Re: Notice of Appeal requiring City Council action on May 3, 2011Dear Chief Yaniero:By this letter filing, and pursuant to Section 23-67 of the Jacksonville City Code, I hereby appeal yourdenial and modification of our existing permit to peacefully demonstrate on the public right of wayoutside the Crist Clinic for Women at 250 Memorial Drive, Jacksonville. Section 23-67 provides that,“The city council shall act upon the appeal at the next scheduled meeting following receipt of the noticeof appeal.” The next meeting of the City Council is tomorrow, May 3, 2011, at 7 p.m.We had been peacefully praying and picketing on the public rights of way near the front entrance to theCrist Clinic, pursuant to permit, for the last few months. However, several weeks ago, Lieutenant SeanP. Magill instructed us that we could no longer stand near the front of the clinic but instead required usto stand well out of sight of the front of the clinic, further down Memorial Drive. This instruction causedconsternation on the part of the local business owner at the new location where Lt. Magill moved us, asthat business owner does not provide abortions. I then set up a meeting with Lt. Magill, where Ipresented him the enclosed GIS map from the county, which clearly indicates the public right of wayabutting the Crist Clinic property. After that meeting, I received the enclosed rejection letter modifyingand denying our existing permit. I asked Lt. Magill for a second meeting, and at that meeting, heconfirmed the letter’s contents, that we are forbidden from standing near the front entrance of the CristClinic for reasons of “public safety.” Though I requested the specific “public safety” reasons, no reasonshave been provided.With respect, the ruling on our permit is unconstitutional and should be reversed immediately. Fromtime immemorial, the U.S. Supreme Court has protected picketing and protest on public rights of way.Moreover, you have provided no legitimate reasons – nor could there be any legitimate reasons – formoving us from one spot on Memorial Drive to another. It is by sheer whim that we have been moved,not by any standard proper under the First Amendment.Further, the permit process set out in Section 23 of the Jacksonville City Code itself is unconstitutionalin part, both in its application to a small group of prayer vigil participants like us and in its vaguestandards, granting almost unlimited discretion to a municipal official over First Amendment-protectedactivity.Finally, the decision to move abortion protestors away from the abortion clinic, where such protestorsproperly belong, to an upstanding local business that does not provide abortions may negatively impactthe City of Jacksonville’s reputation as a business-friendly destination. Jacksonville doesn’t need thatkind of publicity, particularly during such tough economic times.Pursuant to Section 23-67, I am also copying the City Clerk on this filing. I have also carbon copied theMayor and members of the City Council, along with the attorneys of the Thomas More Society, whoserve as national counsel for numerous pro-life organizations, including “40 Days for Life,” a vigilcampaign in which we participate at the Crist Clinic.Very truly yours,Bart Spano, Ph.D.