Re: Notice of Appeal requiring City Council action on May 3, 2011 Dear Chief Yaniero: By this letter filing, and

pursuant to Section 23-67 of the Jacksonville City Code, I hereby appeal your denial and modification of our existing permit to peacefully demonstrate on the public right of way outside 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 notice of 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 the Crist Clinic, pursuant to permit, for the last few months. However, several weeks ago, Lieutenant Sean P. Magill instructed us that we could no longer stand near the front of the clinic but instead required us to stand well out of sight of the front of the clinic, further down Memorial Drive. This instruction caused consternation on the part of the local business owner at the new location where Lt. Magill moved us, as that business owner does not provide abortions. I then set up a meeting with Lt. Magill, where I presented him the enclosed GIS map from the county, which clearly indicates the public right of way abutting the Crist Clinic property. After that meeting, I received the enclosed rejection letter modifying and denying our existing permit. I asked Lt. Magill for a second meeting, and at that meeting, he confirmed the letter’s contents, that we are forbidden from standing near the front entrance of the Crist Clinic for reasons of “public safety.” Though I requested the specific “public safety” reasons, no reasons have been provided. With respect, the ruling on our permit is unconstitutional and should be reversed immediately. From time 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 – for moving 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 unconstitutional in part, both in its application to a small group of prayer vigil participants like us and in its vague standards, granting almost unlimited discretion to a municipal official over First Amendment-protected activity. Finally, the decision to move abortion protestors away from the abortion clinic, where such protestors properly belong, to an upstanding local business that does not provide abortions may negatively impact the City of Jacksonville’s reputation as a business-friendly destination. Jacksonville doesn’t need that kind 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 the Mayor and members of the City Council, along with the attorneys of the Thomas More Society, who serve as national counsel for numerous pro-life organizations, including “40 Days for Life,” a vigil campaign in which we participate at the Crist Clinic. Very truly yours, Bart Spano, Ph.D.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful