The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"I'm Gonna F**king Blow up the School and Call It a Mission from God"
Wait, I don't think that's how it's supposed to work.
From the statement of the offense, agreed to by Sonia Tabizada; here's the Justice Department's press release:
Sonia Tabizada, age 36, of San Jacinto, California, pleaded guilty in federal court to intentionally obstructing persons in the enjoyment of their free exercise of religious beliefs by threatening to bomb the Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School in Washington, D.C., in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 247.
In May 2019, school officials announced that Visitation Prep, the oldest Catholic school for girls in the country, would begin publishing same-sex wedding announcements in its alumni magazine to advance its teaching that "we are all children of God … worthy of respect and love." According to the plea agreement, Tabizada learned of this announcement and made multiple calls threatening violence in response to the school's decision.
On May 15, 2019, Tabizada left a voice message stating that she was going to burn and bomb the church. Tabizada also stated that she was going to kill school officials and students. Several minutes later, Tabizada left a second voice mail stating that she was going to blow up the school and warned that she would commit "terrorism." …
"The defendant's violent threats were directed at the free exercise of a private school community's religious beliefs. An attack upon the free exercise of any person or group's religious beliefs is an attack upon the civil rights of every citizen. Today's guilty plea is part of my office's commitment to ensuring that all District citizens can safely exercise their religious beliefs and that all of their civil rights are protected," said Michael R. Sherwin, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
(Expurgation, of course, in the original.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Funny...I just went to CNN and this report appears no where on the website. They love reporting on hate crimes, I wonder why this one isn't getting any love....?
Even funnier . . . Newsmax just called the Warnock-Loeffler race . . . for the Democrat.
In Georgia.
Outside the recount threshold.
The Perdue-Ossoff race is within a couple of thousand votes.
Welcome to the American future, Republicans. You’ll get another ass-kicking in Congress tomorrow.
$50,000 Checks!
Watch the stock market crash & burn.
Watch the value of the Atlanta Dreams’ Vote Warnock shirts soar!
Get woke or get steamrolled.
The rich will always get their money. I have no idea why anyone not worth millions gives a flying fuck about it. Your 401k will be fine because, again, the rich will get their money.
You should be far more concerned about the economy out your front door.
Lol. But, though I’ve thought of the Dems my whole life as the party of tax and spend, I am starting to change my mind. Lately, the Republicans are beating the Dems when it comes to spending. In just 4 years, with a good economy to start, and the Republicans controlling both houses for the first 2 years, the debt has risen almost 50%. Total. Like for our entire nations history.
You can’t increase spending and cut taxes. That just doesn’t work. I don’t want higher taxes, so I want spending cut, but I seem to be in the minority in this “modern” world. The Republicans are all about debt. I guess they can default, since that is what Trump always did in the past.
Yep. Fiscal conservatism belongs to the Dems. Sure, they want bigger govt but they also think of how to pay for it. Rs just criticize then come in and spend like drunken sailors. Dems come in to clean it up. Rinse, repeat.
Man physically abuses his wife (runs over her foot) and gets arrested for child abuse and still wins.
Amazing.
America, RIP...
Kirkland: Your peeps: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/01/05/5-charged-with-riot-in-destructive-new-years-eve-minneapolis-demonstration/
You aren't going to be able to control these brownshirts.
Hi, Artie. Please, prepare your upstairs bedroom for the homeless, Democrat addict you will be forced to house there.
Artie was banned by Eugene Volokh for making fun of conservatives. Viewpoint-controlled censorship is among the perks of being a blog’s proprietor.
Recent election results have increased the risk that I will be banned soon, too — all of this progress might be too much for the Volokh Conspirators to take, and banning me seems a likely reflex.
Either way . . . Carry on, clingers!
(But, as always, just so far and so long as better Americans permit)
It would have been far more effective had she merely filed USPS Form 1500 with her local post office... 🙂
https://about.usps.com/forms/ps1500.pdf
"intentionally obstructing persons in the enjoyment of their free exercise of religious beliefs"
Does this depend on her motivations, or just the fact that she planned to bomb a religious school?
Suppose she just wanted to take revenge on someone who worked there, for example.
Or she had gone to the school and had been abused as a child, and wanted revenge for the school looking the other way.
Would it be a similar punishment were she a gay activist and made the exact same threats to a truly religious school which refused to post the same-sex marriages in the alumni magazine?
Actually, how is this related to "exercise of religious beliefs" as the religion itself teaches that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman (only).
I can see violation of civil rights, but not violation of religious rights, not when the religion the school purports to reflect denies this.
Just so I'm clear you want the courts to start inquiring and define what religious doctrine says?
They kinda have to because in order to "violate a religious right", due process mandates that right be articulated.
No the court doesn't have to decide "true" doctrine. Only that the belief is sincerely held. And that is specific to the indiviudal(s) asserting it. The court doesn't and can't look to some high council of the religion to determine what is true or not.
So you're saying gay marriage is a religious belief?
Hence a secular private school would not be protected under similar circumstances because they weren't religious?
Gay marriage *can* be a religious belief if your religion takes a position on it; some religions do and some don't. A secular private school in identical circumstances would not have a claim for religious discrimination, though it would under other legal theories.
The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 247(a)(2), requires a specific intent to obstruct the exercise of religious beliefs.
I understand that, but my question is what in this specific case satisfies that requirement.
If someone bursts into a house of worship and disrupts and ongoing service, then yes, the statute is satisifed.
This person apparently targeted the school because she disagreed with their application (or misapplication) of Catholic doctrine. But her acts would have disrupted the school and its teaching function. Does that satisfy the statute?
I think the intent of the disruption has to be religious. If someone burns a church to the ground because he hates churches, it's religious discrimination. If someone burns a church to the ground because he's a pyromaniac who enjoys watching things burn, it would not be religious discrimination, particularly if he also burned a gas station, a private residence and a post office earlier in the week.
I guess I'm having trouble understanding your confusion. The prosecution theory is that the school felt a religious obligation to announce same-sex marriages in its alumni magazine, and that the defendant threatened them in an effort to get them to stop, which in turn obstructed their exercise of that belief (although since the statute criminalizes attempts, it is not necessary to show that the threats actually obstructed anything).
Didn't Alice Cooper say that school has been blown to pieces?
"[Verse 1]
Well, we got no choice
All the girls and boys
Makin' all that noise
'Cause they found new toys
Well, we can't salute ya
Can't find a flag
If that don't suit ya, that's a drag
[Chorus]
School's out for summer
School's out forever
School's been blown to pieces
No more pencils
No more books
No more teacher's dirty looks
Yeah!
[Verse 2]
Well, we got no class
And we got no principles
And we got no innocence
We can't even think
Of a word that rhymes
[Chorus]
School's out for summer
School's out forever
My school's been blown to pieces
No more pencils
No more books
No more teacher's dirty looks
Although, in fairness, (a) it wasn't a specific school, and (b) I doubt anyone would have cared had she been a lesbian threatening a school that didn't list lesbian "marriages."
"The nonviolent elements of petitioners' activities are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment."
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)
Yea, the Dems are gonna have a problem with that decision over the next few years... 🙂
Hurting someone's feelings will get you arrested, under this administration.
They will appeal to the well-known doctrine, "Your speech is violence, my violence is speech."
At best we will have 2 years of MAGA marches and a housecleaning in 2022. But I fear it is going to get worse, much worse. I can't believe that criminal got elected.
The only problem I see here is why do we have a federal law that SPECIFICALLY identifies and protects religious property?
18 U.S.C. § 247(a)(2):
(a)(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, including by threat of force against religious real property, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;
And I bet one of you will answer because of freedom of religion is an enumerated right - but then is there a corresponding law that SPECIFICALLY protect press or assembly bldgs?
I suppose because church burnings were recently a thing?
There was already a law that generally criminalizes the use of force or violence against the exercise of any civil liberty, but Congress apparently thinks they're not doing their job if they're not passing redundant laws.
Arguably her opposition to lesbian "marriage" was the exercise of her religious beliefs.
Because she took a plea, this won't get tested, but it seems that a law that specifies religions over similar types of activities is questionable. What about a union hall? Union activities aren't all that different from religious activities. Sure the practitioners intents are different, but from a materialistic point of view, the activities have a similarities.
Well, religion has a clause in the Constitution, and unions don't. So there's your answer.