In our Reply Brief (below) we point out the numerous falsehoods, mischaracterizations, and absurdities of the argument the Attorney General’s Office included in their brief.  We believe that we have a compelling, well-supported argument – now we just hope that we get judges who know anything about life on a farm!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                                                CONTACT: Dave Roland
August 1, 2012                                                                                               (314) 604-6621

VICTORY: Trial Judge Acquits Ron Paul Supporter of Bogus Criminal Trespass Charges

St. Louis, Missouri—Last night Judge Donald Kohl did not even need to hear witnesses testify in favor of Brent Stafford before ruling him not guilty of the criminal trespassing charges with which the City of St. Peters had charged him. Stafford, a supporter of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, had been arrested on March 17, 2012, because he was speaking to a peaceful crowd of several dozen people on the grounds of Francis Howell North High School in the wake of the aborted St. Charles County Republican Caucus.

“The purpose of a caucus is to draw together an area’s party members so they can express their ideas about policy matters and candidates for office, with the ultimate goal being the selection of delegates who will represent the caucus at a convention,” Stafford said. “The people who attend a caucus choose their own officers and decide for themselves how the caucus will apportion delegates to the convention. Those who organize the caucus do not get to dictate its outcome.”

The St. Charles County Republican Caucus was scheduled to award more delegates to the Republican state convention than any other Missouri caucus, and event organizers Eugene Dokes and Bryan Spencer – both of whom supported Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign – were concerned that Ron Paul supporters would comprise a majority of the caucus and would claim all of the county’s delegates for Paul. As a result, Dokes and Spencer planned in advance to appoint their own choice of caucus chairman without allowing the assembly the option of voting for Stafford, who was the consensus choice for chairman among supporters of both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney; they also intended to limit Santorum’s losses at the caucus by preventing the assembly from assigning delegates on a “winner-takes-all” basis. Dokes hired police officers to provide security for the event and, according to St. Peters Police Sergeant Tim Hickey, instructed them to expect trouble from Ron Paul supporters. When the caucus attendees loudly protested the caucus organizers’ many violations of parliamentary procedure, the organizers adjourned the caucus, announced that the county would send no delegates to the state convention, and ordered everyone to leave the building.

With the assistance of the president of the Missouri Association of Parliamentarians, Stafford quickly began to follow the procedures necessary to reconvene the improperly-adjourned caucus. He stood on a chair on the grounds of Francis Howell North High School and began to instruct those in the area about how the caucus could be salvaged, but within minutes St. Peters police officers swept in, arrested Stafford, and told the rest of the crowd to go home. Although hundreds of other people remained on the school grounds at that time, Stafford was the only one charged with trespassing. The Freedom Center of Missouri recognized that this was a gross violation of Stafford’s First Amendment freedoms of speech and peaceable assembly and immediately took his case.

“The only ‘crime’ Brent Stafford committed that day was knowing the rules of parliamentary procedure better than the caucus organizers and insisting on following those rules even when the organizers wanted to pack up their toys and go home,” stated Dave Roland, Stafford’s attorney and the Freedom Center’s director of litigation. “He never should have been arrested.”

In the months following Stafford’s arrest, Eugene Dokes had several opportunities to ask the City of St. Peters to drop the charges against Stafford, but he refused to do so. As a result, the City proceeded with its prosecution, calling six witnesses to testify against Stafford during a two-day trial. When the prosecution finally rested its case, Roland stated that he was prepared to offer witnesses in Stafford’s defense, but asked the judge for an immediate determination that the City had failed to prove that Stafford had done anything wrong. The judge agreed, finding Stafford not guilty of the charges leveled against him.

“I’m thrilled to have been acquitted,” Stafford said, “but no one should ever have to face criminal prosecution simply because they were exercising their constitutional rights.”

Now that the criminal charges against Stafford have been cleared, he is weighing the possibility of filing a separate lawsuit against the City for violating his freedom of speech and freedom to peacefully assemble with other citizens on property open to the public.

Founded in November 2010 and headquartered in St. Louis, the Freedom Center of Missouri is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to research, litigation, and education in defense of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government. The Freedom Center is one of Missouri’s leading legal advocates for the constitutional protection of liberties secured by the First Amendment. Additional information about the Freedom Center’s mission, cases, and activities can be found online at www.mofreedom.org.  The Freedom Center is supported entirely by donations from people who believe in its mission – the organization never asks its clients to pay for the legal services it provides.  If you would like to join in supporting the Freedom Center’s work, please make a donation online or mail a check to:

Freedom Center of Missouri

P.O. Box 300464

St. Louis, Missouri 63130

# # #
[NOTE: To arrange interviews on this subject, journalists may call Dave Roland at (314) 604-6621.]

The Freedom Center was representing Karl Tricamo, a resident who, inspired by the birth of his infant son, decided to ensure his family’s access to cheap, nutritious, organic produce by planting a garden in his yard. Prior to beginning work, he carefully reviewed the city’s ordinances and found that nothing required citizens to plant their yards with grass and that restrictions on the height of plants specifically exempted “vegetation in gardens,” and the zoning ordinances expressly allowed for community gardens in residential areas.

“I just thought it would be an excellent way to help provide for my family,” Tricamo said. “People have been gardening since the beginning of human civilization, and the First Lady has even been setting an example by gardening at the White House! I never expected it to be so controversial.”

But almost as soon as Tricamo started work on his garden, Ferguson city officials began ordering him to cover his yard with straw and to plant grass, even though no ordinance includes any such requirement. Over the next several months, code enforcement officials repeatedly told Tricamo that his garden was in violation of city laws, although they kept changing their story about which ordinance they thought was being violated – and every time Tricamo actually looked up the ordinances the officials cited, he found that they did not actually say anything suggesting his garden was illegal.

“Unfortunately, some government officials are willing to try to control how citizens use their property, even if there are no laws against what the citizen is doing and there is no threat to the public health or safety,” remarked Dave Roland, the Freedom Center’s director of litigation.

Despite the absence of any clear authority, the city was adamant: Tricamo could not grow his own vegetables without getting the city’s permission, and if he did not like it he would have to take his case to the city’s Board of Zoning Adjustment. And so, with the support of his landlord, Jesse Brandt, that is exactly what Tricamo did.

“As a property owner, my rights are protected by the Constitution,” Brandt said. “There is nothing even remotely harmful about having a garden next to your home, so why should the city be able to ban it?”

The Board of Adjustment took up the matter on Wednesday evening and heard arguments from the City, Mr. Roland, Mr. Tricamo, and several members of the community. In addition to the legal arguments that the Freedom Center advanced, the testimony pointed out the growing movement in favor of organic, locally-grown produce and the well-documented challenges that low-income families face in finding reasonably priced vegetables in grocery stores. In the end, four of the five members of the Board of Adjustment agreed that Ferguson’s zoning laws do not prohibit citizens from growing gardens in residential areas. Ferguson’s residents are free to grow vegetables in their yards as long as they are not violating a specific ordinance or endangering the public health or safety.

“Many citizens get intimidated when someone from the government accuses them of breaking the law, because they are afraid to take on City Hall,” Roland said. “I’m proud of Mr. Tricamo and Mr. Brandt, because in standing up for their own constitutional rights, they have given hope to everyone else who might face a similar situation.”

Several things about this case are perfectly clear.  First, it is clear that those committee members who were in charge of handling the caucus had made plans in advance to try and disregard the will of caucus attendees, which led to violations of both the state Republican party’s rules and the rules of parliamentary procedure applicable to caucuses.  Second, it is clear that Mr. Stafford, with the assistance of the president of the Missouri Association of Parliamentarians, was properly attempting to follow those rules to reconvene the caucus.  Third, it is clear that the scores of people gathered to hear what Mr. Stafford had to say were orderly and peaceful while he was addressing them.  And fourth, several police officers arrested Mr. Stafford and hauled him to jail without telling him why he was being arrested or giving him an opportunity to cease any allegedly unlawful behavior.

Thanks to several of Mr. Stafford’s friends, the Freedom Center of Missouri learned about his arrest almost immediately and since that time has steadily worked in his defense. (We are providing our services at no charge to Mr. Stafford – your donation would be extremely helpful in defraying the Freedom Center’s expenses.)  These criminal charges against Mr. Stafford are completely absurd and we have no reason to believe that the city of St. Peters will be able to make its case – although there is always some level of risk when a citizen faces a trial.  But Missourians – and particularly those living in St. Charles County – should be asking themselves at least three major questions about this situation:

(1) Who ordered the police to arrest Brent Stafford when all he was doing was talking to a peaceful crowd assembled on public property?

(2) If the police were so concerned with “trespassing,” why didn’t they simply ask Mr. Stafford to leave the grounds and why didn’t they arrest any of the other people standing around in the same area?

(3) Once it was clear that the St. Charles County Republican Caucus had not been properly adjourned, that Brent Stafford was following the rules by trying to reconvene the caucus, and that absolutely no one had been harmed in any way by Stafford’s actions (in fact, Stafford was elected as the chairman at the second St. Charles County Republican Caucus), why have St. Peters and the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee insisted on pursuing the criminal charges against Stafford?

Whether the decision to arrest Stafford came from his political rivals on the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee, or whether it came from within the St. Peters Police Department, citizens ought to know who thought it appropriate to selectively arrest one of their fellow citizens simply because they were speaking to a peaceful assembly.  Citizens ought to know who thought it appropriate to carry a man off to jail for “trespassing” rather than just asking him to leave the property.  And citizens ought to know why the City of St. Peters and the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee have insisted on seeing Stafford subjected to criminal prosecution even though no one was injured by his actions and he was later shown to have been correct about the proper conduct of the caucus.  We intend to get answers to these questions at the trial next Tuesday morning, and we hope that when those answers are made available that the citizens of St. Charles County will hold those persons responsible to account for their gross violation of Mr. Stafford’s First Amendment rights.

In light of this history, Karl Tricamo never imagined that it would be especially controversial when he decided to plant a garden in his yard in order to secure cheap, nutritious, organic produce for his family.  But just to be sure he looked up all of the relevant ordinances for Ferguson, Missouri, and in doing so he confirmed that he would not be violating any laws. Sure enough, nothing in the ordinances prohibit citizens from growing healthy, organic produce on one’s property.  In fact, the zoning ordinances specifically allow residents to cultivate community gardens and urban agricultural uses in residential areas!

But in modern America, it is always risky to deviate from what others consider “normal,” and (presumably because he planted the garden in front of his house instead of behind it) Ferguson city officials began to pester Mr. Tricamo, suggesting that his garden was illegal.  In March, shortly after he had tilled the garden in preparation for planting, the city sent a letter commanding that the yard be covered in straw and planted with grass seed – even though nothing in the city ordinances requires yards to be planted with grass or prohibits the planting of a garden on residential property.  Six weeks later city officials sent another letter demanding the removal of the vegetables from his yard because the property was not zoned for “agricultural” use, but of course the relevant section of Ferguson’s zoning ordinances explicitly allows gardens to be grown in residential areas.  Then the City sent a notice (below) alleging a violation of Ferguson ordinance number 7-133 – but that ordinance addresses the structural elements of residential buildings such as foundations, walls, windows and doors, stairways, chimneys, gutters, roofs, and buildings’ exterior surfaces.  It says nothing about yards.

When Mr. Tricamo confronted the City about this violation notice, they rapidly backtracked and claimed that it had been sent by accident!  The City said he should disregard the notice, but have continued to insist that Tricamo’s garden is illegal.

This situation illustrates a common practice among some city officials – when all else fails in their attempt to control citizens’ behavior, they sometimes just make stuff up.  As is shown on his website, Mr. Tricamo’s has thoroughly refuted every one of the City’s claims about its authority to restrict his gardening, but Ferguson has so far refused to back down and now appears willing to waste thousands of taxpayer dollars to fight this matter in court.  Perhaps this should not be a surprise, given that Ferguson is represented by the same law firm the City of Hazelwood is paying to prevent Girl Scouts from selling cookies in front of their homes.  The sad fact of the matter is that too many local officials want to be able to control their citizens’ lives, even if the citizens’ behavior is not harming anyone else.  And if the city’s existing laws don’t give the officials the necessary authority, sometimes they’ll just make stuff up in hopes of intimidating the citizens into compliance because the citizens may not have the time or resources to stand up for their rights.

The Freedom Center of Missouri exists to help fight for those citizens.  We are taking up Mr. Tricamo’s cause and we intend to make sure that the City of Ferguson cannot bulldoze its citizens’ rights – or their gardens.  Cities only have the power given to them by their citizens and enacted by ordinance.  If you believe, as we do, that Missouri cannot afford to have city officials making up the laws as they go, please contribute to the Freedom Center’s work so that we can continue our fight for individual liberty and the rule of law!

The most hotly debated aspect of this case had to do with the government’s claimed justification for enacting the law. Specifically, Congress relied on its power to regulate commerce among the states. In the past 70 years the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause so broadly that most legal scholars (and, sadly, many Supreme Court justices) no longer consider it a significant limit on Congress’s authority. But prior to this case the Commerce Clause had never been used to justify the federal government penalizing individual citizens for not engaging in commerce. In today’s case a majority of the justices decided that the power to regulate interstate commerce does not extend to imposing penalties on a citizen who has chosen not to act in a certain way. This ought to be good news, but there is a hitch – no single opinion expressing this perspective ever gained the support of five justices. That means that while lower courts may consider these opinions imposing limits on the application of the Commerce Clause to be persuasive, they are not binding on the lower courts.

The government had also argued that the individual insurance mandate was justified by Congress’s authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its other Constitutional powers. Again, five of the justices soundly rejected this argument, with Chief Justice Roberts writing that “Even if the individual mandate is ‘necessary’ to the Act’s insurance reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a ‘proper’ means for making those reforms effective.” Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito focused on the idea that the Necessary and Proper Clause could not be read in such a way that it would create unlimited power for the federal government, pointing out that the government had been invited to suggest what controls on private conduct could not be justified under its interpretation of that clause, and that it had failed to offer any. But, as was the situation with the Commerce Clause arguments, this approach to the Necessary and Proper clause will have limited force in the lower courts because the five justices who agreed on this point failed to join a single opinion expressing this position.

Five justices did agree, however, that the individual insurance mandate could be justified as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. Although the statute itself called the payments citizens would have to make if they failed to obtain the insurance coverage required by the ACA a “penalty” (and although the President himself had gone far out of his way to insist that the ACA did not impose any new taxes,) Chief Justice Roberts decided that the Court could disregard the statutory language. This was a critically important point because in prior cases the Court had distinguished between “taxes” and monetary “penalties.” A tax was a collection of funds for the purpose of raising revenue for the government, while a penalty was a payment imposed on an individual because they had violated the law. The Court had never held that a payment required by a statute could be both a tax and a penalty. And, in fact, Chief Justice Roberts explicitly stated that “it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that [the payment required for failure to obtain insurance] can be interpreted as a tax.” Thus, it was only by the slimmest of judicial margins that the Court upheld the insurance mandate.

Surprisingly, the justices formed a powerful consensus around the question of whether Congress overstepped its bounds in threatening to pull all Medicaid funding from states that chose not to expand their Medicaid programs. Seven of the nine justices agreed that Congress had gone too far – only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagreed. The two opinions expressing the thoughts of the majority each stated that the federal government may offer grants as an incentive for states to adopt certain policies, but that the nature of such an offer is similar to one private party offering a contract to another private party. A contract is not valid if one is forced to sign at gunpoint, and one party also cannot unilaterally change the terms of the agreement. The justices reasoned that because Medicaid funding makes up such an enormous part of most states’ budgets, they could not reasonably refuse to follow Congress’s orders if failing to do so would risk the loss of all that money. Thus, the Court held that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could not constitutionally enforce that part of the ACA that would allow her to withdraw all Medicaid funding from any state that chose not to expand its existing Medicaid program.

This brought the Court to the question of “severability,” which asks whether finding part of the law unconstitutional would require the entire law to be invalidated. Again, the Court split three ways. The four conservative-leaning justices all believed that the entire law should be struck down. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have found that there was no constitutional violation in the first place. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, stated that even though the ACA’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional, the Court would not strike down the entire law on that basis because it was not clear if, in the absence of that provision, Congress still would have enacted the law. Because five of the justices said that the rest of the law should survive, the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts controlled the outcome – even though it only had the support of two other justices.

So what does all this really mean?

In short, the Supreme Court has once again expanded the power of the federal government. Today’s decision was a clear win for President Obama because his signature piece of legislation has survived its first furious assault. But there remains a question as to the durability of that victory in the larger war regarding the powers of the federal government. Today’s opinion hung by the slenderest of threads and, in fact, it seems quite clear that Chief Justice Roberts probably intended to side with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito before switching his vote at the last minute. The reasoning in the majority opinion regarding the taxing power is not particularly persuasive and the holding of this case in that regard is very, very narrow. It is possible (although not at all likely) that the Court could grant a rehearing of this case and that Chief Justice Roberts might reverse himself. For now, however, the Supreme Court has given the federal government one more tool with which it may exert control over citizens’ lives.

It is ironic that at the beginning of his opinion Chief Justice Roberts included this quote: “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution so carefully constructed… And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits.” If only the Chief Justice had followed his own advice! Today’s decision is another setback for those of us who believe in constitutionally limited government. But the larger war to see the Constitution properly interpreted and enforced goes on, and the Freedom Center of Missouri remains on the front lines of that fight. We are working every day to win hearts and minds in courtrooms, hearing rooms, conference rooms, and city council chambers all over the state. With your help, we are helping to turn the tide of governmental overreach and we are winning people over to the cause of liberty. If you believe as we do that this fight is critical to your family’s future and the future of the nation we live in, please click the “Subscribe” or “Donate” link on the right side of this page and help ensure that our work will be able to continue.

The Freedom Center of Missouri is taking this case because politically-motivated arrests endanger the very basis of our constitutional system. As is evident from the video, the police turned the First Amendment upside down, singling Mr. Stafford out for arrest and hauling him to jail precisely because he was overseeing a peaceful political assembly. Tomorrow morning we will be with Mr. Stafford as he pleads “not guilty” to the bogus “trespassing” charge under which St. Peters is prosecuting him – and we are confident that the First Amendment will prevail.

Most organizations like ours can’t even keep their doors open for less than $300,000 per year – and most organizations like ours do not boast TWO highly-trained public interest attorneys. But last year the Freedom Center fought three high-profile constitutional battles, testified on a dozen legislative proposals, and spread a pro-liberty message in newspapers, on the airwaves, and in community groups all over the country – and spent only $75,000 to do it! We are convinced that there is not another constitutional litigation center in the entire country that offers this sort of bang for our donors’ bucks.

Many people refrain from supporting causes because they are not able to give very much and they believe that their contribution really won’t make a difference. But for the Freedom Center, small donations really can make the difference for this organization’s continued survival. We currently have more than 1400 followers on Facebook, and hundreds of people view this website every week. If just half of our Facebook followers chipped in $10 per month – the cost of one movie ticket or one pizza – it would guarantee that the Freedom Center has the funds to keep on fighting indefinitely.

We sincerely hope that you believe that our work is worth at least $10 per month, and our continued ability to keep up that work depends on people like you being willing to make that sort of commitment. Please click the “Subscribe” option at the right side of this page and help us in our efforts to secure individual liberty and limited government here in Missouri and throughout the nation!

• Former Presidential candidate, Herman Cain
• Radio host (and friend of the Freedom Center), Dr. Gina Loudon
• Former diplomat and politician, Dr. Alan Keyes
• Constitutional expert and Missouri State University Professor, Dr. Darin Chappell
• Former NAACP chapter president, Rev. C.L. Bryant
• And many more!

The Rally for Common Sense will be held at “The Patriot Field of Dreams,” privately-owned property in Holts Summit, Missouri, just north of the state capital.  In addition to the excellent array of speakers, there will be historical reenactors, seminars on constitutional issues and activism, and loads of activities (such as bounce houses, face-painting, and potato-sack races) for kids to enjoy.

In short, we believe that this is an event that will be well worth your time to attend.  Please make plans today to come and join this “Patriot-palooza” – and be sure to look for the Freedom Center’s booth, where we’ll be getting a head start on the “Lemonade for Liberty” campaign!

And if, perchance, our words have not yet persuaded you to attend… maybe Thomas Paine’s will:

If you just thought to yourself, “Wait… that’s not right,” you are absolutely correct.  It isn’t right.  But unfortunately, it is true.

On April 16 the town of Hopkinton, Massachussets, saw the first lemonade stand shut-down of 2012.  Even though the Westbury family had for years made a practice of setting up in their driveway and selling lemonade, cookies, and banana bread  to spectators at the Boston Marathon, this year city officials closed the stand down because the kids had not obtained a permit from the health department.  This is just the most recent of literally dozens of examples of local officials all over the nation shutting down kid-run concession stands.

The Freedom Center of Missouri is fighting a first-of-its-kind legal battle to ensure that citizens can exercise their constitutional right to use private property in harmless ways – and we believe there is nothing quite so harmless as a kid-run lemonade stand.  That’s why we’re proud to be launching a new effort called Lemonade for Liberty.  We are calling on all freedom-loving parents and kids to set aside Saturday, June 2, to make a (lemonade) stand for property rights!  Not only will participants have fun by practicing entrepreneurship, they will help spread the word about the Freedom Center’s fight to ensure that lemonade stands remain legal in Missouri – and throughout the entire country.

We hope that as many people as possible will take part in Lemonade for Liberty and we’ve prepared this simple, printable flyer in hopes that you will help us spread the word:

Please share this flyer with friends, neighbors, churches, community groups, and especially your local media.  The more people who know about this effort, the more will participate!  With your help, Lemonade for Liberty can make a big impact for property rights here in Missouri and throughout the country.