The husband of Nekima Levy Armstrong, a woman identified by a prominent official as central to a recent protest, has vehemently criticized the legal proceedings against her, dismissing the prosecution as akin to a cartoonish spectacle.
Marques Armstrong spoke publicly following his wife’s arrest, alongside Chauntyll Louisa Allen and William Kelly, asserting that the charges are unfounded and part of a larger pattern of intimidation. He revealed the family has received threats for their activism, framing their work as a necessary stand against injustice.
Armstrong directly challenged the narrative being presented, referencing the animated series “Beavis and Butt-Head” to express his disbelief in the seriousness of the accusations. He emphasized the importance of peaceful protest and warned against any actions that could be used to justify further repression.
Federal authorities allege the arrests stem from a violation of the FACE Act, a law prohibiting interference with religious exercise. Video footage circulating online reportedly shows Kelly disrupting a church service in St. Paul, while Allen, a school board member, is accused of helping to organize the demonstration.
A statement released by a high-ranking official declared zero tolerance for attacks on places of worship, framing the arrests as a decisive response to unlawful activity. The official’s message was direct and uncompromising.
However, Armstrong countered this portrayal, stating his wife willingly surrendered to authorities and maintains her innocence. He described her as a powerful and unwavering figure, confident that video evidence will exonerate her and expose what he believes is a deliberate distortion of the truth.
He insisted the actions of his wife and fellow protesters were not criminal, violent, or destructive, emphasizing their conduct remained nonviolent and focused on raising awareness. Armstrong characterized their motivation as stemming from a deep sense of moral responsibility, not lawlessness.
Armstrong passionately defended the protesters’ actions, asserting they caused no harm to individuals or property and did not incite chaos. He believes their actions were driven by conscience and a commitment to justice, rather than any intent to break the law.
