COURT BATTLE TO MINISTER THE GOSPEL WITH BANNERS, PREACHING AND LITERATURE DISTRIBUTION IN THE APPROACH AREA TO THE PARK GATE ENTRANCE DURING THE MEMPHIS IN MAY EVENTS
COURT BATTLE TO MINISTER THE GOSPEL WITH BANNERS, PREACHING AND LITERATURE DISTRIBUTION IN THE APPROACH AREA TO THE PARK GATE ENTRANCE DURING THE MEMPHIS IN MAY EVENTS


The Banners Unfurled evangelistic teams (BU) were threatened with arrest for several years and forced to proclaim the Gospel outside the approach area (a convergence of two streets, Beale and Riverside, terminating at a ticket gate entrance into the Tom Lee Park) that was closed to vehicle traffic (except Police, Fire, Dignitaries, and Handicapped) but was not closed to pedestrians. BU team had just been forced under threat of arrest to move out of the area closed to vehicle traffic when Attorney Nate Kellum (at the time retained and on the staff of the American Family Association, Tupelo MS) approached and offered any assistance in defending our rights of expression. He was shown the layout and after a year of efforts to resolve our dispute with Memphis police officials he subsequently filed a case in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

KENNETH D. LANSING, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, THE PARK COMMISSION and MEMPHIS IN MAY INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL, INC., defendants. Jon P. MaCalla, United States District Judge ordered on the 17 day of April, 1998, “Accordingly, the Court hereby permanently ENJOINS Defendants from prohibiting Mr. Lansing’s expressive activities within the leased areas of Riverside Drive outside the north and south gates.”

The CITY OF MEMPHIS did not appeal and even though MEMPHIS IN MAY did appeal and won, their appeal has had no effect (even though they have tried) on our expressive rights in the contested area because CITY OF MEMPHIS controls the area and the CITY OF MEMPHIS is permanently ENJOINED from prohibiting our expressive activities in the subject area. You may read the case by following the accompanying link. Constitutional Speech Protected, United States District Court, 1998 .

IN MY OPINION THE DECISION BY THE FEDERAL COURT PROVES THAT THE MEMPHIS CITY COUNSEL'S DECLARATION TO CLOSE A STREET TO NORMAL VEHICLE TRAFFIC DOES NOT ENTITLE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE CLOSED STREET (IN THIS CASE MEMPHIS IN MAY) THE RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY