“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” -- Thomas Jefferson, 1799
Judge Julie Robinson Sause is not a lawyer and likely doesn’t know court procedure much less all the civil codes.
But what if the Constitution is no longer considered valid Tom?
Pray in Your Own Home: ‘Face Arrest’
By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’
If America isn’t already a Police State then it is for sure’ rapidly becoming one! And the attack on Christians from all directions and all government agencies is obviously escalating.
“I was terrified that night. It was one of the worst nights of my life.” Said Mary Ann Sause, a former nurse in Louisburg, Kansas. The officers said, “that’s just a piece of paper,’ that ‘doesn’t work here.” as she showed them a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
That’s interesting because Louisburg police officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution: "On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve."
A shocking incident of police officers in Louisburg, Kansas, ordering a woman on threat of arrest, to stop praying inside her own home and telling her that “the Constitution doesn’t work here” has been elevated to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a district judge dismissed the complaint. Apparently the Louisburg courts don’t follow the Constitution either.
The case is now in the hands of lawyers with the First Liberty Institute since Mary Anne Sause, a retired nurse on disability, handled the initial’ claim on her own.
The result was that Judge Julie Robinson granted a motion from the city to dismiss the case, (the grounds for dismissal were not stated.) and told the women she wasn’t allowed to amend her complaint. Which is also interesting, because according to:
Civil Rule (a) (1) A party may amend its pleading/complaint once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it; or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under subsections (b), (e) or (f) of K.S.A. 60-212, and amendments thereto, whichever is earlier.
First Liberty, however, decided to challenge the recent ruling based on the violations of her First Amendment right to exercise her religious beliefs, and the afore mentioned Civil Rule.
“Ms. Sause said that Officers [Lee] Stevans and [Jason] Lindsey commanded her to stop praying, under threat of arrest. And they did so without any legitimate law-enforcement justification,” her lawyers said. “This is a plain violation of her clearly established First Amendment rights to pray in her own home and to be free from official retaliation for exercising that right.”
The appeals court is being asked to reverse the lower court’s decision, or, at a minimum, order it back to the lower court with orders to allow an amendment.
“No American should ever be told that they cannot pray in their own home,” said Stephanie Taub, associate counsel for First Liberty Institute. “The right to pray in the privacy of one’s own home is clearly protected by the First Amendment.”
First Liberty said Sause was home on the night of Nov. 22, 2013, when two officers approached her door and demanded that she open it.
She explained that they would not identify themselves and she could not see them through a peephole, so she didn’t open the door.
“As a survivor of rape, Sause never opens her door to anyone she can’t identify,” First Liberty said.
The officers left, but they came back and again demanded to be allowed in, this time identifying themselves.
“When Sause came to the door, this time opening the door, the officers asked why she didn’t answer the door the first time. Ms. Sause saw a pocket Constitution, given to her by her congressman, lying on a nearby table and showed it to the officers, who still refused to explain the reason for their appearance. One officer laughed and said, ‘That’s just a piece of paper’ that ‘doesn’t work here.'”
Once inside, they “harassed” her, she said, at one point telling her to get ready to go to jail.
“When Sause asked why, he said, ‘I don’t know yet,” First Liberty reported.
She was frightened and asked permission to pray, and one officer agreed. The other, who was illegally searching the house without a warrant, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, then came back into the room and ordered her to “stop praying,” the complaint explains.
They then “flipped through the codebook to see how they could charge her,” finally choosing “interference and disorderly conduct.” They didn’t elaborate as to how her conduct was disorderly or what exactly se interfered with.
At the end of their visit, they finally explained “they were there because someone in the neighborhood thought her radio was too loud.” Which would be a charge of disturbing the peace and not interference with anything or disorderly conduct.
She filed complaints with the city, and got no response before going to court.
Judge Robinson concluded that the officer’s order for her to stop praying “may have offended her,” but it was not “a burden on her ability to exercise her religion.” Wrong again! Not allowing her to exercise her freedom of religion especially in her own home, is in fact of law and reason, a burden on her ability to exercise her religion.
“The right to worship in the privacy of one’s own home, free from governmental interference, is a fundamental right – secured to every American by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” said First Liberty. “As the Supreme Court has recognized repeatedly, this foundational principle is enshrined directly in the text of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.”
The woman said the officers forced her to stop praying not in furtherance of a “legitimate law enforcement objective, but instead so they could continue to berate and harass her.”
The officers, for example, told her to “move away” and said “no one liked her.”
“The district court’s conclusion that being forced to stop praying in one’s own home – at the command of a police officer – ‘does not constitute a burden on [Ms. Sause’s] ability to exercise her religion’ is particularly worrisome,” the lawyers explained. To echo Justice Alito’s recent sentiments: “If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.”
“She said that the officers unlawfully interfered with her constitutional protected religious liberty – the right to pray in her own home,” they said.
“The police are supposed to make you feel safe, but I was terrified that night. It was one of the worst nights of my life,” Sause said.
The police violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as violated their Oath of Office not to mention false arrest which the officers said was for “interference and disorderly conduct,” for PRAYING IN HER OWN HOME.
In any event her constitutional rights were obviously violated by the Louisburg police. If you agree then Click on this to send an email to your representatives, if you don’t tell them what is going on in this country then it is likely that at least a few of them have no idea. Moreover, this kind of thing if not stopped, spreads like a forest on fire.
Next, it will be your Constitutional rights being violated by the Gestapo storm troopers…
See something, say something!
Thanks for listening my friend!
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list. It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved - Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.