Prosecuted for Speaking Out - COVID 19
Donation protected
My client is being prosecuted in Ottawa County District Court for exercising his First Amendment rights to strongly verbalize his disagreement with Gov. Whitmer's Executive Orders relating to COVID-19.
I represent Merlin Steffes, the defendant charged with the criminal offense of "Disorderly Conduct" in violation of MCL 750.170. What did he do? He is charged with, in his terms, "having words" with a Subway restaurant manager on Monday, April 20, 2020 at around 2:00 p.m. over being ordered to "stand on the blue x" as part of Gov. Whitmer's then existing Executive Order regarding social distancing to "stop the spread" of the coronavirus (COVID-19) as implemented by his local Subway restaurant.
Mr. Steffes is accused of "raising his voice" inside the restaurant, and, although he denies it, becoming "irate" and "cussing out" the manager from approximately 30 feet away. He does admit to accusing the manager of not thinking for herself and saying something to the effect that she would be one of the first to walk of a cliff for falling for all of the COVID-19 "stupidity."
At no point is Mr. Steffes accused of threatening violence or acting in a violent manner. The Subway manager has even said that it is the County pursuing this against Mr. Steffes, not her and that she would have let it go. She has even served Mr. Steffes at the restaurant since this date without further incident.
We have defended Mr. Steffes on the grounds that his words and expressive conduct are protected under the First Amendment, and that this criminal statute is being used against him in an unconstitutional manner (legal term: unconstitutional 'as applied' to him). Michigan cases such as "People v Purifoy" and "People v Vandenberg," (both of which are Michigan Court of Appeals decisions) have held that using this statute against people based upon their words alone (without a threat of violence or actual act of violence) is unconstitutional. The Judge who authored the Purifoy decision wrote that the "sole basis for conviction" under MCL 750.170 could not be "something less than a threat of violence which merely interferes with and causes irritation of others" and that the "statute is concerned with intentional acts of violence or threats of the commission of acts of violence."
Even if Mr. Steffes used vulgar language, which he denies using, to express his opinion over the COVID-19 Executive Orders and how he felt that people were blindly following them, that speech is still protected. He did not engage in what is legally referred to as "fighting words" or even "obscenity." Case law supports as "protected speech," speech that "induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging." (Edwards v South Carolina, 372 US 229, 237-38 (1963)). Even using "vulgar" terms like "f*ck" and "f*ck you" have been found to be protected when expressing one's ideas and beliefs.
So, the long and short of it is this: Ottawa County, through their prosecutor's office, has criminalized free speech that is less than calmly expressed. They are requiring that if you are upset about the Governor's actions and those that follow them, or, quite frankly, any political position that could cause some controversy, you had better do so in a calm, genteel manner, without colorful language and in a manner that doesn't offend the sensibilities of, well.... the government - here, showing up in the form of the Ottawa County Prosecutor's Office.
Where are we and where are we going? We brought a motion to dismiss the case for violation of First Amendment constitutional principles, along with a supporting written legal brief. The Ottawa County Prosecutor's Office did not file any written response.
The motion was heard on October 14, 2020 where I and the prosecutor assigned to the case gave our oral arguments. After being heard, the Judge adjourned (postponed) the matter for three weeks (until Friday, November 6, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.) because the witnesses that the Prosecutor's Office had subpoenaed to show up at the hearing didn't show up. The judge indicated that without hearing from the prosecutor's witnesses, he was inclined to deny our motion.
It is entirely possible that ultimately, whichever way the Judge decides, this case could well be appealed. While the Ottawa County Prosecutor's Office is funded by our tax dollars, Mr. Steffes is not made of money. Lawyers and constitutional battles aimed at stopping the unconstitutional encroachment against our individual liberties are, unfortunately, expensive. Especially against a taxpayer funded prosecution.
I am therefore asking, with my client's permission, for help in covering some of his legal expenses. At this point, he has already incurred more than $5,000.00 in legal bills, and with the already scheduled additional hearing, and a possible eventual trial, and then if there is an appeal, those legal expenses will significantly increase. We are looking to cover him through the next hearing at least. If there are funds beyond that, they will go toward any additional fees he incurs in this battle.
Thank you for reading this far and for giving this your consideration. Any amount can help, including helping to cover the fees and costs charged by the GoFundMe organization.
Even if you cannot donate, would you please consider sharing this on your social media platforms?.... and a HUGE thank you in advance!
- Paul A. Ledford, Attorney.
- Ledford & Associates
Link to Defendant's Motion: Motion & Brief in Support
I represent Merlin Steffes, the defendant charged with the criminal offense of "Disorderly Conduct" in violation of MCL 750.170. What did he do? He is charged with, in his terms, "having words" with a Subway restaurant manager on Monday, April 20, 2020 at around 2:00 p.m. over being ordered to "stand on the blue x" as part of Gov. Whitmer's then existing Executive Order regarding social distancing to "stop the spread" of the coronavirus (COVID-19) as implemented by his local Subway restaurant.
Mr. Steffes is accused of "raising his voice" inside the restaurant, and, although he denies it, becoming "irate" and "cussing out" the manager from approximately 30 feet away. He does admit to accusing the manager of not thinking for herself and saying something to the effect that she would be one of the first to walk of a cliff for falling for all of the COVID-19 "stupidity."
At no point is Mr. Steffes accused of threatening violence or acting in a violent manner. The Subway manager has even said that it is the County pursuing this against Mr. Steffes, not her and that she would have let it go. She has even served Mr. Steffes at the restaurant since this date without further incident.
We have defended Mr. Steffes on the grounds that his words and expressive conduct are protected under the First Amendment, and that this criminal statute is being used against him in an unconstitutional manner (legal term: unconstitutional 'as applied' to him). Michigan cases such as "People v Purifoy" and "People v Vandenberg," (both of which are Michigan Court of Appeals decisions) have held that using this statute against people based upon their words alone (without a threat of violence or actual act of violence) is unconstitutional. The Judge who authored the Purifoy decision wrote that the "sole basis for conviction" under MCL 750.170 could not be "something less than a threat of violence which merely interferes with and causes irritation of others" and that the "statute is concerned with intentional acts of violence or threats of the commission of acts of violence."
Even if Mr. Steffes used vulgar language, which he denies using, to express his opinion over the COVID-19 Executive Orders and how he felt that people were blindly following them, that speech is still protected. He did not engage in what is legally referred to as "fighting words" or even "obscenity." Case law supports as "protected speech," speech that "induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging." (Edwards v South Carolina, 372 US 229, 237-38 (1963)). Even using "vulgar" terms like "f*ck" and "f*ck you" have been found to be protected when expressing one's ideas and beliefs.
So, the long and short of it is this: Ottawa County, through their prosecutor's office, has criminalized free speech that is less than calmly expressed. They are requiring that if you are upset about the Governor's actions and those that follow them, or, quite frankly, any political position that could cause some controversy, you had better do so in a calm, genteel manner, without colorful language and in a manner that doesn't offend the sensibilities of, well.... the government - here, showing up in the form of the Ottawa County Prosecutor's Office.
Where are we and where are we going? We brought a motion to dismiss the case for violation of First Amendment constitutional principles, along with a supporting written legal brief. The Ottawa County Prosecutor's Office did not file any written response.
The motion was heard on October 14, 2020 where I and the prosecutor assigned to the case gave our oral arguments. After being heard, the Judge adjourned (postponed) the matter for three weeks (until Friday, November 6, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.) because the witnesses that the Prosecutor's Office had subpoenaed to show up at the hearing didn't show up. The judge indicated that without hearing from the prosecutor's witnesses, he was inclined to deny our motion.
It is entirely possible that ultimately, whichever way the Judge decides, this case could well be appealed. While the Ottawa County Prosecutor's Office is funded by our tax dollars, Mr. Steffes is not made of money. Lawyers and constitutional battles aimed at stopping the unconstitutional encroachment against our individual liberties are, unfortunately, expensive. Especially against a taxpayer funded prosecution.
I am therefore asking, with my client's permission, for help in covering some of his legal expenses. At this point, he has already incurred more than $5,000.00 in legal bills, and with the already scheduled additional hearing, and a possible eventual trial, and then if there is an appeal, those legal expenses will significantly increase. We are looking to cover him through the next hearing at least. If there are funds beyond that, they will go toward any additional fees he incurs in this battle.
Thank you for reading this far and for giving this your consideration. Any amount can help, including helping to cover the fees and costs charged by the GoFundMe organization.
Even if you cannot donate, would you please consider sharing this on your social media platforms?.... and a HUGE thank you in advance!
- Paul A. Ledford, Attorney.
- Ledford & Associates
Link to Defendant's Motion: Motion & Brief in Support
Organizer
Paul Ledford
Organizer
Grandville, MI