On March 30, 2009 I was ordered by an arraignment judge to stay a minimum of one  block away from Planned Parenthood for one year.  This stay away order was  sought by the prosecution with an exception for Good Friday because, as the  prosecutor stated on the record, "...police officials tell me that Mr. Gibson is  very cooperative on Good Friday."  The order was granted immediately without the  judge even looking toward me, let alone accept any input from me.  
 It gets worse.  The prosecutor told me that at my upcoming pre-trial  hearing, the City of St. Paul will be seeking to charge me with interfering with  clinic access.  This is the gross misdemeanor Minnesota Freedom of Access to  Clinic Entrances (FACE) law which is punishable up to a year in prison and up to  $3,000 fine.  To my knowledge I am the first to face being charged  under Minnesota FACE.
 The charges were from an incident on December 11, 2008 where I was engaging  in my regular sidewalk counseling efforts at Planned Parenthood's (PP) abortuary  in St. Paul, Minn.  A couple had come there in a taxi and was let out of the cab  in the driveway apron of the fast food restaurant next door to PP.  This couple  was most likely coming to PP for an abortion.  My opportunity to offer them  literature and let them know of the wealth of help available would be  short-lived if the aggressive PP "escorts" were able to come over and block me  out as they have so often done.  I had a short 30 feet of public sidewalk to  offer help, if an escort didn't interfer sooner.  I walked next to the man with  the woman on his other side away from me.  He immediately began to tell me that  he didn't want any information and not to talk to him.  So I spoke the woman who  remained silent as we walked next to each other for about twenty feet of the  distance.  At one point, the man pushed out his forearm to force me away.  I  told him not to touch me, he told me not to touch him, I told him that I haven't  and won't and went back to letting the woman know that PP would hide the  ultrasound from her and she needed to insist on seeing it.  I stopped short of  the front sidewalk area of PP as the couple walked passed me freely.  Once on  PP's property, the woman spoke her first words to me, telling me to, "fxxx  off."  I then pleaded with her saying, "Please don't let them kill your baby."   Hearing this, she spun around while in the doorway to PP and screamed, "I'm  going to kill you."  
 The police were called and the man lied to the officer (one I have never  seen at PP before) telling him that I had shoved first.  A PP employee falsely  told the officer that PP used to have a restraining order against me that had  expired.  The police officer was also told that there was shouting, implying  that I had been the one shouting.  The officer came out and asked me a few  questions and went back into PP.  After about another 20 minutes, I went to  leave.  (I was already close to an hour past the time I usually leave.)  The  officer came driving after me around the block, when I saw his car I immediately  went over to it and asked if he needed any more information.  At this point he  told me that I was being cited for "aggressive solicitation," St. Paul's  anti-panhandling ordinance.  He handed me a piece of paper that explained the  charge.  I tried to explain to him that this law could not apply to me since the  primary part of the law required I try to solicit someone.  I asked if the man  and the woman were being charged with anything since my life had been threatened  and I was physically shoved.  He told me he couldn't make that determination  because he wasn't an investigator.  There was a secondary charge of disorderly  conduct which is often "tacked" on to a primary charge just to give more leeway  to prosecutors when the court appearance takes place.  The officer didn't even  mention it when handing me the citation.  (This is an arrest without being taken  into custody.)  At the arraignment, the prosecutor had no choice but to drop the  aggressive solicitation charge in order to avoid looking very silly before the  court.
 A few important points; at no time did I touch the man or the woman. I  never stepped in front of them or tried to impede their movement in any way.   The words I spoke are the same ones I have spoken hundreds of times to many who  go into PP for abortions.  I offered our literature.  I told of the help  center on the corner, just two doors down from PP, most likely pointing toward  it as I often do.  I let it be known that PP keeps important information from  women having abortions.  The man looked to be at least ten years older than the  woman, giving me the impression that there could be coercion involved in this  situation (part of the reason I focused my attention on her and not him.)
 My pre-trial hearing is Tuesday, May 5 at 1:30 p.m. in the St. Paul  Courthouse located at 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, Minn.  If you would like to  attend the hearing, stop by room 130 to see which courtroom is assigned.  The  judge assigned is Margaret Marrinan.
 Please keep all this in prayer.  My primary attorney is not a criminal  defense lawyer.  But he is a former City of St. Paul prosecutor.  Pray for the  judge and the prosecutor.  Pray for me to remain at peace before God.  
 If you can help us with a donation at this time, please do.  Funding  continues to remain low as we try to eek by while doing more and more to save  lives and stand against the onslaught of abortion under the Obama  administration.  And do know that whatever the outcome, this will not deter us  from doing the good work God has called us to, saving lives proclaiming His  truth.   It is not coincidental that we are on a record pace for lives saved  from abortion.  The weeks just prior to being ordered away from PP, I was graced  by God to be involved in helping save at least three babies at PP.  We cannot  let up. 
Sincerely in Christ,
Brian Gibson
Executive Director
Pro-Life Action Ministries
http://www.plam.org
Sincerely in Christ,
Brian Gibson
Executive Director
Pro-Life Action Ministries
http://www.plam.org
4 comments:
This is serious. I Tweeted this on my feed and will link to you from my blog as well.
It sounds like his biggest problem was no witnesses for his side of things. The PP people have the clients (who were hostile in this case) and the employee. He has nobody, not even a neutral person to give a different account. Leftwing protesters know that you always have to have witnesses or better yet, somebody who can videotape your action. I think video might be illegal in this case since they could accuse you of videotaping the people going in and invading their privacy but even a partial witness would be better than none for him.
Good point, Margaret.
I know I regularly see people up on the roof of the building with cameras. So, yes, they are well versed in the laws of evidence.
let this be a lesson to all--keep your distance from those who need counseling-if they stay away move
Post a Comment