Below is a copy of a letter written by the mayor's son;
*************************
Subject: The Village of Stratton's mayor's son speaks
From: Edward Abdalla
Date: Mar 1 2002 3:24 PM
Speculative Discrimination?
The US Supreme Court heard the case of Jehovah's Witnesses' vs. Village of Stratton on Tuesday in which the religious organization claimed that they were denied their constitutional right to free speech. The justices debated both sides of the issue between the two parties and rigorously questioned both representing attorneys to clarify the ordinance that the village passed in 1998.
Due to Stratton, Ohio's unique geographic location on the mountainous Ohio River, with easy access in and out of town along four-lane Route 7, the village has received hundreds of traveling peddlers and solicitors over the last 40 years, selling everything from driveway repairs to perfumes to frozen meats (with inspection quality and safety standards often unknown) by shady con men and other valley drifters. The small Ohio River town is home to about 300 residents, mostly retired senior citizens, formerly factory workers, and many have been visited repeatedly and exhaustively over the years. The elderly who live there are prime targets of the "Flim-Flam Man," according to the undisputed testimony of a Consumer Fraud expert from the Ohio Attorney General's office.
Getting a knock on the door at 9:00pm from the unwelcomed salesman was not uncommon for the retired and sometimes single residents. Dinner-time interruptions were exasperating. People who work the midnight shift in the local mills didn't need awakened by the knock at the door when sleeping, before getting up for work.
The citizens of the town finally decided to take action. The village council established an ordinance requiring solicitors of all types - from girl scouts selling cookies to political candidates seeking exposure - to register at the clerk's office, before soliciting door-to-door. The intended purpose was to be able to establish the identity of those who want to enter uninvited onto private property within the village. It did not regulate other methods of soliciting, such as soliciting at the post office (where every citizen must come to get his mail) or soliciting on the public streets and sidewalks, or soliciting in the public parks, or by mail, internet and telephone. It narrowly targeted only those solicitors who come uninvited to your home, when you don't expect them.
Safety issues and privacy rights were the main concerns of these common hardworking people. The permit is available to anyone, and of the 15 requests received by the clerk's office, none have been turned away for any reason.
The Jehovah's state in their case that this ordinance prohibits them from engaging in their requisite activities for recruitment by going door to door. In fact, the Witness's have never requested a permit in order to go door to door in the village since the ordinance was established. "And if they had requested one they certainly would have been granted one" says the Mayor.
Justice Ginsburg was the only Justice to even question this fact - why is the case being heard in the first place? The Jehovah's claim their rights had been violated, when, in fact, they are merely speculating that they might be denied by the ordinance. They have not even tried the ordinance procedures to see how they work and how they benefit the solicitor. They just filed suit. And to be able to file a complaint and end up in the US Supreme Court based on a mere speculation is an event that ought to pause the court. Imagine the flood of cases if you could sue someone based on the mere speculation that they might treat you badly or do you harm. The Jehovah's accused Stratton, without ever even giving Stratton a try.
The Jehovah's claim that the ordinance requires a person to "get the government's permission" before engaging in door-to-door solicitation. In fact, the ordinance does not require the solicitor to ask for permission. He must merely "register" his intent to solicit, by filling out a simple registration form. That registration form is not a request for permission. It is a declaration. The solicitor declares that he his going to solicit door-to-door, and there is nothing that the Village can do about it.
By registering, the solicitor gives himself the permit. The Mayor has no discretion to grant or deny the permit, so long as the solicitor fills out the registration form. A completed form is an automatic trigger to the issuance of the permit.
The solicitor has all of the power and discretion. The Village reserves none to itself. If you want a permit, you've got it. You control its issuance. No one can deny it, once you've filled out the form.
The permit is free of charge. The form takes about two (2) minutes to fill out. With registration comes protection for the solicitor - protection from unfounded complaints of Village residents who might complain after the fact.
Registration gives the solicitor the opportunity to see a list of property owners, who have registered their homes as off-limits to solicitors, under the terms of a separate ordinance which entitles the homeowner to decide who can solicit at his home and who cannot.
In Stratton, it is the homeowner who is vested with the power to decide who is welcome and who is not. The Village government has no power to make that decision.
The conduct which is regulated by the ordinance is not speech, but rather "uninvited entry." The ordinance does not regulate a person's lips or the words they speak. The ordinance regulates a person's feet - at the point where his foot crosses that line from the public sidewalk into the private property of a homeowner who has not invited him - a homeowner who doesn't even know that he's coming.
No man has a constitutional right to invade another man's property, uninvited. And, yet, the Jehovah's claim such a right, and they also want the right to remain anonymous when they come to your home, without your invitation. The question presented to the Supreme Court was the question of whether the Petitioners have a constitutionally protected right to remain anonymous when they come into a person's private property, without his permission or invitation.
Does one have the constitutional right to come into my bathroom (unannounced and uninvited and anonymously), just because he intends to engage in speech? Can he come into my bedroom, and then say, "It's OK folks, I'm here to make a speech."? Does the Constitution give him a free pass across the threshold of my front door, just because he will later justify the intrusion by claiming that he's there to make a speech? No. No man has the constitutional right-of-way into another man's castle, just because his excuse is the intent to make a speech that I didn't invite.
Stratton's ordinance drew the line at the picket fence - not in the bathroom or bedroom -not inside the front door. If a solicitor wishes to cross the line from the public sidewalk into my private residential property, (without my knowledge that he is coming and without my invitation), all he has to do is take a minute to fill out a form that identifies himself. It's no hassle. No burden to any First Amendment Right.
Once he registers, he is free to solicit again and again, with no time deadline. Register once, and he's "good to go" for as long as he likes. Where is the burden? The infringement?
Why am I not allowed to know who you are when you come to my door at an hour chosen by you? Why do I have to open my door to find out whether you are a legitimate solicitor as opposed to flim-flam man or rapist? Why do you have a constitutional right to get that far, before you must identify yourself?
Stratton's ordinance merely says, "Tell us who you are. Then go solicit to your heart's delight." Why does that deserve the court's ridicule?
Of course, the violent criminal will not stop by to register. He will just go up onto your porch and look through your window - casing the joint. Then he'll go up on your neighbor's porch to look through her window. He's looking for the little old lady who lives alone, so that he can do his harm.
And that is exactly the conduct that gives a police officer the power (probable cause) to stop the man on your porch to ask him, "Who are you and what are you doing here?" Going door-to-door without registering is that probable cause. It will not exist without the ordinance. When the criminal claims that he is going door-to-door selling magazines for his church or preaching or whatever, there will be no way to challenge him. He can make that claim after the fact of his apprehension.
Legitimate solicitors register, because it's quick, easy and free of charge. Plus, they get the protections afforded to solicitors under the ordinance. Criminals will be afraid to register, because they don't want to show identification, before they commit their crime. Therein lies but one of the deterrent effects of the ordinance.
The ordinance does not prohibit your neighbor from borrowing a cup of sugar. She's your neighbor. She's invited. It does not ban the kids who come for trick-or-treat. They are invited. It bans the unidentified stranger who is unexpected and uninvited - and it stops the ban the instant even he fills out a two-minute form.
What reason does the solicitor have for demanding the right to come into my private residence property, while refusing to tell me who he is before I open the door? Why am I not allowed to know he's coming? Why does he get to choose the time and day? Why the power of ambush? In my own home, of all places?
Where is my privacy? Can't the Village protect my privacy? Where is my assurance of safety? Can't the Village protect me from the frauds? The high-pressure sales? The guy who wants to case my house?
The Mayor's primary responsibility is to protect and defend his electorate. And in Stratton, that is exactly what he plans to continue to do.
Edward Abdalla
Chicago, IL
The author is the son of the Mayor of Stratton and attended the case on Tuesday at the Supreme Court.
Safe to say he was also pissed off.
Hugs,
Annie
