Ordinances which reads in relevant part:

“Sec. 17-42. Nuisance noise.

“(a) No person in the city shall make or assist in or permit the making of any noise tending to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of persons in the vicinity thereof, unless the making and continuing of the same cannot be prevented and is necessary for the protection or preservation of property or of the health, safety, life or limb of some person.

“…

“(d) Permitted noise. Customary sounds from any of the following activities shall not be deemed to violate this section.

“(1) Marching and/or playing of music by bands, orchestras, or other musical aggregations in conjunction with an authorized city celebration, festival, or other neighborhood or community event, including band shell concerts; or the practice for or presentation of an event sponsored by a local public or private school;
“(2) Church bells, chimes and carillons;
“(3) Authorized parades;
“(4) Construction work conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
“(5) School bells;
“(6) Emergency vehicles;
“(7) Permitted street dances; or
“(8) Collection and transportation of garbage or refuse in the city between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the collection and transportation of garbage or refuse for commercial, industrial or institutional properties may be conducted between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.”

Note. I included subsection (d) above because I believe it is significant that the exceptions do not include the most important and constitutionally mandated exception – free speech in the public forum – while it does include garbage collection and other similarly types of sound causing activities including some Biblically offensive types of “noise.”

She had to go get a copy of the above section of the code before she could tell them what they were allegedly doing wrong. Brother Pearson kept preaching and Pastor Cooley explained to the officers that they were engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which is above a city ordinance and nullifies any ordinance which is in violation of that amendment). The female officer told them that it was illegal for them to preach there and that “telling people they’re going to hell is alarming and scaring them.”

A separate article has now been written on this matter. It appears that the issue has been successfully resolved. To read how it all played out click the following link: “Is It Wrong For A Believer To Sue For Violation Of His Constitutional Rights? A Real Life Study“.

You can view this happening on the following two Youtube videos:

Faribault MN Police Order Preachers To Stop Preaching

Faribault Police Tell Preachers To Leave Or Be Arrested

August 17, 2014 Update

This update is covered in the article: Business Owners Try To Shut Down Street Preaching In Nortfield, Minnesota

September 12, 2014

The Old Paths Baptist Church “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry was appropriately named and, according to its name, has created “no small stir” in Northfield MN. It has served as an educational tool and encouraged a debate in the city. This was a positive effect envisioned by the street preaches as a side effect of their protected – but not understood in smaller cities where street preaching has never occurred – speech. See “Constitution Day events aim to remind Northfielders of their rights, spark discussions” a September 12, 2014 article in the Northfield News. This will be supplemented as that situation unfolds. It is hoped that all the citizens of Northfield, including Susannah Ottaway, will be open to the true history of the First Amendment.

To go to Constitution Day in Northfield “Toward a More Perfect Union” on facebook, click here.

The following is from Carleton News on September 8, 2014 available at https://apps.carleton.edu/news/news/?story_id=1179154 

  • September 17, 7:00 – 8:30 p.m.
    Constitution Day Event at Carleton College

    The evening kicks off with an excerpt from the thought-provoking PBS seriesConstitution USA, followed by a “lightning round” of personal statements about the Constitution from a diverse lineup of citizens including the Northfield police chief, high school students, a Minnesota state representative, and Carleton president Steve Poskanzer. The audience will be invited to share their own opinions during an open-mic session. Expect a lively conversation reflecting the many perspectives and voices of our community.See the full event details here.
  • September 18, 7:00 p.m.
    Constitution Lecture & Discussion at St. Olaf College
    What forces influenced the men who drafted the Constitution? What compromises did they negotiate in their pursuit of “a more perfect union”? Explore the origins and interpretations of the Constitution with political scientist David Robertson, author ofThe Original Compromise: What the Constitution’s Framers Were Really Thinking. St. Olaf College Viking Theater. Refreshments will be served.
  • October 12, 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
    “Northfield Reads!” Event at Northfield Public Library

    Engage in a community discussion on the Constitution with a particular focus on issues of free speech—a timely topic in Northfield as the community addresses concerns about speakers in Bridge Square. The Library will post short articles online for participants to read before the event.

“It’s so important for us to have these public conversations about our guiding principles and founding documents,” says Susannah Ottaway, director of the Carleton College Humanities Center, co-organizer of the Carleton event. “Here we have a dysfunctional government in Washington, fraught with an inability to compromise—yet the Constitution itself is the ultimate compromise document! That’s such a powerful symbol to our national community today.”

I would certainly agree with the above statement of Ms. Ottaway. That is why we all need to believe and teach factual history on the subject and steer clear of interpretations. Preeminent facts are available in the teachings on this website.

Click the following to see online op-ed posted in Northfield News:
Street Preaching: A Misunderstood Blessing” posted on September 24, 2014.

October 11, 2014

For a report and testimonies on the “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry activity in St. Paul on October 11, 2014 click the following link: Sermon “Once Prayed Always Saved Versus Eternal Life” (The street preaching portion is from about the 5 minute to the 33 minute 45 second mark. Baptist preachers who become business entity CEO’s have no clue as to what is going on in the world because they never experience it; they never go out and preach the Bible on the streets, as commanded in the Bible.)

April 18, 2015 

On this date, OPBC men went to Minneapolis, MN to preach in the public forum. Some were assaulted. The police came and told them to leave in 5 minutes or be arrested, thereby violating their civil rights (First Amendment speech rights). Read the whole story as it unfolds by clicking: April 18, 2015 encounter with unlawful police officer in Dinkeytown, Minnesota and subsequent actions by the offended parties.

August 2015

October 21, 2015

Click here to go to ‘Advance letter to “The Halloween Capital of America’ concerning street preaching by the men of Old Paths Baptist Church”

The OPBC men preached in Anoka and the police did their job.

April 6, 2016

On April 6, 2016, the Northfield News published a libelous, biased, slanted, one-sided attack against the street preachers and street preaching. This author is now preparing an article to be presented to the Northfield News for publication. That letter and other developments will be reproduced in this article.

Read the story as it unfolds at:

Citizen v. Citizen: Some Northfield, Minnesota Citizens Seek to circumvent First Amendment

Pastor Jason Cooley learned of the article an hour or so before his April 6, 2016 sermon. He included comments on the article in his sermon:

What They Meant For Evil God Meant For Good” on sermonaudio.com (040616)(Click here for Youtube of this sermon.)

e. Highest Law (God’s Law)

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”

For more detailed information on this see the “Separation of Church and State Law” (jeraldfinney.wordpress.com). Particularly important entries on that website include”:

  1. Laws Protecting New Testament Churches in the United States: Read Them for Yourself(https://jeraldfinney.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/laws-protecting-new-testament-churches-in-the-united-states-read-them-for-yourself/) (Article).
  2. The book,God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application(Covers the biblical doctrines of church, state, and separation of church and state, the history of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court Religion Clause Jurisprudence, and Union of Church and State in America which betrays God.)
    a. Online version at:https://jeraldfinney.wordpress.com/contents/online-version-of-the-book-god-betrayed/
    b. PDF at: https://jeraldfinney.wordpress.com/contents/books/god-betrayedseparation-of-church-and-state-the-biblical-principles-and-the-american-application/3812-2/
  3. Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses:
    a. Available in online form athttps://jeraldfinney.wordpress.com/contents/books/render-unto-god-the-things-that-are-his-a-systematic-study-of-romans-13-and-related-verses/
    b. and PDF form athttps://jeraldfinney.wordpress.com/contents/books/render-unto-god-the-things-that-are-his-a-systematic-study-of-romans-13-and-related-verses/render-unto-god-the-things-that-are-his-a-systematic-study-of-romans-13-and-related-verses/)(Covers Romans 13, 1 Peter 2.13, and other verses often cited out of context by both religious and secular heretics and apostates in order to justify giving unto Caesar the things that are God’s.).

f. United States Constitution

THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Fortunately, the highest law of the land is a statement of God’s law concerning freedom of religion (or soul liberty, or separation of church and state), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. For a complete explanation of this matter, see the resources above. Two resources on the above mentioned website cover the history of the First Amendment:

  1. An Abridged History of the First Amendment(https://jeraldfinney.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/an-abridged-history-of-the-first-amendment/)
  2. “History of Religious Freedom in America,” (https://jeraldfinney.wordpress.com/contents/online-version-of-the-book-god-betrayed/the-history-of-the-first-amendment/)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

SECTION 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

***

“SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Cases:

WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THE SPEECH OR NOT, IT IS PROTECTED IN AMERICA AND THE COURT TELLS POLICE OFFICERS THAT THEY MUST PROTECT THE SPEAKERS AND THE SPEECH.

On October 28, 2015, the U.S. Sixth Circuit restated and strengthened First Amendment protection of speech in the public forum in a case where “Bible Believers” involved in street preaching to Muslims displayed a pigs head. The Sixth Circuit stressed that the First Amendment “envelops all manner of speech, even when that speech is loathsome in its intolerance, designed to cause offense, and, as a result of such offense, arouses violent retaliation.” Attorney Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center, who argued the case on behalf of the Bible Believers, applauded the decision, saying it was  “solidly on the side of free speech.” “If this went the other way, it would incentivize  violence as a legitimate response to free speech, and that is wrong in our country,” Muise said.  “Any freedom-loving American enjoys protections of the First Amendment.”The Sixth Circuit said, “(The ruling)  affirms the rule of law that when a violent mob is responding violently to protected speech, the police’s duty is to protect the speaker and not join that mob that is intent in suppressing the speech,” Muise said. “Today, the First Amendment was the victor.” Click here to go directly to the opinion. Article: Anti-Muslim Slurs Get Legal Protection (102915)

SATAN IS THE GOD OF THIS WORLD

  1. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711, 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2959; 168 A.L.R. 1392 (1947). “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ Reynolds v. United Statessupraat 164…” (Ibid., pp. 15-16). [Emphasis mine.]

Everson stated the original purpose of the religion clause—separation of church and state (not separation of God and state)—but added a twist that has been used to do something the First Amendment never intended and that is to remove God from all civil government matters (separating God and state), thereby creating a pluralistic state that is run to a great degree by the principles of the god of this world. However, the First Amendment and those believers in Christ who wish to engage the public through speech by preaching the Gospel in the public square stand in the way of total dominance by the forces of evil.

  1. 3.… The freedom of speech and press are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are secured to all persons by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the state. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95, 60 S.Ct. 736, 740, 84 L.ED. 1093 (1940).
  2. Freedom of speech includes not only the spoken word, but also speech-related conduct, such as picketing, the wearing of arm bands and, in some recent highly publicized cases, flag burning as a type of political protest.Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 756.
  3. “Whenever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.’ Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 515-516, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts, joined by Mr. Justice Black).  Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 394 U.S. 147, 152, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969).”
  4. [Government control of access to its property, public forums, littering] The extent to which the government can control access to its property for expressive purposes depends on the nature of the forums.Reed v. State, 762 S.W.2d 640, 643 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988, pet. Ref’d) citing Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3489, 87 L.Ed. 567 (1985); Olvera v. State, 806 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Public forums are those areas which traditionally have been devoted to assembly and public debate, such as public streets, sidewalks, and parks. Id. “[The] Streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 102, 105-106, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741-742, 744, 746, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940).

Although a municipality may enact regulations in the interest of the public safety, health, welfare, or convenience, these may not abridge the individual liberties secured by the constitution to those who wish to speak, write, print, or circulate information or opinion. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). In Schneider, one appellant was charged with violating a law criminalizing the circulation and distribution of handbills designed, the city said, to prevent littering of the streets even though he did not litter himself—those to whom he handed the literature threw it down. The court said that the city could achieve the same thing without violating appellant’s freedom of speech by punishing those who threw the literature into the streets.

Thornton v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 102, 105-106, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741-742, 744, 746, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940):

“A threat … is inherent in a penal statute … which does not aim specifically at evils within the allowable area of State control but, on the contrary, sweeps within its ambit other activities that in ordinary circumstances constitute an exercise of freedom of speech or of the press. The existence of such a statute, which readily lends itself to harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials, against particular groups deemed to merit their displeasure, results in a continuous and pervasive restraining on all freedom of discussion that might reasonably be regarded as within its purview….

“Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period….

“[The] streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.”

  1. [Evils within allowable are of state control]

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1; 69 S. Ct. 894; 93 L. Ed. 1131; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2400 (1949):

“Freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.

“The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

“Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

“The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.”

Substantive evils within the allowable are of state control are obstructing or unreasonable interfering with ingress to and egress for enumerated public places, blocking sidewalks, obstructing traffic, littering streets, committing assaults, and engaging in countless other forms of anti-social conduct. Olvera v. State, 806 S.W.2d 546, 548-549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) citing Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91, S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971) andCameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 88 S.Ct. 1335, 20 L.Ed.2d 182 (1968). Evil within allowable areas of state control include molestation or interference with person and vehicles, obstruction of pedestrians and automobiles, threatening or intimidating or coercing anyone, making loud noises, unpeaceful and disorderly conduct, acts of violence, and breaches of the peace. See, e.g.Carlson v. California, 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed. 1104 (1940), Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736 (1940), Olvera v. State, 806 S.W. 2d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). See p. 25 of brief.

Municipal legislation meant to keep community streets open and available for movement of people and property is constitutional so long as the legislation does not abridge constitutional liberty of one to impart information through speech and distribution of literature. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 160, 60 S.Ct. 146, 150, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). Crimes may be punished by law, but the freedom of speech and the press may not be abridged in the guise of regulations by the governing entity to prevent littering, fraud, or to promote the public health, welfare, or convenience. Id. While declaring laws unconstitutional which infringe upon first amendment rights, the Court has made clear what a city may do to punish evils within the allowable areas of state control: “[A] city is free to prevent people from blocking sidewalks, obstructing traffic, littering streets, committing assaults, or engaging in countless other forms of anti-social conduct. It can do so through the enactment and enforcement of ordinances directed with reasonable specificity toward the conduct to be prohibited.” Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91, S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971).

  1. [Disorderly conduct]In Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103, 31 L. Ed. 2d 408, a defendant was found guilty of using opprobrious words and abusive language in violation of a Georgia statute. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the statute unconstitutionally vague and broad and set aside defendant’s conviction. “The constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech forbid the States to punish the use of words or  language not within “narrowly limited classes of speech.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942).Even as to such a class, however, because “the line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated, suppressed, or punished is finely drawn,” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 (1958), “in every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 (1940).” Government may pass laws which punish “fighting words.” In Chaplinsky, we sustained a conviction under Chapter 378, § 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire, which provided: “No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name . . . . ‘Chaplinsky was convicted for addressing to another on a public sidewalk the words, ‘You are a _ _ _ damned racketeer,’ and ‘a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.’ Chaplinsky challenged the constitutionality of the statute as inhibiting freedom of expression because it was vague and indefinite. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire, however, ‘long before  [*523]  the words for which Chaplinsky was convicted,’ sharply limited the statutory language ‘offensive, derisive or annoying word’ to ‘fighting” words’:

“No words were forbidden except such as have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed. . . .

“The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute . . . only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . .

“The dictionary definitions of ‘opprobrious’ and ‘abusive’ give them greater reach than “fighting” words. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961) defined ‘opprobrious’ as ‘conveying or intended to convey disgrace,’ and ‘abusive’ as including ‘harsh insulting language.’ Georgia appellate decisions have construed § 26-6303 to apply to utterances that, although within these definitions, are not ‘fighting’ words as Chaplinsky defines them.”

  1. The state of Louisiana both directly [seeCox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 574, 85 S.Ct. 476, 486 (1965)] and indirectly [seeCox] attempted unsuccessfully to deny freedom of speech to picketers. The United States Supreme Court ruled against the state in both cases. Louisiana indirectly tried to abridge appellant’s freedom of speech and assembly by charging him with violation of “disturbing the peach” and “obstructing a public passage” penal statutes. 379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453 (1965).

As to the “breach of the peace” charge, the Court stated that its independent examination of the record, which it is required to make, shows no conduct which the state had a right to prohibit as a breach of the peace. Id. At 545, 85 S.Ct. at 459. In addressing the “obstructing a public passage” conviction, the Court addressed the issue of the “right of a State or municipality to regulate the use of city streets and other facilities to assure the safety and convenience of the people in their use and concomitant right of the people of free speech and assembly.” Id. At 554, 85 S.Ct. at 464.  There was no doubt that the sidewalk was obstructed by the picketers. Id. At 553, 85 S.Ct. at 464. The Court said that the statute, as applied, violated the appellant’s Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly. Id. At 558, 85 S.Ct. at 466.

  1. [As to when a governmental entity seeks to take away one’s freedom to display signs and banners in conjunction with his protected speech.]A municipality in Carlson v. People of State of California, 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed. 1104 (1940) sought to enforce an ordinance which directly infringed on appellant’s freedom of speech. Carlson declared unconstitutional a municipal ordinance which declared it unlawful for any person, in or upon any public street, highway, sidewalk, alley or other public place … to carry or display any sign or banner in the vicinity of any place of business for the purpose of inducing or attempting to induce an person to refrain from purchasing merchandise or performing services or labor. Id. (emphasis mine).

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 41 L.Ed. 2d. 842 (1974): Appellant had displayed an American flag upside down out of his apartment window with a peace symbol attached. at 405-406. The Court noted, and the state conceded, that appellant engaged in a form of communication. at 409, 94 S.Ct. at 2729-2730.

To apply an ordinance to prevent the display of banners or signs in conjunction with protected speech activity violates the speaker’s right to freedom of speech and the rights of the people to whom the speech was directed. [Note for reminder to author: see p. 23-24 of brief].

“An assertion that ‘Jesus Saves,’ that ‘Abortion is Murder,’ that every woman has the ‘right to Choose,’ or that ‘Alcohol Kills,’ may have a claim to constitutional exemption from the ordinance [which prohibited certain political campaign signs] that is just as strong as ‘Roland Vincent—City Council.’ To create an exception for … political speech and not these other types of speech might create a risk of engaging in constitutionally forbidden content discrimination.” Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed. 772.

Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. Police Department of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2290, 33 L.Ed. 212 (1972)(Holding a Chicago ordinance unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a case where the equal protection claim was closely intertwined with First Amendment interests)(p 27 of brief). Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Id. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone. Id. Mr. Justice Black called an attempt by a government to pick and choose among the views it is willing to have discussed in picketing activities “censorship in its most odious form, unconstitutional under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed. 2d 471 (1965) cited in 408 U.S. 92, 98-99, 92 S.Ct. 2291; Carey v. Brown, 477 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed. 263 (1980) reaffirmed Mosley.

Even if the purpose of an ordinance does not specifically aim at protected speech, it may indicectly attempt to deny freedom of speech. (see p. 34 of brief). Even if the purpose of [an ordinance such as a sign ordinance] is to keep community streets open and available for movement of people and property or to prevent littering, fraud,  to promote the public health, welfare, or convenience, to prevent breaches of the peace or other crimes, it is constitutional only so long as it does  not abridge constitutional liberty or one to impart information through speech and the distribution of literature. See Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939); Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed. 2d 214 (1971); Cox v. State of Louisiana,  379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453 (1965).

  1. MCCULLEN ET AL. v. COAKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.struck down a state law creating 35 foot buffer zones around abortion clinics. This case, which was handed down on June 26, 2014, repeated basic and long-standing Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning speech in the public forum. Some excerpts from the case follow (be sure to read the entire case – click to the above link to go directly to the case):

“Held: The Massachusetts Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 8–30. (a) By its very terms, the Act restricts access to ‘public way[s]’ and  ‘sidewalk[s],’ places that have traditionally been open for speech activities and that the Court has accordingly labeled “traditional public fora,” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 469. The government’s ability to regulate speech in such locations is ‘very limited.’ United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 177. ‘[E]ven in a public forum,’ however, ‘the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information,’ ‘ Ward, supra, at 791. Pp. 8–10….

“(1) The buffer zones serve the Commonwealth’s legitimate interests in maintaining public safety on streets and sidewalks and in preserving access to adjacent reproductive healthcare facilities. See Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U. S. 357, 376. At the same time, however, they impose serious burdens on petitioners’ speech, depriving them of their two primary methods of communicating with arriving patients: close, personal conversations and distribution of literature. Those forms of expression have historically been closely associated with the transmission of ideas. While the Act may allow petitioners to “protest” outside the buffer zones, petitioners are not protestors; they seek not merely to express their opposition to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conversations with women about various alternatives. It is thus no answer to say that petitioners can still be seen and heard by women within the buffer zones. If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled petitioners’ message. Pp. 19–23.

“(2) The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests. Subsection (e) of the Act already prohibits deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances. Massachusetts could also enact legislation similar to the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U. S. C. §248(a)(1), which imposes criminal and civil sanctions for obstructing, intimidating, or interfering with persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services. Obstruction of clinic driveways can readily be addressed through existing local traffic ordinances. While the Commonwealth contends that individuals can inadvertently obstruct access to clinics simply by gathering in large numbers, that problem could be addressed through a law requiring crowds blocking a clinic entrance to disperse for a limited period when ordered to do so by the police. In any event, crowding appears to be a problem onlyat the Boston clinic, and even there, only on Saturday mornings.

“It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas. Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site. Not so on public streets and sidewalks. There, a listener often encounters speech he might otherwise tune out. In light of the First Amendment’s purpose ‘to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail,’ FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364, 377 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted), this aspect of traditional public fora is a virtue, not a vice. In short, traditional public fora are areas that have historically been open to the public for speech activities. Thus, even though the Act says nothing about speech on its face, there is no doubt—and respondents do not dispute—that it restricts access to traditional public fora and is therefore subject to First Amendment scrutiny. See Brief for Respondents 26 (although ‘[b]y its terms, the Act regulates only conduct,’ it ‘incidentally regulates the place and time of protected speech’).

“In short, traditional public fora are areas that have historically been open to the public for speech activities. Thus, even though the Act says nothing about speech on its face, there is no doubt—and respondents do not dispute—that it restricts access to traditional public fora and is therefore subject to First Amendment scrutiny. See Brief for Respondents 26 (although ‘[b]y its terms, the Act regulates only conduct,’ it ‘incidentally regulates the place and time of protected speech’). Consistent with the traditionally open character of public streets and sidewalks, we have held that the government’s ability to restrict speech in such locations is ‘very limited.’ Grace, supra, at 177. In particular, the guiding First Amendment principle that the ‘government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content’ applies with full force in a traditional public forum. Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95 (1972). As a general rule, in such a forum the government may not ‘selectively . . . shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others.’ Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 209 (1975).”

g. Constitution of the state of Minnesota

Preamble: “We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Article I. Bill of Rights:

Sec. 2. Rights and privileges.

No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted.

Sec. 3. Liberty of the press.

The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.

Sec. 4. Trial by jury.

The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy. A jury trial may be waived by the parties in all cases in the manner prescribed by law. The legislature may provide that the agreement of five-sixths of a jury in a civil action or proceeding, after not less than six hours’ deliberation, is a sufficient verdict. The legislature may provide for the number of jurors in a civil action or proceeding, provided that a jury have at least six members. [Amended, November 8, 1988]

Sec. 5. No excessive bail or unusual punishments. …

Sec. 6. Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions. …

Sec. 7. Due process; prosecutions; double jeopardy; self-incrimination; bail; habeas corpus. …

Sec. 8. Redress of injuries or wrongs.

Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.

Sec. 9. Treason defined. …

Sec. 10. Unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited. …

Sec. 11. Attainders, ex post facto laws and laws impairing contracts prohibited. …

Sec. 12. Imprisonment for debt; property exemption. …

Sec. 13. Private property for public use. …

Sec. 14. Military power subordinate. …

Sec. 15. Lands allodial; void agricultural leases. …

Sec. 16. Freedom of conscience; no preference to be given to any religious establishment or mode of worship. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.

Sec. 17. Religious tests and property qualifications prohibited. No religious test or amount of property shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust in the state. No religious test or amount of property shall be required as a qualification of any voter at any election in this state; nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in consequence of his opinion upon the subject of religion.

Cases: To be added.

h. Northfield, Minnesota Code of Ordinances and Charter

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> Part 1 Northfield City Charter >> CHAPTER ONE.

Section 1.1. Preamble.

One of our nation’s most cherished qualities is freedom. There can be no freedom, however, without responsibility and order. Written documents governing our nation and state governments clearly declare the right of all persons to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Accompanying statements spell out the responsibilities and order that make freedom possible. It is proper that cities also spell out the freedoms and responsibilities of their citizens that make for good order.

Be it hereby declared that no person in the City of Northfield shall, on the grounds of age, race, color, creed, sex, religion, national origin, marital status or status with regard to public assistance or disability be subjected to discrimination in any form. Human freedom and human rights are indivisible. If anyone is denied equality, no one is free. The following charter is a declaration of the public policy of the City of Northfield to fulfill its responsibility to treat all of its citizens equally and with good order.

BRIDGE SQUARE PARK

AMES PARK

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART I – NORTHFIELD CITY CHARTER >> CHAPTER TWO. NAME, BOUNDARIES, POWER AND GENERAL PROVISIONS >>

Section 2.2. Powers of the City.

In order to promote and protect the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and welfare of the inhabitants of the city, the city shall have all powers which may now or hereafter be possible for a municipal corporation in this state to exercise in harmony with the constitutions of this state and of the United States. It is the intention of this Charter to confer upon the city every power which it would have if it were specifically mentioned. Unless granted to some other officer or body, all powers are vested in the city council.

 

ASPEN PARK

BABCOCK PARK


Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART I – NORTHFIELD CITY CHARTER >> CHAPTER THREE. FORM OF GOVERNMENT >>

Section 3.7. Investigation of City Affairs.

The council or an officer or officers formally authorized by the council may make investigations into the city’s affairs. The council may provide for an examination or audit of the accounts of an officer or department of the city government. The council may conduct surveys or research studies of subjects of municipal concern.

CAMPOSTELLA PARK

CENTRAL PARK

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART I – NORTHFIELD CITY CHARTER >> CHAPTER FOUR. PROCEDURE OF COUNCIL >>

Section 4.4. Hearing of the Public.

At each regular meeting of the council a time shall be set aside for the hearing of citizens.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS >>

Sec. 1-1. Designation and citation of Code.

CHAR CARLSON PARK

CHERRY PARK

The ordinances embraced in this and the following chapters shall constitute and be designated the “Northfield, Minnesota, City Code” and may be so cited. Such ordinances may also be cited as the “Northfield Code.”

Sec. 1-2. Definitions and rules of construction.

The following definitions and rules of construction shall apply to this Code and to all ordinances and resolutions unless the context requires otherwise:

DRESDEN PARK

  1. A. RYSGAARD PARK

City. The term “city” means the City of Northfield, Minnesota.

City council and council. The terms “city council” and “council” mean the council of the City of Northfield, Minnesota.

Code. The term “Code” means the Northfield, Minnesota, City Code, as designated in section 1-1.

Delegation of authority. A provision that authorizes or requires a city officer or city employee to perform an act or make a decision authorizes such officer or employee to act or make a decision through subordinates.

GRANT PARK

HAUBERG WOODS PARK

Minn. Stat. The abbreviation “Minn. Stat.” means the Minnesota Statutes, as amended.

Owner. The term “owner,” as applied to property, includes any part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or part of such property.

Person. The term “person” means any human being; any governmental or political subdivision or public agency; any public or private corporation; any partnership; any firm, association or other organization; any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent, or other legal representative of any of the foregoing; or any other legal entity.

HERITAGE PARK

HEYWOOD PARK


Personal property. The term “personal property” means any property other than real property.

Premises. The term “premises,” as applied to real property, includes land and structures.

Property. The term “property” includes real property, personal property and mixed property.

Real property, real estate and land. The terms “real property,” “real estate,” and “land” include lands, buildings, tenements and hereditaments and all rights and interests therein, except chattel interests.

HIDDEN VALLEY PARK

JEFFERSON PARK

Sidewalk. The term “sidewalk” means that portion of a street between the curbline, or the lateral lines of a roadway where there is no curb, and the adjacent property line, intended for the use of pedestrians. If there is no public area between the lateral lines of the roadway and the abutting property line, the area immediately abutting the street line shall be construed as the sidewalk.

State. The term “state” means the State of Minnesota.

JOHN NORTH PARK

LASHBROOK PARK

Street. The term “street” means any alley, avenue, boulevard, highway, road, lane, viaduct, bridge and the approach thereto, and any other public thoroughfare in the city. The term “street” also means the entire width thereof between abutting property lines. The term “street” includes a sidewalk or footpath.

(c) Unless specified otherwise, all references to chapters or sections are to chapters or sections of this Code.

LIBERTY PARK

ODD FELLOWS

Sec. 1-8. General penalty; continuing violations.

(a) In this section the phrase “violation of this Code” means any of the following:

(1) Doing an act that is prohibited or made or declared unlawful, an offense, a violation or a misdemeanor by ordinance or by rule or regulation authorized by ordinance.

(2) Failure to perform an act that is required to be performed by ordinance or by rule or regulation authorized by ordinance.

(3) Failure to perform an act if the failure is prohibited or is made or declared unlawful, an offense, a violation or a misdemeanor by ordinance or by rule or regulation authorized by ordinance.

OLD MEMORIAL FIELD

PAR MEADOW PARK

(4) Counseling, aiding or abetting a violation of this Code as defined in this subsection.

(b) In this section the phrase “violation of this Code” does not include the failure of a city officer or city employee to perform an official duty unless it is specifically provided that the failure to perform the duty is to be punished as provided in this section.

(c) Except as otherwise provided by law or ordinance:

(1) A person convicted of a violation of this Code that is not a petty misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 90 days, or any combination thereof.

PRAIRIE HILLS PARK

RIVERSIDE LIONS PARK

(2) A person convicted of a violation of this Code that is a petty misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $300.00.

(d) In any case a person convicted of a violation of this Code shall pay the costs of prosecution. Except as otherwise provided by law or ordinance:

(1) With respect to violations of this Code that are continuous with respect to time, each day that the violation continues is a separate offense.

(2) With respect to other violations, each act constitutes a separate offense.

(e) The imposition of a penalty does not prevent suspension or revocation of a license, permit or franchise or other administrative sanctions.

(f) Violations of this Code that are continuous with respect to time are a public nuisance and may be abated by injunctive or other equitable relief. The

ROOSEVELT PARK

 

SECHLAR PARK

imposition of a penalty does not prevent injunctive relief.

(Code 1986, § 960:00)

State law reference— Authorized penalty for ordinance violations, Minn. Stat. §§ 410.33, 412.231, 609.0332, 609.034.

Sec. 1-11. Code does not affect prior offenses or rights.

SIBLEY SWALE PARK

SPRING CREEK PARK

(a) Nothing in this Code or the ordinance adopting this Code affects any offense or act committed or done, any penalty or forfeiture incurred, or any contract or right established before the effective date of this Code.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 46 NUISANCES >>

Sec. 46-4. Obstruction of public way.

TRUMAN PARK

TYLER PARK

No person shall encumber the city streets, sidewalks, alleys, lanes or public grounds with carriages, carts, wagons, sleighs or other vehicles or with boxes, lumber, firewood, posts, awnings, paper, ashes, refuse, offal, dirt, garbage, stones or other material or obstruction of any kind.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 50 – OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS >> ARTICLE II. OFFENSES INVOLVING PROPERTY RIGHTS >>

Sec. 50-26. Criminal trespass.

No person shall:

WASHINGTON PARK

WAY PARK

(1)   Intentionally enter upon the property of another and, without claim of right, refuse to depart therefrom on demand of the owner, lawful possessor or person with authority to control access to the property;

(2) Intentionally enter upon the property of another without express consent of the owner, lawful possessor or person with authority to control access to the property in the following situations:

  1. After such person has been given written notice by the owner, lawful possessor or person with authority to control access to the property directing that such person not enter upon the property; the written notice may be given to the person by certified mail or by service as provided for civil process; or
  2. After the property has been conspicuously posted with a notice directing that no person or no person other than persons included in a named classification enter upon the property at any time or at specifically stated times; or

(3) Intentionally enter a building or structure of any kind without the consent, express or implied, of the owner, lawful possessor or person with authority to control access to the building or structure. Whoever enters a building or structure while open to the general public does so with consent, unless consent is withdrawn by giving notice to such person directing that such person not enter the building or structure; the written notice may be given to the person by certified mail or by service as provided for civil process.

(Code 1986, § 955:00)

State law reference— Trespass, Minn. Stat. § 609.605.

Sec. 50-27. Defacing sidewalks or public structures.

No person shall write, print, stick, post, or place any bill, placard or sign of any description upon the sidewalks or other public structure of the city.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 50 – OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS >> ARTICLE IV. OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER >>

Sec. 50-86. Disorderly conduct.

Sec. 50-87. Noisy parties or assemblies.

Sec. 50-88. Social host.

Secs. 50-89—50-115. Reserved.

Sec. 50-86. Disorderly conduct.

No person shall:

(1) Commit any assault;

(2) Engage in brawling or fighting;

(3) Disturb an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character;

(4) Spit upon any sidewalk or crosswalk;

(5) Appear in public or any exposed place in a state of nudity or in any indecent or lewd dress;

(6) Annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct or be offensive to others to a degree whereby a breach of peace may be or is likely to be occasioned;

(7) Fail or refuse to obey a police officer’s lawful order; or

(8) Be guilty of any indecent or obscene acts or any lewd, indecent or obscene conduct, language, or behavior.

Sec. 50-87. Noisy parties or assemblies.

(a) Any person who participates in any party or assembly of two or more people from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume or of sufficient nature to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any owner or tenant of the place at which a disturbance is occurring, who has knowledge of the disturbance and fails to immediately abate the disturbance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) A police officer may order all persons present at a noisy party or assembly prohibited in subsection (a) of this section, other than the owners or tenants of the place at which the disturbance is occurring, to immediately disburse. Any person who shall refuse to leave after being so ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Sec. 50-88. Social host. …

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 50 – OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS >> ARTICLE V. OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC MORALS >>

Sec. 50-116. Curfew for minors.

(a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Public parks and walkways includes Sechler Park; Odd Fellows Park; Central Park; Babcock Park; Way Park; Riverside Park; Cherry Park; Sibley Marsh; Sibley Swale; Bridge Square; Riverwalkway from Second Street to Fifth Street; River Pedestrian Bridge; and any park, playground or walkway maintained by the city. [Emphasis mine]

Public places includes public streets, parking lots, highways, roads, alleys, public buildings and grounds; places of amusement, refreshment or entertainment; vacant lots; or other unsupported places. [Emphasis mine]

Responsible adult includes a parent, legal guardian, or his/her adult designee, having care and custody of a minor under the age of 18 or any adult having responsibility for a supervised activity.

Supervised activity includes events sponsored and supervised by schools, churches or civic groups or events where a responsible adult is present.

(b) No minor under the age of 16 shall loiter, loaf or be idle in a public place or public park or walkway between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. of the following day unless in the company of a responsible adult or going to, attending, or returning from a supervised activity.

(c) No minor under the age of 18 and over the age of 15 shall loiter, loaf or be idle in a public place or park or walkway between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 5:00 a.m. the following day unless in the company of a responsible adult or going to, attending, or returning from a supervised event.

(d) No parent, legal guardian or other adult having the care and custody of a minor under the age of 18 shall knowingly permit such minor to violate subsection (b) or (c) of this section.

(e) No person operating or in charge of any place of amusement, entertainment, or refreshment shall knowingly permit any minor under the age of 18 to loiter, loaf or be idle in such place during the hours prohibited by this section. This subsection shall not apply when the minor is accompanied by his/her parents, legal guardian, or other adult having the care and custody of the minor.

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the minor was:

(1) On an errand at the direction of the minor’s parent or guardian, without any detour or stop;

(2) In a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel;

(3) Engaged in an employment activity, or going to or returning home from an employment activity, without any detour or stop;

(4) Involved in an emergency;

(5) On the sidewalk abutting the minor’s residence or abutting the residence of a next-door neighbor if the neighbor did not complain to the police department about the minor’s presence;

(6) Attending an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the school district, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor; or going to or returning home from, without any detour or stop, an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the city, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor; or

(7) Exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution, such as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right of assembly. [Emphasis mine]

(g) Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than $100.00.

(Code 1986, §§ 930:00—930:20)

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 54 – PARKS AND RECREATION >> ARTICLE II. PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD >>
Sec. 54-61. Closing hours of parks.

All city parks as defined in section 50-116(a) shall be closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the following day. Any person found in the parks after closing hours shall be in violation of this section. Exceptions to this section shall include annual Defeat of Jesse James Days events, any person or groups granted special permission by city officials or city staff, or any person or groups wanting to camp overnight, after first obtaining permission from the police department. All permissions or special permissions referenced in this section shall be granted upon a showing that there will be compliance with all laws and ordinances and a showing that the proposed activity will not endanger park property, the public peace or the public safety.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 58 – PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS >> ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL >> (IN case needed for future reference)

Sec. 58-1. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Peddler means any person who goes from house to house, place to place or from street to street conveying or transporting goods, wares or merchandise or offering or exposing the goods, wares or merchandise for sale, or making sales and delivering articles to purchasers. The term “peddler” does not include vendors of milk, bakery products, groceries, food products or ice, who distribute their products to regular customers on established routes.

Solicitor means any person who goes from house to house, place to place, or street to street, soliciting or taking or attempting to take orders for sale of goods, wares or merchandise, including magazines, books, periodicals or personal property of any nature for future delivery, or for service to be performed in the future, whether or not such individual has, carries or exposes for sale a sample of the subject of such order or whether or not advance payments on such orders are collected. The term “solicitor” includes any person who, for himself/herself or another, hires, leases, uses or occupies any building, motor vehicle, trailer, structure, tent, railroad boxcar, boat, hotel room, lodginghouse, apartment, shop or other place within the city for the primary purpose of exhibiting samples and taking orders for future delivery.

Transient merchant means any person, whether as owner, agent, consignee or employee, who engages in a temporary business of selling and delivering goods, wares and merchandise within the city and who, in furtherance of such purposes, hires, leases, uses or occupies any building, structure, motor vehicle, trailer, tent, railroad boxcar, boat, public room in a hotel, lodginghouse, apartment, shop or any street, alley or other place within the city for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares and merchandise, either privately or at public auction, provided that the term “transient merchant” shall not be construed to include any person who, while occupying such temporary location, does not sell from stock, but exhibits samples for the purpose of securing orders for future delivery only.

Sec. 58-3. Religious and charitable organizations.

(a)   Any organization, society, association or corporation (“organization”) desiring to solicit or to have solicited in its name money, donations of money or property, or financial assistance of any kind or desiring to sell or distribute any item of literature or merchandise for which a fee is charged or solicited from persons other than members of such organization upon the streets, in office or business buildings, by house-to-house canvas, or in public places for a charitable, religious, patriotic or philanthropic purpose is exempt from article II of this chapter, provided there is filed a sworn application in writing on a form to be furnished by the finance director/city clerk which contains the following information:

(1)   The organization’s name and the specific cause for which exemption is sought;

(2)   Names and addresses of the officers and directors of the organization;

(3)   The period during which solicitation is to be carried on; and

(4)   Whether or not any commission, fee, wage or emolument is to be expended in connection with such solicitation and the amount thereof.

(b)   Upon being satisfied that such an organization is a religious, charitable, patriotic or philanthropic organization, the finance director/city clerk shall issue a license without a fee to such organization. Such organization shall furnish all of its members, agents or representatives conducting solicitation credentials in writing stating the name of the organization, the name of the agent and the purpose of the solicitation.

Sec. 58-7. Penalty.

Any person convicted of violating any provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense.

 

 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: