Church Sues for Religious Ban in Wine Country

Church Sues for Religious Ban in Wine Country Temecula, CA. Today, Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship filed a complaint in federal court against the County of Riverside, California, based on the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act of 2000.

Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship, commonly known as “Calvary Wine Country,” is located in the region of California known as the Temecula Wine Country.

Calvary Wine Country opened its doors in 1996 when churches were once allowed to locate in the 17,900 acre Wine Country region – an area equal to 28 square miles. However, soon after Calvary Wine Country was approved, the County banned churches from the Temecula Wine Country, leaving Calvary Wine Country as a nonconforming use. Now, Calvary’s ability to expand its facilities for its flourishing congregation in the Wine Country is uncertain at best.

Calvary Wine Country plans to remain in the Wine Country and to build a larger sanctuary on its 28 acre adjacent property. However, the County’s zoning ordinances still ban churches and Calvary Wine Country is the only church in the Temecula Wine Country. Meanwhile, the County permits special occasion facilities, wineries, hotels, resorts, restaurants, and many other tourist related uses in the Wine Country.

Calvary’s pastor Clark Van Wick said, “It’s a tragedy to see our religious liberty eroded in this country where men and women have fought and died to protect our liberty. It’s un-American to see churches outlawed like we’re seeing here in the neighborhood I’ve lived in for 27 years.”

“This is a classic case for the federal religious land use law that protects churches and requires that zoning authorities treat religious assemblies on equal terms to other nonreligious assemblies,” said Robert Tyler, Managing Partner of Tyler & Bursch, LLP and counsel for Calvary Wine Country. He further commented, “Calvary Wine Country has long desired to just be a good neighbor, to work cooperatively with the County and to provide a place of worship for the thousands of residents that live in the Wine Country.”

Unfortunately, Calvary Wine Country has been the target of litigation by a “loose” organization named Protect Wine Country. Calvary Wine Country has had to fight a neighboring vintner, a special interest group, and other politically influential wineries just to continue its right to exist on its own property.

Robert Tyler commented, “It is ironic that Father Junipero Sera, the ‘Father of California Wine,’ planted the first known vineyard in California at the San Diego Mission de Alcala and vineyards graced the California Missions for many years. Today, however, Riverside County has determined that a church is no longer compatible with vineyards and has banned all religious assemblies from the Temecula Wine Country.”

Calvary Wine Country is represented by Advocates for Faith & Freedom in association with Tyler & Bursch, LLP. Robert Tyler filed one of the first lawsuits under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 on behalf of the Elsinore Christian Center located in Lake Elsinore, California. That suit resulted in a successful resolution wherein the City paid more than $1.6 million in settlement. Robert’s firm, Tyler & Bursch, LLP, has become one of the nation’s premier firms for handling religious land use cases on behalf of churches.

A copy of the Complaint can be found here.

Victory for Dream Center Lake Elsinore

Pastor Brett Masters leased a store front in downtown Lake Elsinore, California, as his headquarter offices for the Lake Elsinore Dream Center. The Dream Center is a volunteer driven organization that finds & fills the needs of individuals and families in their community. They do this by connecting isolated people to God and a community of support providing services that address immediate and long-term needs in order to build relationships that will allow them to speak into their God-given potential. They work to bring hope to the needy, a way off the streets, out of poverty, and into self-sufficiency. One of Pastor Brett’s plans has been to implement a weekly community assistance program called “Adopt-A-Block.” Through Adopt-A-Block, the Dream Center teams assist residents in cleaning up their properties and offer a hand-up to those in need. The Dream Center needed a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City of Lake Elsinore in order to begin using the building for their headquarters. The planning staff had been very friendly and supportive of the project.  However, during the process of obtaining the permit, Pastor Brett faced stiff opposition from a couple of individuals who spent considerable time opposing the project.  This resulted in a Planning Commission deadlock vote.

Pastor Brett was referred to Advocates for help on his appeal to the City Council.  After a review of the law protecting the religious use of land, Advocates was able to help Pastor Brett understand the existing zoning laws and the CUP process as he prepared for the public hearing at the Lake Elsinore City Council.  With much planning and prayer, the Dream Center was unanimously approved. The City of Lake Elsinore and its residents will be enjoying the assistance from this wonderful staff and many faithful volunteers for years to come.

In 2007, Advocates prevailed against the City of Lake Elsinore on behalf of Elsinore Christian Center  where we set precedent in the Ninth Circuit preventing zoning discrimination against churches. That case helped pave the way for this victory and many others across the country.

We appreciate the financial support and prayers from faithful people like you! It’s only with your help and donations that we can make a difference and help Pastor Brett Masters and the Dream Center.

Victory for this 5th grader and her poem about Jesus!

A public school teacher in Stanislaus County, California, gave a homework assignment to her fifth grade students to write two poems on any subject and turn them in the next day.  Since it was just before the Christmas break, Kali decided to write her two poems about the holiday season.  She wrote one poem about reindeer and another about Jesus. When Kali turned in her assignment the next day, her teacher rejected the poem about Jesus and informed her that she would have to redo her assignment because, “You can’t write about Jesus in school.”  Kali rewrote her poem and then school was out on Christmas break.  In January, when her parents were getting her ready for the first day back to school after the Christmas break, they found Kali’s Jesus poem crossed out and saw that no credit was given on this assignment.

Her stepfather, Kyle Thomas, called one of our attorneys here at Advocates for Faith & Freedom to inquire about his stepdaughter’s legal right to write about Jesus. After learning from attorney Marty Nicholson that expressing disapproval or hostility toward religion or toward religious viewpoints expressed by students is against the law, Mr. Thomas met with school officials. Knowing that Advocates was ready and willing to represent his daughter’s religious freedoms, Mr. Thomas was able to explain to the school representatives that his daughter’s homework should not have been rejected.

We are happy to report that the school officials agreed and allowed the poem to be recorded for full credit. We’re proud of you Kali! Here is her beautiful poem:

We're Outraged...You will be too!

As you know, we asked you to pray for us last week as we sought to obtain an injunction against California’s new Reproductive FACT Act. We’re sorry we have not given you an update as we have been extremely busy litigating the two cases – one in federal court in Oakland, CA and one in state court in Riverside County, CA. As we told you last week, this new law requires licensed pro-life pregnancy counseling centers to post or distribute in their reception areas a telephone number where women can obtain free or low

cost abortions.

Unfortunately, the courts ruled against the protection of religiously-based speech. Essentially, the courts both ruled that the government has an overriding interest to ensure that all women have access to free and low cost abortions and contraceptives, regardless of the fact that the government is using pro-life Christian organizations to carry its anti-life message.

This is an outrage and we won’t surrender our free speech to a culture of death.

We are appealing both the federal and state court decisions this week and have sought an emergency injunction from the appellate courts to prevent the law from going into effect on January 1.

We know there are a lot of worthy causes and ministries asking you for support right now.  We would appreciate it if you would consider including Advocates for Faith & Freedom in your year-end contributions.

Our firm’s attorneys have contributed thousands of hours in time and energy over the last few years because of our passion to protect your First Amendment liberties.

We have a lot of work to do in the remaining hours of 2015 as we appeal these cases. Meanwhile, we still have to file another brief in the Ninth Circuit in an entirely separate case.

There will be plenty of work to do in 2016 and we need to be prepared. Advocates is 100% donor supported and can only operate with the financial support from people like you. Would you prayerfully consider a gift today of $10, $50, $500 or whatever you can give?

God bless you and thank you for your consideration!

Robert Tyler General Counsel

For your convenience, you can click here or if you prefer to mail in a donation, just be sure your donation has a postmark of December 31, 2015 in order to receive credit for this year.  Mail to: Advocates for Faith & Freedom at 24910 Las Brisas Road, Ste. 109, Murrieta, CA  92562.

Two Christmas Victories for Advocates and Religious Liberty

The spirit of Christmas has arrived at Advocates for Faith & Freedom with the settlement of two Christmas-themed cases involving Southern California children. Both cases involve incidents that happened in December 2013. The resolution of these cases demonstrate how West Covina and Temecula Valley school districts worked with us to address our clients’ First Amendment liberties. As you may recall, Isaiah Martinez, then a first-grader, was barred from handing out candy canes to his West Covina classmates after his teacher noticed an accompanying note explaining the legend of the candy canes. The legend involves a candy maker who created the red-and-white-striped candies to represent the life of Jesus Christ. The teacher consulted with the principal, who told her the candy canes could not be distributed with the Christian legend attached. After school, Isaiah reported to his parents that the teacher tore off the Christian legend and told him that Jesus was not allowed in school.

We filed a federal lawsuit after several attempts to resolve the case at the school district level were unsuccessful. But in depositions for the lawsuit, the district’s representative admitted that the principal made a mistake and violated Isaiah’s rights by telling him he couldn’t give the religious-themed candy canes to his friends. The revelation helped Advocates’ staff attorney, James Long, to successfully negotiate a settlement after the school district had revised its district policy to accommodate religious liberties at all of its campuses. The district also agreed to pay Advocates for a portion of the attorney fees we incurred. The school district required that the amount remain confidential. Alex Martinez, Isaiah’s father said, “Advocates have been a blessing to my family. This organization is truly a Godsend! We thank God for Bob Tyler and the staff there.”

The second case involved Brynn Williams who was a first grade student in December 2013 within the Temecula Unified School District. She was prevented from reading from John 3:16 during an in-class Christmas presentation. After filing an administrative complaint, the school district agreed to a settlement and we agreed to the joint statement that follows:

 The Temecula Valley Unified School District, Brynn Williams, and Brynn’s parents Gina and Shane Williams, have reached an agreement that will result in the dismissal of the administrative complaints submitted to the District by the Williams family.  The Williams family alleged that Brynn’s constitutional rights were violated when she was not permitted to read a Bible verse out loud as a part of a class assignment. The District’s internal 

investigation into the matter concluded that the actions of the classroom teacher and the principal were not anti-religious. 

Although further administrative action through an appeal and litigation are available to the Williams family, and litigation is available to District employees, the parties agree that a compromise would be more beneficial to all involved. The compromise reached by the parties is not an admission of liability on the part of either party.  The settlement presents a compromise that is in the best interests of Brynn Williams, her family, the District, District staff, and local students.

The District continues to be committed to providing an educational environment that ensures that students do not lose their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse gates.  Therefore, the District will continue to work to ensure that all of its students continue to enjoy their constitutional freedoms, including religious freedoms, in harmony with District policies. 

The District agrees that it is in the best interest of all concerned to provide training to school administrators on the topic of First Amendment rights of staff and students.  The Williams family, the District, and the District’s employees are very satisfied with the outcome and the Williams family applauds the School District’s willingness to provide First Amendment training to its staff.

While both cases were two years in the making, their successful completion shows the need for persistence when advocating for religious liberty and the protection of free speech. When we take on a case, it is not something that is usually resolved in a day or even a month. It’s typically a long-term commitment with many struggles and 150 to 500 hundred hours of legal work. For example, Isaiah Martinez’ case, our attorneys logged-in more than 350 hours.

We are grateful for your continued commitment to our vital work. To that end, would you please consider helping us to continue our core mission by making a year-end tax deductible donation so that we can continue to defend your liberties along with the liberties of students like Isaiah and Brynn who simply want to share the love of Jesus? We know there are many great ministries that deserve your support and we truly appreciate any contribution you can make to Advocates for Faith & Freedom.

Mobile Pregnancy Clinic Sues State Over New “Bully” Law

Advocates for Faith & Freedom Press Release December 7, 2015 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Lori Sanada (951) 304-7583

Mobile Pregnancy Clinic Sues State Over New “Bully” Law

 Temecula, CA  ICU Mobile Riverside County, a mobile medical pregnancy clinic based in Wildomar, Calif., has filed a lawsuit against the California State Attorney General and other appropriate authorities saying the Reproductive Fact Act requiring nonprofit pregnancy care clinics to promote abortion not only violates their religious freedom, but also their free speech and free assembly rights.

ICU Mobile Riverside County is a subsidiary of the Scharpen Foundation, Inc. (“Foundation”), which is a foundation that also does business as and is publicly known as Go Mobile For Life. The organization is licensed by the State as a medical clinic and provides advocacy and free ultrasound services to pregnant women.

The Act was signed into law two months ago by Gov. Jerry Brown after the California Assembly and Senate passed Assembly Bill 775, which forces all licensed pregnancy care clinics to either post prominent signs in their lobbies promoting abortion or to include the information on their websites or clinic literature. The law is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2016.

Prolife supporters have opposed the law, calling it the “Bully Bill” because it compels workers to promote a state-mandated message that violates their personal and corporate religious beliefs.

“I will not post that notice in our clinic. I would rather close the clinic than post that notice,” said Scott Scharpen, a volunteer pastor and president of the Foundation. “Now, by law, we are required to provide referral information to a woman for services that we find morally and ethically objectionable, namely abortion.”

Advocates for Faith & Freedom is working with Scharpen and the Foundation’s clinic.

Robert Tyler, General Counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom said: “Article 1, section 2 of the California Constitution provides greater protection for free speech then does the First Amendment. This is why we brought this case in state court as opposed to federal court.” He further stated, “Under the ‘liberty of speech clause’ in the California Constitution, the government has no right to compel individuals or corporations to adopt the government’s view on abortion and has no right to compel them to advertise and promote abortions.”

Advocates for Faith & Freedom, through its legal counsel, Tyler & Bursch, LLP, are seeking a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, will block the law from being implemented while the case is in the court system. They are attempting to have the preliminary injunction heard before the end of the year. A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction is currently scheduled to occur on December 23, 2015 in Department 07 of the Riverside County Superior Court located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, Calif.

In the injunction, the Foundation’s attorneys argued that the Reproductive FACT Act is compelled speech in violation of the California Constitution. They additionally argue that the Act does not just compel ICU Mobile Riverside County to speak in a way that may stigmatize its services, but it goes so far as to force the clinic to expressly advance the availability of free abortions, which are contrary to their religious and moral beliefs.

Nada Higuera, co-counsel with Tyler & Bursch, LLP stated, “As a woman, this case is important to me because the services offered by ICU Mobile provide hope and real help to women who need it. It is frightening that our government is forcing ICU Mobile, a pro-life organization, to advance abortion.”

A copy of the complaint filed by Tyler & Bursch, LLP can be found here, while a copy of the preliminary injunction can viewed here.

Advocates for Faith & Freedom is a nonprofit public interest organization dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts and is providing support to the law firm Tyler & Bursch, LLP. The law firm services are being provided pro bono. The website for Advocates for Faith & Freedom is www.faith-freedom.com.

Email mailto:info@faith-freedom.com to receive press releases from Advocates for Faith & Freedom. Also, join us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on our progress in this case and others.

Mobile Pregnancy Clinic Sues State Over New “Bully” Law

Just 15 months after launching a mobile pregnancy medical clinic ministry, Pastor Scott Scharpen is facing the reality of having to shut it down after Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law the “Reproductive FACT Act,” which requires all such clinics to post a notice on site promoting free and low-cost abortions. The notice must be at least 22-point size and posted in the waiting area. It must also include a telephone number for abortion referrals. Clinics may opt to distribute the notice to each patient in 14 point type. “I will not post that notice in our clinic,” said Scharpen, founder of the Go Mobile for Lifeministry clinic in Riverside County. “I would rather close the clinic than post that notice. This is outrageous!”

Scharpen launched his mobile clinic in August 2014 with a 31-foot RV. The clinic provides free services, including ultrasounds. The unit parks in conspicuous locations in Riverside County, acting as a mobile billboard. “It’s not just a clinic,” he said. “It’s a ministry. We share the gospel with them. Our slogan is ‘GO serve women, GO save lives and GO share Jesus.’”

Before going to the extreme of shutting down the mobile clinic and disenfranchising hundreds of clients who receive free services through their non-profit community clinic, Scharpen chose to seek out the services of Advocates for Faith & Freedom and Tyler & Burch, LLP.

We have decided to file a lawsuit in Riverside County Superior Court with the hope of finding justice in a neutral forum. In fact, the free speech clause under the California Constitution has been interpreted by courts to provide even greater protection to speech than does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See Press Release, complaint and preliminary injunction below)

Bringing a free speech case in state superior court is not the normal course of action for most religious liberty legal organizations because federal court has typically been the favored forum. However, we decided to bring this case in state court in order to take an alternative strategic approach to another case we already filed in federal court in San Francisco.  Along with our co-counsel, the ACLJ, we filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of Living Well Medical Clinic, Inc., Pregnancy Care Center of the North Coast, Inc., and Confidence Pregnancy Center, Inc.

We believe it is important to protect pro-life clinics because they typically provide safe options to pregnant women with resources to support a mother through pregnancy, parenthood and/or adoption. However, if the Reproductive Fact Act is allowed to remain the law of California, these important clinics promoting life will also be forced to promote abortions.

By enacting this law, Scharpen said, “the state is overstepping its authority by requiring privately funded ministries to act as agents of the state by promoting a state-mandated message promoting abortion.”

“We as clinics shouldn’t be required to provide information about services that we don’t offer and that women have the ability to find through other means,” he said.

Scharpen said he has always been prolife but never advocated on behalf of the unborn until he was preparing a sermon in early 2013. The Lord, he said, directed him to preach on abortion.

Later that year he purchased a clinic RV from an Ohio non-profit organization that provides similar RVs to ministries throughout the country. The clinic was officially launched in August 2014 after securing a medical license from the California Department of Public Health.

“As a pastor and as a businessman I did not think I would be involved in running a clinic,” he said. Now he’s fighting for the right to operate the privately held clinic in a manner that reflects the clinic’s religious beliefs.

Scharpen added, “This lawsuit has even broader implications. If the California state government gets away with telling pregnancy clinics what to say and even how to say it, then ALL faith-based businesses are at risk of being bullied into delivering the government’s mandated speech.  We must stand up and fight this unconstitutional law for the benefit of all people!”

We are excited about the opportunity to advocate for the life of the unborn. We will be faced with challenging the unlimited resources of the State of California, who will be represented by the State’s Attorney General. Numerous nongovernmental advocacy organizations will likely come join the defense of the State providing a well-funded defense and numerous attorneys.

We anticipate that we will provide over $200,000 worth of free legal services and will incur thousands of dollars in court costs and other expenses on this case alone. We would greatly appreciate any financial support you can provide to help us win this case. Thank you in advance for your prayers and support!

Read Press Release here.

Petition Drive in Motion for Parental Notification

In an electronic age where news and information is just a click away, it’s hard to believe that California still harbors its own dirty little secret—a secret that Planned Parenthood spends millions of dollars trying to keep under the radar: Sexual predators and older boyfriends—emboldened by the fact that the Golden State does not have a parental notification law—are free to prey on minor girls knowing they can easily get rid of  “the evidence” in the event of a pregnancy. So how many minors have abortions in California? We don’t know for sure because that’s a secret, too. Although the Centers for Disease Control tracks abortion statistics nationwide, California is one of only three states that refuse to make its data available.

It is estimated, however, that California accounts for one in four of all abortions nationwide. One in four! According to the Guttmacher Institute, which has ties to Planned Parenthood, there were 181,700 abortions in California in 2011, the most recent year available. Of those, it is estimated that 16,000 teens have abortions in California annually.

Although there is no statistics on how many teens tell their parents about an unwanted pregnancy, what is certain is that the veil of secrecy creates a dangerous environment for teen girls.

Californians for Parental Rights—hoping to eliminate the protection shield for child rapists—has begun circulating petitions to get parental notification on the November 2016 ballot. The group needs 585,407 valid signatures in order to qualify for the ballot, has garnered the support of presidential candidate Carly Fiorina and Adrian Gonzalez of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

The ballot measure would require that one parent be notified 48 hours before an abortion could be performed on a minor. The measure also provides for a judicial bypass in the case of parental abuse. A teen would not need parental consent before getting an abortion.

A similar measure on the 2008 ballot, fell short by just 2 percentage points despite heavy funding (15 to 1) from Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations. In addition, the measure’s proponents said the state’s changing demographics, coupled with aggressive de-regulation efforts by abortion supporters, have created an environment that is more supportive of parental notification. Consider:

• Hispanics, who poll 81 percent in favor of parental notification, have grown from 18 percent in 2008 of actual voters to 25-25 percent in 2016.
• Asians, who poll 70 percent in favor of parental notification, have grown from 5 percent of actual voters in 2008 to 9-10 percent in 2016.
• This summer’s emergence of Planned Parenthood videos showing employees brokering in baby parts, has soured the public against the abortion provider.
• California has recently passed laws removing safety protections for women who seek abortions, including allowing certain classes of nurses and midwives to perform the procedures, eliminating hospital transfer agreements which are vital in the event of a medical emergency, and lowering the building standards for abortion clinics.
• Last year, California’s abortion funding increased by 40 percent, while most other health payments across the state were cut by 10 percent.

Additionally, the measure’s proponents said research has shown a reduction in the number of teen abortions in states where notification is required. In Minnesota, for instance, the abortion rate has dropped more than 71 percent since the law was implemented there in 1989. Alaska and Illinois, which both implemented laws in recent years, also saw abortions reduced by at least 20 percent.

To learn more about the measure, including stories of actual abuse cases and the success of parental notification in other states, visit www.caparentalrights.org.

Petition Signatures Sought for Privacy-Friendly Bathroom Bill

Privacy for All—a coalition that has been working to overturn a state law allowing public school students to select which restroom and shower they use based on their “perceived gender”—is trying to qualify a ballot initiative that would not only reverse the new “co-ed bathroom” policy, but would also extend those protections to any government restroom in the state. Petitions for the Personal Privacy Protection Act have already begun circulating and Advocates for Faith & Freedom has copies of the petitions available for individuals or churches that wish to help gather signatures. Privacy for All needs to secure at least 365,880 valid signatures by December 14th in order to qualify the measure for the November 2016 ballot. To help hedge against invalid signatures the group has set a goal of gathering at least 500,000 signatures.

The proposed ballot measure is designed to counter Assembly Bill 1226, which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law in August 2013. By doing so, a student can use any public school bathroom or locker room based on their perceived identity, regardless of their biological gender at birth. The law requires no formal documentation, meaning a student can change their mind at any time.

In response to the signing of AB 1226, Privacy for All initially sought to overturn the law by way of a referendum, but fell a bit short of the required amount of signatures after California’s then-Secretary of State Debra Bowen invalidated thousands of signatures. Referendum backers alleged that Bowen improperly disqualified valid signatures, prompting two lawsuits. One case is still pending and, if a judge rules in favor of the plaintiff, the State could be forced to place that referendum on the ballot.

In the meantime, Privacy for All decided to use a more direct approach by writing a new, more sweeping law. Under the language of the proposed act, patrons would only be able to use public sex-segregated restrooms, showers, locker rooms, and changing rooms in government buildings according to their biological gender at birth. The law does, however, provide an exemption for guests who have undergone medical treatment for gender transition, meaning they would be allowed to use the facilities according to their new biological sex.

The initiative also exempts family restrooms, single-use restrooms, and instances where a child or someone with a medical condition requires the assistance of another.

Business owners would also be protected against criminal and civil claims for requiring employees and customers to use restrooms facilities according to their biological sex.

The Personal Privacy Protection Act is a sound law that carefully balances the rights to privacy and historical expectations of single-gender restroom use with the compassionate accommodation of those who have medically transitioned their gender.

Proud to be a part of this coalition, Advocates is a distribution center for petitions. To obtain petitions for yourself, your church, or any other group you believe would be interested gathering signatures, pick up petitions at our offices in Murrieta.

8:30 am - 5:00 pm

24910 Las Brisas Road, Ste 110, Murrieta CA 92562

951-304-7583

You can also use this “single signer” petition form to print out and mail in. It’s very important that all information is filled out in green area. Your petition will not be valid if this section is not filled out.

Thank you for your time on this important matter.  To help support the work of Advocates, click here.

Update on Hemet DMV Bible Reading Arrest & Two Important Pro-Life Bills

Advocates for Faith & Freedom has filed a legal brief in support of religious freedom before the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Mark Mackey, the Riverside man who was preaching the gospel when he was arrested outside the Hemet DMV for what a CHP officer deemed “interfering with an open business through obstruction or intimidation.” Last year, though, a Superior Court judge absolved Mackey of the crime saying that the street preacher did not violate the law. During the course of the criminal trial, the judge also suggested that the law used by the CHP officer was unconstitutional.

Mackey and two other men were reading the Bible outside the DMV when Officer Darren Meyer accused them of preaching to a “captive audience.” The officer later amended the allegations, citing them instead for intimidation. At the time the men were approached by the officer, however, the DMV office was closed and the men were standing 50 feet from the entrance as citizens waited outside the door. The men never approached the crowd. After insisting that they were exercising their constitutional rights, the officer arrested Mark Mackey and Brett Coronado.

The federal suit—stayed while the criminal case played out in state court—alleges that there was no probable cause to arrest Mackey and that his First Amendment rights were violated. Even though our client has been criminally cleared, we are seeking a federal remedy to further clear his name and to protect other individuals who seek to peacefully express their faith. The federal district court found that the CHP officer did have probable cause. We will keep you apprised as this Ninth Circuit Appeal advances.

In addition to our legal cases, Advocates is also carefully monitoring two important pro-life issues that are making their way through the state Legislature. The first, Assembly Bill 775, is dubbed the “bully bill” because it compels operators of Pregnancy Care Clinics to promote free and low-cost abortion services in their lobbies, websites, and literature. This is clearly in violation of the operators’ personal and religious briefs. The bill has already passed the Assembly and is waiting for a floor vote in the state Senate at any moment. For contact information for your state Senator click here. To find your state Senator, click here.

The second bill deals with life at the other end of the spectrum and involves a resurrected attempt to legalize physician-assisted suicide statewide. After not having enough votes to get Senate Bill 128—the original assisted suicide bill—out of the Assembly Health Committee earlier this summer, lawmakers decided to bypass the full committee by piggy backing their bill through an “Extraordinary Session” called by Governor Jerry Brown. Extraordinary Sessions are a tool used by governors to deal with pressing issues on a specific topic. In these sessions, the scope of action is limited and the committee rosters are usually much smaller than in the general session.

In this instance, Brown called for the special session to deal with health financing for the poor. Since the deadline to introduce new bills had already expired for the year, proponents seized upon a state law that allows the introduction of new bills if they are related to the topic of Extraordinary Sessions, in this case healthcare financing. In introducing the new bill, ABX2-15, author Susan Eggman (D-Stockton), tried to justify the move by saying assisted suicide would make “healthcare work better” a claim that caused Gov. Brown to call the approach inappropriate.

“This important issue merits careful consideration,” Deborah Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Governor told the San Jose Mercury News. “The process already well underway with the two-year bill, SB 128, is more appropriate than the special session.”

By using this special session, the bill’s sponsors will be able to take advantage of a much smaller Assembly Health Committee, which has been reformed without many of the Democrats who originally opposed the bill. Now is the time to contact your elected officials to voice opposition to the special session tactic and the bill. You can find contact information for your Assembly member here.  To find out who your Assembly representative is, click here.