Liabilities / Assets
60th percentile
Tied with the lowest-debt nonprofits in its peer group.
Freedom Center of Missouri
EIN 27-4062521 • 501(c)3 • Mexico, MO
RevokedPub. 78 Eligible990-N Coverage
Profile
The Freedom Center of Missouri provides pro bono legal representation to individuals whose constitutional liberties have been violated while using those cases and supporting research to help educate other citizens about state and federal constitutional principles. The Freedom Center fights for civil liberties for all citizens, not just our clients. The organization does not request fees from any of its clients or consider the likelihood of a court's awarding of attorney's fees when it is deciding whether to take on a given case.
Siviq Scores
Precomputed percentiles relative to similar nonprofits. These scores are descriptive rather than judgmental.
0.00x
Liabilities / Revenue
62nd percentile
Tied with the lowest-debt nonprofits in its peer group.
Net Margin
70th percentile
Higher net margin than 70% of similar nonprofits.
Top Officer Pay
92nd percentile
Higher top officer pay than 92% of similar nonprofits.
Top officer pay equals 67.9% of source-year revenue.
Asset Growth
Score unavailable
No earlier valid filing was available within the previous three public years.
Revenue Growth
Score unavailable
No earlier valid filing was available within the previous three public years.
Balance Sheet
Assets
$9,698
No earlier filing loaded for comparison.
Liabilities
$0
No earlier filing loaded for comparison.
Net Assets
$9,698
No earlier filing loaded for comparison.
Revenue
$60,860
No earlier filing loaded for comparison.
Expenses
$51,162
No earlier filing loaded for comparison.
Net Income
$9,698
No earlier filing loaded for comparison.
Trend Graphs
Filings
Most recent year
2017 • Form 990EZDetailed filing. Detailed filing data is available for this year.
- Assets
- $9,698
- Liabilities
- $0
- Net assets
- $9,698
- Revenue
- $60,860
- Expenses
- $51,162
- Net income
- $9,698
Latest Filing Detail
Jump To
Filing Snapshot
- Filing Period
- Jan 1, 2017 to Dec 31, 2017
- Signed
- Jul 1, 2018
- Return Version
- 2017v2.0
- Gross Receipts
- $60,860
Mission and Program Overview
Mission
The Freedom Center of Missouri provides pro bono legal representation to individuals whose constitutional liberties have been violated while using those cases and supporting research to help educate other citizens about state and federal constitutional principles. The Freedom Center fights for civil liberties for all citizens, not just our clients. The organization does not request fees from any of its clients or consider the likelihood of a court's awarding of attorney's fees when it is deciding whether to take on a given case.
Program Services
| Description | Grants | Expenses |
|---|---|---|
| Calzone v. Hagan - Does the First Amendment allow a state to punish unpaid citizen activists who decline to register and report their conversations with legislators as if the activists were professional lobbyists? Facts - Ron Calzone is a passionate activist who, on his own time and his own dime, frequently travels to the state capitol to promote the ideals of free markets and individual liberty. His unusually effective rhetoric has succeeded in halting many anti-liberty bills... and has made him some powerful enemies. Three powerful (Republican) legislators asked the Society of Government Consultants (the Lobbyist Guild) to file a complaint against Calzone with the Missouri Ethics Commission. The SGC complied with the request and the MEC attempted to fine Calzone $1000 and to prohibit him from speaking to legislators unless and until he registered as a lobbyist. We partnered with the Center for Competitive Politics (now the Institute for Free Speech) to challenge the constitutionality of the MEC's action. Outcome - Loss in federal district court; appeal argued on April 10, 2018, before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Duffner v. City of St. Peters - Can a city impose exorbitant fines on property owners for growing harmless, perfectly lawful flowers instead of the government-mandated turf grass? Facts - Carl and Janice Duffner are elderly homeowners in ill-health who are allergic to grass. Years ago they removed all grass from their yard and replaced it with what the city concedes is a beautiful, well-maintained flower garden. But one neighbor complained that the Duffners were not in compliance with a city ordinance mandating that at least half of the yard space in all residential properties must be covered in turf grass. The penalty for the first offense of non-compliance is a maximum of $250 fine and ten days imprisonment... per day of noncompliance. We filed suit on the Duffners' behalf to establish that the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions protect citizens' rights to use private property in lawful, harmless ways of their own choosing, and also that the Eighth Amendment protects citizens against fines dramatically disproportionate to the alleged "offense." Outcome - Loss in federal district court; this case is currently pending in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Malin v. MUSTANG Drug Task - Are multi-jurisdictional drug task forces subject to Missouri's Sunshine Law? Facts - When Aaron Malin set out to learn about how Missouri's multi-jurisdictional task forces were using the extraordinary power and taxpayer resources the state has given them, he found that roughly half-including MUSTANG-refused to comply with his records requests. We sued on his behalf to establish, first, that the task forces are subject to the Sunshine Law, and second, that the task force in question violated the law by refusing to respond properly to Malin's records requests. Outcome - Victory in trial court; this case is pending before the Court of Appeals. | $0 | $16,657 |
| Malin v. Cole County Prosecuting Attorney - Are county prosecuting attorney offices subject to Missouri's Sunshine Law? Facts - Aaron Malin asked the Cole County Prosecuting Attorney for certain financial records, copies of indictments, and copies of other public records requests submitted to that office. In response to each of these requests the Prosecuting Attorney claimed that every document in his office was exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law; he made no effort at all to locate records responsive to Malin's requests. Outcome - Victory in trial court, with the judge ordering the Prosecuting Attorney to pay the largest transparency-related civil penalty in state history as well as the plaintiff's attorney fees; the Prosecuting Attorney has appealed this case to the Missouri Court of Appeals. Malin v. Metro Multi-Jurisdictional Undercover Drug Program - Are multi-jurisdictional drug task forces subject to Missouri's Sunshine Law? Facts - When Aaron Malin asked for records related to St. Louis City's drug task force, an attorney responded and told him that the police department had no such task force. Believing this could not be true, Malin pressed further and the attorney told him that he couldn't produce records of an entity that doesn't exist. Months later Malin received documents from the Missouri Department of Public Safety confirming not only that the St. Louis City task force existed, but that the attorney who had denied its existence had for years been its Authorized Official responsible for submitting grant requests and signing contracts on behalf of the task force. We sued on Malin's behalf to establish, first, that the task forces are subject to the Sunshine Law, and second, that the task force in question violated the law by refusing to respond properly to Malin's records requests. Outcome - Case went to trial in May 2018. We are still awaiting the judge's ruling. Malin v. St. Louis County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force - Are multi-jurisdictional drug task forces subject to Missouri's Sunshine Law? Facts - When Aaron Malin asked the St. Louis County drug task force for copies of its executive board's meeting minutes (which the Sunshine Law requires the board to keep), the task force provided an electronic document claiming to be minutes of a meeting held several months before, but the metadata showed that the document had been created the day after Malin submitted its request. We sued on his behalf to establish, first, that the task forces are subject to the Sunshine Law, and second, that the task force in question violated the law by failing to keep minutes of its board meetings and by trying to cover up that failure by fabricating a document after Malin submitted his request. Outcome - Case scheduled for trial in September 2018. | $0 | $16,657 |
| Audrain County Sheriff's Office v. Winnie - (1) May a law enforcement agency withhold records related to an investigation on the basis that the investigation is "active," when that same agency admits it has not pursued the case at all for at least eight years? (2) When a government entity sues a citizen who has filed a public records request, asserting that the government entity should not be forced to produce the requested documents, must the government pay the citizen's attorney fees? Facts - Joanna Winnie is the mother of a former member of the East Central Missouri Drug Task Force who died by a gunshot wound to the head some time after she had complained about her treatment by other members of the task force. Although her death was deemed a suicide, the polygraph test of a fellow law enforcement officer indicated deception when she denied killing Melissa Winnie. Joanna spent years trying to find out if her daughter had been murdered, but the Audrain Co. Sheriff's Office refused to produce the records related to Melissa's death on the grounds that the investigation was still "active," even though they also acknowledged that it had not made any effort to investigate the case for eight years. When Aaron Malin began helping Joanna by pressuring the Sheriff's Office to produce the records, the Sheriff's Office sued both Winnie and Malin, seeking an order that the records were "closed" under the Sunshine Law. We partnered with the ACLU of Missouri to represent Winnie and Malin. Although the Sunshine Law specifies that in a government-initiated lawsuit such as this one the government must pay the defendants' attorney fees, the Sheriff's Office argued that it should not have to do so. Outcome - VICTORY. Trial court ruled that the records Winnie and Malin were seeking were open public records and ordered the Sheriff's Office to pay attorney fees in the amount of $3,325.95; Sheriff's Office did not appeal. Missouri Board of Cosmetology v. Fall - Can the government prohibit African-style hair braiders from getting paid for work they could lawfully provide for free? Facts - Maty Fall learned how to braid hair as a young girl in her native country of Ghana. Although she had earned a degree and worked as an accountant in her homeland, she found that her degree and experience were not much use when she came to the United States, so she started earning a living by braiding hair. But someone turned her in to the Board of Cosmetology, and-although it is perfectly lawful to braid hair for free-the Board filed suit against her to prohibit her from earning money by braiding. We defended Fall to establish that the Missouri Constitution protects citizens' rights to earn a living in a harmless, otherwise lawful profession. Outcome - VICTORY. After two years of litigation, the government dropped the case against Ms. Fall and in Spring 2018 the Missouri General Assembly passed the Hair Braiding Freedom Act, which exempted hair braiders from cosmetology licensing requirements. Calzone v. Hawley - Does the Fourth Amendment permit a law enforcement officer to stop and inspect vehicles even if the officer has no reason to believe that either the vehicle or driver are in violation of any law? Facts - Ron Calzone and his wife own a horse and cattle ranch in rural Missouri, and they occasionally use a dump truck to transport materials in support of their ranch. One day as Calzone was taking the truck to pick up gravel for his daughter's chicken coop, a highway patrol officer pulled him over. The officer frankly acknowledged that he had not seen Calzone violate any law - he just didn't recognize the markings on the truck and wanted to inspect it. Calzone responded that the Fourth Amendment does not permit suspicionless searches of citizens' private property, and the officer responded that a Missouri statute specifically authorizes highway patrol officers to stop and inspect vehicles "with or without probable cause" to believe that there is a violation. We sued to establish the proposition that the Fourth Amendment does not permit roving, suspicionless searches of vehicles. Outcome - Initial loss in federal district court, but Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded to the trial court. On remand, federal district court again ruled against Calzone; case is once again pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. | $0 | $16,657 |
Compensation and Service Providers
Employees
| Name | Title | Full / Part Time | Base | Other | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Roland | Director Of Litigation | FT | $41,333 | - | $41,333 |
| Jenifer Zeigler Roland | Executive Director | PT | $0 | - | - |
| Jessica Bowman | Development Assistant | PT | $0 | - | - |
| Brent Haden | Chairman | - | $0 | - | - |
| Beverlee Roper | Director | - | $0 | - | - |
| Justin Gelfand | Director | - | $0 | - | - |
| Rachel Ferguson | Director | - | $0 | - | - |
| Randy England | Director | - | $0 | - | - |
Filing and Contact Details
Filer
- Filer Name
- Freedom Center of Missouri
- EIN
- 27-4062521
- Phone
- 5735670307
- Address
- PO Box 693, Mexico, MO 65265
Signing Officer
- Name
- Jenifer Roland
- Title
- Executive Director
- Phone
- 3146046611
- Signed
- 2018-07-01
Supplemental Narrative
Additional Explanations
Form 990-EZ, Part I, Line 16
“Other Expenses includes program expenses for litigation (court filing fees, court reporters, transcripts, legal research subscriptions, process serving, etc.) This line item also includes travel to meet with clients, attend court, speak at and host educational events.”
Raw XML Appendix213 raw XML fields
This appendix keeps the raw XML leaves available for debugging and edge-case review. The human report above is the primary experience.
| Path | # | Value |
|---|---|---|
| IRS990EZ/ActivitiesNotPreviouslyRptInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/BenefitsPaidToOrForMembersAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/BooksInCareOfDetail/PersonNm | 0 | Jenifer Roland |
| IRS990EZ/BooksInCareOfDetail/PhoneNum | 0 | 5735670307 |
| IRS990EZ/BooksInCareOfDetail/USAddress/AddressLine1Txt | 0 | PO Box 693 |
| IRS990EZ/BooksInCareOfDetail/USAddress/CityNm | 0 | Mexico |
| IRS990EZ/BooksInCareOfDetail/USAddress/StateAbbreviationCd | 0 | MO |
| IRS990EZ/BooksInCareOfDetail/USAddress/ZIPCd | 0 | 65265 |
| IRS990EZ/CashSavingsAndInvestmentsGrp/BOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/CashSavingsAndInvestmentsGrp/EOYAmt | 0 | 9698 |
| IRS990EZ/ChgMadeToOrgnzngDocNotRptInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/ContributionsGiftsGrantsEtcAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990EZ/CostOfGoodsSoldAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/CostOrOtherBasisExpenseSaleAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/DirectIndirectPltclExpendAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/DonorAdvisedFndsInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/EngagedInExcessBenefitTransInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/ExcessOrDeficitForYearAmt | 0 | 9698 |
| IRS990EZ/FeesAndOtherPymtToIndCntrctAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/FiledScheduleAInd | 0 | 1 |
| IRS990EZ/ForeignFinancialAccountInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/ForeignOfficeInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/Form1120PolFiledInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/Form990TotalAssetsGrp/BOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/Form990TotalAssetsGrp/EOYAmt | 0 | 9698 |
| IRS990EZ/FundraisingGrossIncomeAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/GainOrLossFromSaleOfAssetsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/GamingGrossIncomeAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/GrantsAndSimilarAmountsPaidAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/GrossProfitLossSlsOfInvntryAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/GrossReceiptsAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990EZ/GrossSalesOfInventoryAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/InfoInScheduleOPartIInd | 0 | X |
| IRS990EZ/InvestmentIncomeAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/LandAndBuildingsGrp/BOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/LandAndBuildingsGrp/EOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/LobbyingActivitiesInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/MadeLoansToFromOfficersInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/MembershipDuesAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/MethodOfAccountingCashInd | 0 | X |
| IRS990EZ/NetAssetsOrFundBalancesBOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/NetAssetsOrFundBalancesEOYAmt | 0 | 9698 |
| IRS990EZ/NetAssetsOrFundBalancesGrp/BOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/NetAssetsOrFundBalancesGrp/EOYAmt | 0 | 9698 |
| IRS990EZ/OccupancyRentUtltsAndMaintAmt | 0 | 191 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/AverageHrsPerWkDevotedToPosRt | 0 | 50 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/AverageHrsPerWkDevotedToPosRt | 1 | 20 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/AverageHrsPerWkDevotedToPosRt | 2 | 15 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/AverageHrsPerWkDevotedToPosRt | 3 | 3 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/AverageHrsPerWkDevotedToPosRt | 4 | 2 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/AverageHrsPerWkDevotedToPosRt | 5 | 2 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/AverageHrsPerWkDevotedToPosRt | 6 | 2 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/AverageHrsPerWkDevotedToPosRt | 7 | 2 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/CompensationAmt | 0 | 41333 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/CompensationAmt | 1 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/CompensationAmt | 2 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/CompensationAmt | 3 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/CompensationAmt | 4 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/CompensationAmt | 5 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/CompensationAmt | 6 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/CompensationAmt | 7 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/EmployeeBenefitProgramAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/EmployeeBenefitProgramAmt | 1 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/EmployeeBenefitProgramAmt | 2 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/EmployeeBenefitProgramAmt | 3 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/EmployeeBenefitProgramAmt | 4 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/EmployeeBenefitProgramAmt | 5 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/EmployeeBenefitProgramAmt | 6 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/EmployeeBenefitProgramAmt | 7 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/ExpenseAccountOtherAllwncAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/ExpenseAccountOtherAllwncAmt | 1 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/ExpenseAccountOtherAllwncAmt | 2 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/ExpenseAccountOtherAllwncAmt | 3 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/ExpenseAccountOtherAllwncAmt | 4 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/ExpenseAccountOtherAllwncAmt | 5 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/ExpenseAccountOtherAllwncAmt | 6 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/ExpenseAccountOtherAllwncAmt | 7 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/PersonNm | 0 | David Roland |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/PersonNm | 1 | Jenifer Zeigler Roland |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/PersonNm | 2 | Jessica Bowman |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/PersonNm | 3 | Brent Haden |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/PersonNm | 4 | Beverlee Roper |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/PersonNm | 5 | Justin Gelfand |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/PersonNm | 6 | Rachel Ferguson |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/PersonNm | 7 | Randy England |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/TitleTxt | 0 | Director of Litigation |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/TitleTxt | 1 | Executive Director |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/TitleTxt | 2 | Development Assistant |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/TitleTxt | 3 | Chairman |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/TitleTxt | 4 | Director |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/TitleTxt | 5 | Director |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/TitleTxt | 6 | Director |
| IRS990EZ/OfficerDirectorTrusteeEmplGrp/TitleTxt | 7 | Director |
| IRS990EZ/OperateHospitalInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/Organization501c3Ind | 0 | X |
| IRS990EZ/OrganizationDissolvedEtcInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OrganizationHadUBIInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OtherAssetsTotalDetail/BOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OtherAssetsTotalDetail/EOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OtherChangesInNetAssetsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/OtherExpensesTotalAmt | 0 | 8258 |
| IRS990EZ/OtherRevenueTotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/PartVIHghstPdCntrctProfSrvcTxt | 0 | NONE |
| IRS990EZ/PartVIOfCompOfHghstPdEmplTxt | 0 | NONE |
| IRS990EZ/PoliticalCampaignActyInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/PrimaryExemptPurposeTxt | 0 | The Freedom Center of Missouri provides pro bono legal representation to individuals whose constitutional liberties have been violated while using those cases and supporting research to help educate other citizens about state and federal constitutional principles. The Freedom Center fights for civil liberties for all citizens, not just our clients. The organization does not request fees from any of its clients or consider the likelihood of a court's awarding of attorney's fees when it is deciding whether to take on a given case. |
| IRS990EZ/PrintingPublicationsPostageAmt | 0 | 1383 |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramServiceRevenueAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/DescriptionProgramSrvcAccomTxt | 0 | Calzone v. Hagan - Does the First Amendment allow a state to punish unpaid citizen activists who decline to register and report their conversations with legislators as if the activists were professional lobbyists? Facts - Ron Calzone is a passionate activist who, on his own time and his own dime, frequently travels to the state capitol to promote the ideals of free markets and individual liberty. His unusually effective rhetoric has succeeded in halting many anti-liberty bills... and has made him some powerful enemies. Three powerful (Republican) legislators asked the Society of Government Consultants (the Lobbyist Guild) to file a complaint against Calzone with the Missouri Ethics Commission. The SGC complied with the request and the MEC attempted to fine Calzone $1000 and to prohibit him from speaking to legislators unless and until he registered as a lobbyist. We partnered with the Center for Competitive Politics (now the Institute for Free Speech) to challenge the constitutionality of the MEC's action. Outcome - Loss in federal district court; appeal argued on April 10, 2018, before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Duffner v. City of St. Peters - Can a city impose exorbitant fines on property owners for growing harmless, perfectly lawful flowers instead of the government-mandated turf grass? Facts - Carl and Janice Duffner are elderly homeowners in ill-health who are allergic to grass. Years ago they removed all grass from their yard and replaced it with what the city concedes is a beautiful, well-maintained flower garden. But one neighbor complained that the Duffners were not in compliance with a city ordinance mandating that at least half of the yard space in all residential properties must be covered in turf grass. The penalty for the first offense of non-compliance is a maximum of $250 fine and ten days imprisonment... per day of noncompliance. We filed suit on the Duffners' behalf to establish that the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions protect citizens' rights to use private property in lawful, harmless ways of their own choosing, and also that the Eighth Amendment protects citizens against fines dramatically disproportionate to the alleged "offense." Outcome - Loss in federal district court; this case is currently pending in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Malin v. MUSTANG Drug Task - Are multi-jurisdictional drug task forces subject to Missouri's Sunshine Law? Facts - When Aaron Malin set out to learn about how Missouri's multi-jurisdictional task forces were using the extraordinary power and taxpayer resources the state has given them, he found that roughly half-including MUSTANG-refused to comply with his records requests. We sued on his behalf to establish, first, that the task forces are subject to the Sunshine Law, and second, that the task force in question violated the law by refusing to respond properly to Malin's records requests. Outcome - Victory in trial court; this case is pending before the Court of Appeals. |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/DescriptionProgramSrvcAccomTxt | 1 | Malin v. Cole County Prosecuting Attorney - Are county prosecuting attorney offices subject to Missouri's Sunshine Law? Facts - Aaron Malin asked the Cole County Prosecuting Attorney for certain financial records, copies of indictments, and copies of other public records requests submitted to that office. In response to each of these requests the Prosecuting Attorney claimed that every document in his office was exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law; he made no effort at all to locate records responsive to Malin's requests. Outcome - Victory in trial court, with the judge ordering the Prosecuting Attorney to pay the largest transparency-related civil penalty in state history as well as the plaintiff's attorney fees; the Prosecuting Attorney has appealed this case to the Missouri Court of Appeals. Malin v. Metro Multi-Jurisdictional Undercover Drug Program - Are multi-jurisdictional drug task forces subject to Missouri's Sunshine Law? Facts - When Aaron Malin asked for records related to St. Louis City's drug task force, an attorney responded and told him that the police department had no such task force. Believing this could not be true, Malin pressed further and the attorney told him that he couldn't produce records of an entity that doesn't exist. Months later Malin received documents from the Missouri Department of Public Safety confirming not only that the St. Louis City task force existed, but that the attorney who had denied its existence had for years been its Authorized Official responsible for submitting grant requests and signing contracts on behalf of the task force. We sued on Malin's behalf to establish, first, that the task forces are subject to the Sunshine Law, and second, that the task force in question violated the law by refusing to respond properly to Malin's records requests. Outcome - Case went to trial in May 2018. We are still awaiting the judge's ruling. Malin v. St. Louis County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force - Are multi-jurisdictional drug task forces subject to Missouri's Sunshine Law? Facts - When Aaron Malin asked the St. Louis County drug task force for copies of its executive board's meeting minutes (which the Sunshine Law requires the board to keep), the task force provided an electronic document claiming to be minutes of a meeting held several months before, but the metadata showed that the document had been created the day after Malin submitted its request. We sued on his behalf to establish, first, that the task forces are subject to the Sunshine Law, and second, that the task force in question violated the law by failing to keep minutes of its board meetings and by trying to cover up that failure by fabricating a document after Malin submitted his request. Outcome - Case scheduled for trial in September 2018. |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/DescriptionProgramSrvcAccomTxt | 2 | Audrain County Sheriff's Office v. Winnie - (1) May a law enforcement agency withhold records related to an investigation on the basis that the investigation is "active," when that same agency admits it has not pursued the case at all for at least eight years? (2) When a government entity sues a citizen who has filed a public records request, asserting that the government entity should not be forced to produce the requested documents, must the government pay the citizen's attorney fees? Facts - Joanna Winnie is the mother of a former member of the East Central Missouri Drug Task Force who died by a gunshot wound to the head some time after she had complained about her treatment by other members of the task force. Although her death was deemed a suicide, the polygraph test of a fellow law enforcement officer indicated deception when she denied killing Melissa Winnie. Joanna spent years trying to find out if her daughter had been murdered, but the Audrain Co. Sheriff's Office refused to produce the records related to Melissa's death on the grounds that the investigation was still "active," even though they also acknowledged that it had not made any effort to investigate the case for eight years. When Aaron Malin began helping Joanna by pressuring the Sheriff's Office to produce the records, the Sheriff's Office sued both Winnie and Malin, seeking an order that the records were "closed" under the Sunshine Law. We partnered with the ACLU of Missouri to represent Winnie and Malin. Although the Sunshine Law specifies that in a government-initiated lawsuit such as this one the government must pay the defendants' attorney fees, the Sheriff's Office argued that it should not have to do so. Outcome - VICTORY. Trial court ruled that the records Winnie and Malin were seeking were open public records and ordered the Sheriff's Office to pay attorney fees in the amount of $3,325.95; Sheriff's Office did not appeal. Missouri Board of Cosmetology v. Fall - Can the government prohibit African-style hair braiders from getting paid for work they could lawfully provide for free? Facts - Maty Fall learned how to braid hair as a young girl in her native country of Ghana. Although she had earned a degree and worked as an accountant in her homeland, she found that her degree and experience were not much use when she came to the United States, so she started earning a living by braiding hair. But someone turned her in to the Board of Cosmetology, and-although it is perfectly lawful to braid hair for free-the Board filed suit against her to prohibit her from earning money by braiding. We defended Fall to establish that the Missouri Constitution protects citizens' rights to earn a living in a harmless, otherwise lawful profession. Outcome - VICTORY. After two years of litigation, the government dropped the case against Ms. Fall and in Spring 2018 the Missouri General Assembly passed the Hair Braiding Freedom Act, which exempted hair braiders from cosmetology licensing requirements. Calzone v. Hawley - Does the Fourth Amendment permit a law enforcement officer to stop and inspect vehicles even if the officer has no reason to believe that either the vehicle or driver are in violation of any law? Facts - Ron Calzone and his wife own a horse and cattle ranch in rural Missouri, and they occasionally use a dump truck to transport materials in support of their ranch. One day as Calzone was taking the truck to pick up gravel for his daughter's chicken coop, a highway patrol officer pulled him over. The officer frankly acknowledged that he had not seen Calzone violate any law - he just didn't recognize the markings on the truck and wanted to inspect it. Calzone responded that the Fourth Amendment does not permit suspicionless searches of citizens' private property, and the officer responded that a Missouri statute specifically authorizes highway patrol officers to stop and inspect vehicles "with or without probable cause" to believe that there is a violation. We |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/GrantsAndAllocationsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/GrantsAndAllocationsAmt | 1 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/GrantsAndAllocationsAmt | 2 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/ProgramServiceExpensesAmt | 0 | 16657 |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/ProgramServiceExpensesAmt | 1 | 16657 |
| IRS990EZ/ProgramSrvcAccomplishmentGrp/ProgramServiceExpensesAmt | 2 | 16657 |
| IRS990EZ/ProhibitedTaxShelterTransInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/RelatedOrganizationCtrlEntInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/SalariesOtherCompEmplBnftAmt | 0 | 41330 |
| IRS990EZ/SaleOfAssetsGrossAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/ScheduleBNotRequiredInd | 0 | X |
| IRS990EZ/SchoolOperatingInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/SpecialEventsDirectExpensesAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/SpecialEventsNetIncomeLossAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd | 0 | MO |
| IRS990EZ/SubjectToProxyTaxInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/SumOfTotalLiabilitiesGrp/BOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/SumOfTotalLiabilitiesGrp/EOYAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TanningServicesProvidedInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TaxImposedOnOrganizationMgrAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TaxImposedUnderIRC4911Amt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TaxImposedUnderIRC4912Amt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TaxImposedUnderIRC4955Amt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TaxReimbursedByOrganizationAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TotalExpensesAmt | 0 | 51162 |
| IRS990EZ/TotalProgramServiceExpensesAmt | 0 | 49971 |
| IRS990EZ/TotalRevenueAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990EZ/TransactionWithControlEntInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TrnsfrExmptNonChrtblRltdOrgInd | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990EZ/TypeOfOrganizationCorpInd | 0 | X |
| IRS990EZ/WebsiteAddressTxt | 0 | www.mofreedom.org |
| IRS990ScheduleA/AmountsRcvdDsqlfyPersonGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/AmountsRcvdDsqlfyPersonGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/First5Years509Ind | 0 | X |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GiftsGrantsContrisRcvd509Grp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GiftsGrantsContrisRcvd509Grp/TotalAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GovtFurnSrvcFcltsVl509Grp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GovtFurnSrvcFcltsVl509Grp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GrossInvestmentIncome509Grp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GrossInvestmentIncome509Grp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GrossReceiptsAdmissionsGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GrossReceiptsAdmissionsGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GrossReceiptsNonUnrltBusGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/GrossReceiptsNonUnrltBusGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/InvestmentIncomeAndUBTIGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/InvestmentIncomeAndUBTIGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/InvestmentIncomeAndUBTIGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/InvestmentIncomeAndUBTIGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/InvestmentIncomeAndUBTIGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/InvestmentIncomeAndUBTIGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/NetIncomeFromOtherUBIGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/NetIncomeFromOtherUBIGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/OtherIncome509Grp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/OtherIncome509Grp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/Post1975UBTIGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/Post1975UBTIGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/PubliclySupportedOrg509a2Ind | 0 | X |
| IRS990ScheduleA/PublicSupportTotal509Amt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/SubstAndDsqlfyPrsnsTotGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/SubstAndDsqlfyPrsnsTotGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/SubstAndDsqlfyPrsnsTotGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/SubstAndDsqlfyPrsnsTotGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/SubstAndDsqlfyPrsnsTotGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/SubstAndDsqlfyPrsnsTotGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/SubstantialContributorsAmtGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/SubstantialContributorsAmtGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/TaxRevLeviedOrgnztnlBnft509Grp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/TaxRevLeviedOrgnztnlBnft509Grp/TotalAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/Total509Grp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/Total509Grp/CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/Total509Grp/CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/Total509Grp/CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/Total509Grp/CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/Total509Grp/TotalAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/TotalSupportCalendarYearGrp/CurrentTaxYearAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/TotalSupportCalendarYearGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/TotalSupportCalendarYearGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/TotalSupportCalendarYearGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/TotalSupportCalendarYearGrp/CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt | 0 | 0 |
| IRS990ScheduleA/TotalSupportCalendarYearGrp/TotalAmt | 0 | 60860 |
| IRS990ScheduleO/SupplementalInformationDetail/ExplanationTxt | 0 | Other Expenses includes program expenses for litigation (court filing fees, court reporters, transcripts, legal research subscriptions, process serving, etc.) This line item also includes travel to meet with clients, attend court, speak at and host educational events. |
| IRS990ScheduleO/SupplementalInformationDetail/FormAndLineReferenceDesc | 0 | Form 990-EZ, Part I, Line 16 |
| ReasonableCauseExplanation/ExplanationTxt | 0 | Timely submitted an approved Form 8868. |
| ReturnHeader/BuildTS | 0 | 2019-02-21 02:37:17Z |
| ReturnHeader/BusinessOfficerGrp/PersonNm | 0 | Jenifer Roland |
| ReturnHeader/BusinessOfficerGrp/PersonTitleTxt | 0 | Executive Director |
| ReturnHeader/BusinessOfficerGrp/PhoneNum | 0 | 3146046611 |
| ReturnHeader/BusinessOfficerGrp/SignatureDt | 0 | 2018-07-01 |
| ReturnHeader/Filer/BusinessName/BusinessNameLine1Txt | 0 | FREEDOM CENTER OF MISSOURI |
| ReturnHeader/Filer/BusinessNameControlTxt | 0 | FREE |
| ReturnHeader/Filer/EIN | 0 | 274062521 |
| ReturnHeader/Filer/PhoneNum | 0 | 5735670307 |
| ReturnHeader/Filer/USAddress/AddressLine1Txt | 0 | PO Box 693 |
| ReturnHeader/Filer/USAddress/CityNm | 0 | Mexico |
| ReturnHeader/Filer/USAddress/StateAbbreviationCd | 0 | MO |
| ReturnHeader/Filer/USAddress/ZIPCd | 0 | 65265 |
| ReturnHeader/FilingSecurityInformation/IPAddress/IPv4AddressTxt | 0 | 198.153.93.138 |
| ReturnHeader/ReturnTs | 0 | 2018-11-15T15:07:07-07:00 |
| ReturnHeader/ReturnTypeCd | 0 | 990EZ |
| ReturnHeader/TaxPeriodBeginDt | 0 | 2017-01-01 |
| ReturnHeader/TaxPeriodEndDt | 0 | 2017-12-31 |
| ReturnHeader/TaxYr | 0 | 2017 |
Document Assets
No mirrored PDF or thumbnail assets are attached yet.