Posted on 09/27/2016 12:21:58 PM PDT by simpson96
OKLAHOMA CITY — A New Jersey woman who was arrested during a 2014 protest of a satanic “Black Mass” has sued Oklahoma City and police a month after her municipal convictions were thrown out.
Joan Bell, a longtime activist who said she has been arrested hundreds of times, claims that her civil rights were violated when she was wrongfully arrested.
Bell, 68, was arrested during the protest after she refused to cease kneeling while saying the rosary on a landing at the top of the north steps of the Civic Center Music Hall. She said she attended the Sept. 21, 2014, protest of the Black Mass, a parody of the Catholic Mass, to pray against the “hate crime” occurring inside the Civic Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
bookmarking
We all need more of the spirit of Joan Bell inside each of us.
It wasn’t a “protest”. It was prayer reparation against sacrilege.
Some of you may remember her as Joan Andrews (her maiden name), who spent much of her earlier years putting herself between the mother and the abortionist in a non-violent manner. She is a holy and principled woman.
Traveled half way across the country to find a deep pocket?
Is this the same Joan Bell?
http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2012/09/horse_owner_thrown_as_sussex_county_court_reverses_decision.html
This?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=11-01-010-v
This?
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/antiterrorism.shtml
“Bell, 68, was arrested during the protest after she refused to cease kneeling while saying the rosary on a landing at the top of the north steps of the Civic Center Music Hall. “
Unless she is the owner of the Civic Center Music Hall, sounds like a legit arrest.
Hmmmmmm ..... A ‘black mass’, something some folks might just disagree about existing, when viewed under the microscope of the First Amendment, is a moot point.
However, within the First Amendment, under Obama, there is that thistleburr called ‘hate speech’. Democrats use that term against anyone that opposes them, or their agendas.
Using this woman’s theory of usage of the term ‘hate speech’, since a ‘black mass’ has been defined by her, it would stand to reason that she also considers a Hindu rite, a Buddhist rite, a Bahai rite, a Shinto rite, A Confucian rite, a Kahuna rite, a Heyoka rite, a Sioux rite, and any other ‘rite’ that could be listed, other than a Catholic rite (inferred by her usage of a rosary chain), as ‘hate speech’.
I do believe that throwing out a present-day term, without the accompanying definition is not being mindful, and furthers an air of idiocy.
Articles #2 and 3, yes. (Although #3 mischaracterizes her viciously.)
Joan Bell is not some kind of deep-pockets-chaser, narcissistic scofflaw, political malcontent or litigious activist. Full disclosure, I have known her for years and she is he single most morally upright person I have ever met.
Civic Center Music Hall is publicly owned property. She was all alone, outside the building, not blocking any passage, not making a single sound, nor interfering with anyone in any way.
?
All the points you raised are irrelevant as far as a trespassing complaint goes.
That's a badge of honor, in my book.
Thanks. The name and state matched for #1, but there wasn’t enough info to be sure.
This is from a more detailed account (LINK) from a different source:
Bell’s original arrest for trespass was later changed to a disorderly conduct charge. The Court ruled that Bell’s arrest was “unlawful” and accepted her lawyer’s arguments that she had a right to momentarily go limp to passively resist her arrest. The Court also ruled that because Bell was arrested on public and not private property, the city’s arrest charge was lacking.“The City has failed to show that Bell obstructed access to the Civic Center, and we find there was insufficient evidence to support the charged offense” of trespassing, according to the Court’s 18-page ruling. “Bell reasonably resisted officers during an unlawful arrest for the City’s unsupported trespass charge.”
“This is an important victory for the rights of Catholics in America, faced with a rising tide of anti-Catholic hatred, in this case officially sanctioned by the City of Oklahoma City,” Christopher A. Ferrara, the president and chief counsel of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, said in a statement. “ACLA attorneys are now reviewing the options, including a federal civil rights lawsuit on Mrs. Bell’s behalf. The gross violation of civil and constitutional rights in this case must never happen again in Oklahoma City.”
Except the first point, which is that it was public property. The arrest was determined to have been invalid based on that alone.
“Except the first point, which is that it was public property.”
You can be arrested for trespassing on public property. It happens all the time.
“The arrest was determined to have been invalid based on that alone.”
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean the court was correct. If she was in an area she wasn’t supposed to be and refused to leave when asked, then it was a perfectly proper trespassing arrest, whether the courts agree or not. The courts judge facts but they don’t determine reality.
That’s interesting, but appeals courts can get things wrong too.
I know it does. It doesn't make what she did illegal. She was not preventing anyone from doing anything, she was not violent, she did not damage property, she wasn't there when it was closed, and it was open to anyone else who wanted to be there peaceably at the time. Bad arrest.
If they ask you to leave and you refuse, it’s trespassing. Doesn’t matter if they are open, etc, etc.
Now, you could go back and sue them and probably win if they had no reason to ask you to leave, but you have no right to resist arrest simply because you think you should be allowed to stay somewhere when they are asking you to leave.
If the event was open to all, and she was doing what was reported, which was being silent in prayer, and not blocking, disrupting, or destroying anything, and, apparently, not there when the facility was closed, by what authority was she to be removed? Would they have removed someone who was just sitting there, doing nothing at all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.