Pisco

It seems that courts have been quite liberal in applying the physical obstruction, not totally and 100%.

I'm not saying that every disruption at a proceeding or something constitutes a physical obstruction.

But here you have

What is it, like 40 people?

The numbers involved here, the pre-planning, I think it can be analogized to some of these cases in reproductive health care centers with like two, three, four people where they cause a disruption, sort of anticipating police to be involved.

But, you know, here you have a difference where they didn't necessarily stay as long.

But, yeah, so I think there's a lot of room for courts to judge that this was a physical obstruction.

Yeah.

The harder part is like, are they really trying to interfere specifically with the expression of civil liberties regarding religion?

I'm not sure.

An example I would think about, and you guys tell me what you think of it.

Suppose that we had a priest who was like accused of being inappropriate with altar boys and someone, a group of five people come in and say,

He's having inappropriate relations with altar boys.

Would we consider that purpose, the intent there, to be to interfere with the expression of religious liberties just because as a consequence of trying to expose a crime or some kind of corruption that it entails stopping the service?

That seems a little bit more far-fetched to me that the mere disruption constitutes the intent prong.

But who knows?

We'll see what the courts will decide.

And as of now, without any court documents or any kind of complaints or indictments, I'm not comfortable doing that estimate.

Presumably, yeah.

This would be in the federal court because it's a federal cause of action.