Connect with us

Culture

Kansas cops stop Catholic woman from praying in home: Case to Supreme Court

Published

on

An attorney for Mary Ann Souse, a devout Catholic resident of Louisburg, Kansas, told Big League Politics that officers of the Louisburg Police Department were acting under the color of the law when they forced Souse to stop praying inside her own home in late 2013.

“We want the Supreme Court to verify to Americans that our First Amendment rights are important, ” said Stephanie N. Taub,, counsel with the First Liberty Institute, the largest legal institution in America dedicated to protecting religious liberty.

A First Liberty press release says that police responded to a minor noise complaint at Sause’s home in late 2013, harassed her, and forced her to stop praying.

Trending: WATCH: General Flynn SPEAKS OUT In First Interview Since Pardon: “President Trump Won This Election”

Subsequently, Sause filed a lawsuit against the police officers, the chief of police and city officials.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Sause’s petition claims that officers forced her to stop praying simply to harass her, and not to further any legitimate law enforcement purpose. The officers allegedly told Sauce that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were just a piece of paper, and that they did not work here.

The officer also threatened her by saying that their encounter was going to be on the TV program “COPs,” and for her to get ready, because she was going to jail.

First Liberty, a non-profit, is representing Souse along with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, a global law firm working the case on a pro bono basis.

Friday, Sause’s legal team asked the Supreme Court to review or summarily reverse the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted the officers qualified immunity, a doctrine that protects public officials from civil liability, provided that the officials did not knowingly violate any statutory or Constitutional rights.

The legal team esxpcts a decision from the Court in a few months, according to First Liberty.

“The Tenth Circuit’s opinion assumed the police officers violated Ms. Sause’s constitutional rights when they mocked her, humiliated her, and ordered her to stop praying in her home,” said Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty in the press release.

Kansas University School of Law Professor Richard E. Levy,  clarified the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, told Big League Politics that the officers must know that they are violating a clearly established Constitutional right at the time of the incident, in order to be denied qualified immunity.

“The question for the Supreme Court will be whether the police officers clearly understood their conduct to be in violation of [Ms. Sause’s] First Amendment rights at the time of the event,” Levy said.

Louisburg Police Chief Timothy Bauer refused to comment, said to Big League Politics, “Our legal counsel has advised us not to make comments during the legal proceedings.”

The Department of Justice posted this definition of deprivation of rights under color of law:

      • Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deplorables

WATCH: General Flynn SPEAKS OUT In First Interview Since Pardon: “President Trump Won This Election”

Flynn is speaking out.

Published

on

Former White House National Security Advisor and retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn spoke out on the topic of improprieties in the 2020 presidential election on Saturday, speaking out in his first public remarks since receiving a presidential pardon from President Donald Trump. Flynn was pardoned from charges of lying to the FBI, criminal allegations that the Department of Justice has since renounced after the revelation of pervasive FBI misconduct in a series of interrogations Flynn was subject to.

Watch Flynn’s interview with retired Lt. General Tom McInerney here, on Bitchute.

Lieutenant General Flynn expressed his confidence that President Donald Trump secured an overwhelming electoral college victory in the 2020 presidential election, stating that he believes President Trump won 350 electoral college votes.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

He’s going to win Pennsylvania. He’s going to win Arizona. He’s going to win Georgia. He’s going to win Nevada. He’s going to win Michigan.

Lt. Gen. Flynn went on to cite discrepancies occurring with election software and hardware supplied by Dominion, a company that has become a source of controversy for its contracts to provide elections systems utilized in many US states. He called reports of a Biden victory the “greatest fraud in American history.

Flynn argued that the mass-scale political censorship utilized by Big Tech monopolies such as Twitter constitute a form of election interference.

I just cannot believe the media and the censorship that is going on… Look at what Twitter is doing to the President of the United States of America. It’s infuriating to me, and an abomination to the First Amendment.

The President is being censored by US companies… Think about that. I’m at a loss when I talk about it. That has to stop being allowed… How dare they do that to the President of the United States.”

Flynn didn’t speak on the circumstances of his pardon, instead opting to focus on the political crisis facing the United States as citizens face the prospect of a disputed and unclear election.

“I’m not frustrated. I’m determined.”

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending