HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-Public Comments Handout #1
'~,.
.
.~~~
m~~fmf~~
o 0
Bh~ .~ il
. 'l t. e LOrrlIII0n L.-..~tL.1")C
of the City of &hI. E.ema.l:ii.no
At its meeting of February 6,199)
(I) RightAot to have Bills of Al,f..iI;lIderpassed
agaillSt II.Il iAdividul, Artiele I, SectiOll. 10,
Clause I of United Stal.es CoJlStitutiOA..
COllfisceter!ll~81.tiOIL E..'ctreme instances of laws
lacy;i ng in generality are la'tlS ....hich forfeit or confiscate
the life., liberty,. or property of private citizens.. by the
mere edict oflegislation. "j n ttJeSe cases: said the United
States Supreme Court.. "the legislative body, in addition to
its legitimate functions, exercises the po....ers and offices
of iudQe' it assumes. in the language of the text-books,
. .} .
i udicial n~Qistracu; it pronounces upon the Qui)t of the .
party, without any of the forme or safeguards 01 a tnal; It
determines the sufficiency oftlle proofs produced,
'.;h~ther conformable to the rules of evidence or
othervise' and it fixes the deg~.e of punishment in
eceordene; vith jts wn Mtions of the enormity of the
offense." Cummingsv. ~'lissour1.
- "Due Process of La.. under the Federal Constitution. ,
Lucius Polk l+vCot.",,; Bothman and C.Q. 1980.
A bill of amunder is a determillillion of guilt and the
imnosition of nunishmenr bv 1ec'iidative aa irtru,ad of due
pr~cess of la~. CorJi5C;ror! legislarion. if you wil!.
Particularly suspect as bills 01 liI1ll1n.der are laws aulled at
voiding previously-enjoyed p<.'fSOnal fK'?perrfnghts of one or
a select few individuals as future pUll1shmenr for Well' 1"'1!ll:
presumedunla;;lful activity.
If we council belie\'e5 11.11' W rigr.r is unlawfully disturbing
a public meeting, their due process recourse is to see their
char~e presented to a COUrt of law for der.ermUlaIlOn and
punishment. This the c.ouncil co:.sistently declines to do.
And instead presenrs us bill of amunder, fOllllaUy known as
the February 6. 1995 amendmefu'S to Resourion 94-46 of the
commoncouncil.
First, the council presumes Jl.fr Wright is somehow
behaving unlawfully. Second. as punishment for such
presumed lawlessness. and. to prevent luture presumed
unlawful behavior, the counol !lelzes preVIOusly recogll1zed
.
personal property of the rostrum enjoying fullest due process
protection of we Flfw and Fourteenth Amendment agalllSt
such seizure_
n 'RaIChering' down the public speaking time is aimed at
stopping disruptions by Jeff Wright and similar critics,'
[Councilman Ralph] Hernandez said." From we Sun
newspaper srory of the February 6th meeting.
And plainly, as counrless additional remarks by council
membm and the mayor at council meetings attest, the one
critic they object to is Mr Jeffrey Thomas Wright. There are
no similar critics.
(2) ProtectiOll of free speech, First AmendmcnL
Of c.ourse the Qovernment mau not make meeti nQ rules
incontlict 'With First Amendmeni, nor can Section 403 be
ured to enforce such rules ... the Court has reasoned that
our LeQislature did not i ntand that section 403 be used to
re.soh"e dispute.s about meeting or organizational rules or
the authority of the chai r.
-California Suprem~ Court,
In r. Kay, 1 Ca1.3d 930.
No place in our daily lives is our right to free speech more
itttpOl"tc1tU thdtl 'W:bet1 !!outtdiftg m t\ OOMmUmtr meeting
resolving community issues, Speech at a public meeting
enjn)"! fullm protection that Fint Amendment Cll!! nf~ord
spee<:h. forthe community meeting was the birthplace of lree
speech, and stMds to this day as its nursery.." ,
The elected em' attorney for the c;ity 01 San tlernardtno.
J:1m~s P~nman, Said of the council's three minute rule
imposed by the council with the adoption of Resolution 94-46
hisrspring that "it may beillegat. " . .
While the Ralph M. Brown Act does assert that legislatIve
bodies of 10::<11 gov=:nent agencies may enact "reasonable" .
ruleslimitinl;rhe tOlal time a person may speak to an agene,,;
itern Culaornia lutomev General. Daniel LU1'"&ren, Ci.."1 \
. ' i. ---=' \
Arrorney General Opinion 92-211. qualifes rhe word ....
"=nable" as including such factors as the number of
people wishing to be heard, ~e complexity of rhe issu~ being
di!cu:!!ed, alld the length of tune set IISlde for the mt;-etL~.
Whar is a re.1SOna.ble time limit for each of ren sneakers to
a simple inue when the hour is late, is not a reasonable time
limit when there is only one speaker. the Issue IS complex.
nnd it is the lasr agenda item lUtd the hour is yet early. So
saiththesmte auorneygeneral. opinion 92-212.
Moreever, abundanr case law makes it plain that what the
l!;overnmenr considers rensona.ble justification for passing
Ordiro.a:y la.....s will not ,.suffice to justify abridgc:,nc_nt of
soee<:h. Words like urgent" and "compe1hng !lgure
prominentlyillthese caseprecedenrs.
~/2.0/q5
t=P"/
Bob Nelson, SR11 Ru@ Ranch, Summit CA 92345
. . .
.
When criminalizing speech. sa}'s the COUrt again and
again. care must be taken to eliminate only the unlawful
speech. without endangering protected speech. The delicate
scalpel required must be forged from the precisecircumstance
of the moment. It is farto delicate a tas!; to be accomplished
bv a broad axe... bv some overly broad rule which may
abridge protected as well as unprmeered speech. .
When f1rst Amendment interests are at state, the
Go'..ermnent mljst IJSe a scal pel, oot an ax.
-Burs.'J ". IJnitod Statos. 1972 466 F.2d 1 059;
(3) Protection of a free press, First Amendment
Principle offreedom orthe press rr131J be invoked blJ
anyone in the country; it is not necessapJ thet such person
be actual ne'."Ispaper reporter.
-N.\'ens v. Cit~ of Chino (1%5) 44 CalRprt. 50..
KCSB-TV recognizes /l.1r Jeff Wright as a qualified Public
.-'I.ccess television proaucer. AS SUCli lie is enrirlea !O ClieeK
Ollt their Public Access video equipment wch as he was using
;\t the February 6th meeting to record activi!)' at the rostrum.
While Chanmil 3 does broadcast these meetings. by order of
the city councii they do not cover the rostrum when iaw
.:ortf.~.,.m.w.rn uffi~Jif'W ~ W"r'IAZ[i~ dsv .:.~. It W~Q thL~
Significant gap in the pUblic's new of these meetings which
Mr Wri!'ht wa.s attempting tOC<XT'e'Clwith bis TV Cluner-oI, His
rntent was to show such censored portions of publicmettings
inafurureTV production.
Plaini, OUr cit) council would nO! have dared to seize a
video recordira.g made by a major television network. Ncl['
would they have dared to stize the film from a newspaper
photographers camera at d~iU: meeting. Nor n new~pilpe-r
repurter's noLi.:s. XoL without a COllrt Drder. And a good
cO\JrtbartlealmoS! cerl.ainly.
The city suggests they seized this vide<.} tape for evidence
ofcriminal'lcti\~ryontbepll!t of Mt Wright. Point One. the
city makes its own audio recording of these mettings and they
have three video camer-as active and recording at every
meeting. ?oilll Two; Allhough the tit y council has procured
the an'eS! of !--lr Wright at their m<:eti!t.gs pa-haps ,. dozen
limes in the past YCili', Ji() clllirlits have ever been filed by tbe
city. Moreover Mt Wrigbt h,lS been arrested at board t'f
supervisors meetings at least a dozen additionill tim,,; in the
,a.me time period without charges ever being filed.
Accordingiy it is unlil.cly intht e.urtIilethat the ciIy council is
~?-riously considerirtg filing ,:~hm-ges (\n ~tr Utright no m.au~
w Lu: eViutnct: apptili~ Or uOtS r.i!){ tipptill" on tht sl.:izeu video
.
'2
tape. Point Three,.. even if the tape clearly showed that 1I1r
Wright's actions unlawfully disturbed a public meeting. the
tape could not be likely be introduced as evidence since it was
seized unconstitutionally from a news reporter in the course
of his job.
(4) Protection of the right to freely assembly,
First Amendment_
If there were probable cause to believe 1I1r Wright actually
disrurbed a nublic meetinl! that dav. then of course the citv
council would have been justified in lUTesrtag and remo\~ng
himfroIlithe meetinl!. But when there have been no chW1!es
filed by the cit)' rote;. so Iliany a..-resrs. their claim to a good
faith belief he was violating the law is so weak as to be non-
ennen!. They were simply denying 1I1r Wrights
consri!utionallyguarnnreed right to freely assemble with the
municipal co=unit)' engaged in making communit}'
deci,-ions.
(S) Protection of private property agaillSl
unreasonable search IlJId seizure without a search
warnot, Fourth Amendment_
1>1r Wright. ....ith hb pc,.,,,,nnl fund., p"rch....cd the FUJI
Hl-QlALITY VHS \1deo lape s~zed without a search
wammt b)' the city police department under the direction of
the city council.
One block away was the county court house. The court
was in session. Mr Wright had been in the meeting all
morning" and was rili-no3't cer""..z.:tir likely to remttin until the
meeting was over. His mode of !l'tlllSportation was bicycie.
,"..nd since be bas been a..-rested and removed from public
meetings on at ieast two dozen occasions in the previous year
it wus not likely he had any concern for what mayor may not
have been on that tape. Particlarly since the meeting was
recorded by Cbannel 3 \~deo cameras and the cirv council
se.crerarvs'audiorecorder. '
."jJ of which is w say that had the ciry police department
chosen. there was ample time to obtain and serve a search
WUL"j"""d.t~.t upon. ~tr \Vright. Unless of course they had some
difficulty persuading a judge [0 sign a warranr authorizing
them to seize a \~deo rape from alive video camera belonging
to an individual protected by First Amendment freedom of the
nre~.
,
Bob r,elson, SRll Rue R~nch, Summit CA '12345
.
(6) Protection agllinst seizure of person~ property
rights without eIercise of due process, Ftfth and
l'ouneenthAmendment. .
It is no longer open to doubt that the 1i berty of '" speech is
"it hi n the li berty safeguarded by the dtie process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state actions.
-Ch~f .Justio~ Ch.r~s Evons H'-'9~"
N,Hr v. ~1inn~soto [1 9311
Due process of laW''' does not necessaril y mean tMt a
person is entitled to a trial in a court before he may be
oepriveU of .,.'hat malJ t.e equivalent to property rigtJts, but
does mean that an orderly proc,eedinq, adapted to the
nature of tM case, sliall be accordea to tile o\,lner of Hie
prc'pertl), in 'w'hich he mal) be heard, and 'w'here he filalJ
,jefenU, enforce, ana protect ,lis personal riglits.
-Gr~gory v. H~nk~ 238P. 787, 73 C.II. 268.
Prior to the public meeting of Februal)' 6th, 1994, the
public in attendance at meetings of the Common Council of
the Gtv of San Bernardino were able to exercize williou[
interference cmain propmy rights invohing their right to
speak at lliese meetings. The right to speak three minutes to
any agenda item... The right speak to any agenda item as
long as any ollier member of llie public... And the right to
right to speak to any item on the agenda.
These property rights were thus estllblished custom for
this weeting. And while this does not mean the city muncH
could not seize or abridge such rights, the due process clauses
of the Bill of Rights do require thar before such confiscation
of priVate property rights be made, that the city council is
required to allow the propert"j holders the right to defend and
nrotectllieirri~hts.
. This was not done. A limited forum of 180 seconds to
defend against three differenr ahridgments of their rights is
not c!oseroreasonablerime.
One minute La defend your established property right to
speak to any item on tbe council's consem calendar. One
minute La defend your property right to speak longer than a
toral of fifteen minutes during a given meeting... And one
minute to defend your right to speak La any agenda item for as
long as long as any other member of the public is allowed to
!<peak. An impossihle wJ.:: even on a level playing field.
And this was scarcely a level pla)ing field. It was tbe
Stllte judging its own power to overrule constitutional
restraints on its authority over speech. Morevoer, more thrill
one of the council members in times past has been openly
hostile rilld openly rude to the prime t.1rget of the three
amendments.
.
'3
(7) Protection against arbitrary aad capricious
enforcement of the law as violation of eaual
pt'otectionelause, fourteenth Amendment.
Due process oflw 'w'ithi n the meani ng of the [Fourteenth!
ilmendment i~ ~ec'Jred if the lo'w's operete on ell oli ke, ond
do not SUbject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of
the ptl'ilers of government.
Giozza v. Turnam, 143 U.S. 657,662.
The law must impartially impose its will upon society.
For example, millionllre or pauper, when it comes time to
\'oling on communitymatlel'S, one voice, one vote is the rule.
Banker on the hilltop for seven generations or new clerk in
the rooming house, when it comes to making community
decisinft..sar eleciontime, each gets but one-vote.
The focus of the Fmt Amendment is to provide such
communit)' meetings with a level playing field as a
marketplace for diversities of view. The city council.
however, would l:ive extra vores to the banker on the bill...
or the land developer proposing some new scheme, or
appealing priorrejection of an old scheme. Such parties to an
agenda item, says the city council, may speak without any
time limit. Wealrh, in speaking-to the city council. enjoys full
First Amendment rights... but the rest of us must settle for
free speech dust.
One Califomia Chi.l Code,
Two California Penal Codes,
and six Calfiomia Govemment Codes
violated by the San Bemardino
Common Council at their February 6,
1995 meetine-.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
U1I1'1Ih Civil Rights Act, Section 51, protects the
civil ri>lhts of everY citizen against abuse for any reason.
Case law applies the Unruh Chil Rights Act tl.~ preventing
discrimination not only against the traditional minorities, but
down to discrimination against minorities of one.
In Long v. Valentino, 216 CaJ.App.3d 187. for example.
Ms Valentino was ordered to pay a substanntial sum of money
to Mr Long for violating his ~5 I protected civil rigbts by
,tskir.."i him to leave till ACLU meeting being held in a public
facility because of who he worked for. lvIr Long was a
Bob Nelson, SRl1 Rue Ranch. Summit CII 92345
.
registeredattendeewearing a name tag clearly identifying his
employenuu as a law enforcement officer. But when was
recognized by Ms Valemino, who chaired the meeting
discussing how ACLU members ought to behave in civil
protest situations, he was asked to leave. even so. And she
paid half and the ACLU paid half of the $70,000 award for
-,iolating Mr Long's S51 protected civil rights.
Do not discriminate is the plain message of the Unruh
Civil Rights Act. ... plainly violated by the city council when
it procures the false arrest and removal of its critics as custom
because of their creed which holds Firn Amendmem dear.
whereas the council's creed holds the light of their own
spm'ks sufficiemilluminationto establish the needs and goals
of the comm unitv.
..
CAliFORNIA PENAL CODE
Section 403 makes it unlawful for anyone to unlawfully
distUrb a public meeting. Action by ltJ1}indirz'dulli which
works to substantively distUrb a public meeting and prevenr
its effective conrinuro:ion is amisdemeanorin the State of
California.
When the meeting chair falsely procures the arrest of a
speaker at the rostrUm. that act profoundly disturbs the
effective conduct of the rest of that meeting. The chilling of
free speech. as such misbehavior is called by the COUltS, is so
fundalnemally offensive to society thm there is a specific
public policy against such harm to free speech. Chilled
speech ca..-mot eff ectivelypll1'licipateinthe democraticprocess
essential to the effectiveness of a oublicmeeting.
A.-ld as the California SuPreme CoUrt" noted in its
watershed case on free speech. InreKay 1 Cal.3d 930. even
the flL=t of sanctions against speech is almost as effective in
chilling free speech as actual sanctions.
The established meeting cu~l.t)m hm be-en for iL1.Y
individual to have three minutes to speak to any agenda item.
ccn~ent C""ulendar or 3pcaking cnlendtti". Now the council
would violate this CUSIOm by maki.nl( first class and second
Class citizens. by rationing total spoiling time at allY given
meeting. and by refusing to allow the public to object to
agenda items being adopted without publicdiscussion.
By violating this firmly esrablis.lled meeting cusrom
without first exercizing due process, and by falsly procuring
the arrest of anorherwithour probable causero believe a crime
was committed alld thus creatinl; a chillillJl effect on free
- "
speech conrr--dryro public policy thus preveating the effective
continuation of the meetin~ I the mayor violtt~es nenal code
- , .
section 403.
Section 182 makes it unlawfulforrwo or more people to
conspire ro do eyil. .L\...mong the specific evils prohibited are
TT-nl
.
Lf
procurring the false arrest of another and preventing the due
administration of the law.
California Attorney General John Van de Kamp, in his
booklet on the Hrown Act. warned public officials that even
though a violation of the Brown Act was only a
misdemeanor. since almost any sucb \~olation would
necessarily involve at least two officials, the risk of their
violating PC 182 was very real. And a PC 182 v~olation can
get you up to ten years in state prison.
Moreover. foraconspiracycon\~etion, the state must only
prove that one person acted to do evil with the tacit approval
of ar least one more person. Remain silent on the dias as the
meeting chair falsely procures the arrest of a speaker at the
rostrum and you have given your tacit approval of that arrest
thereby exposing yourself to the charge of violating PC 182
as surely as the person who did the actual procuring.
A.notherwil;-roviolatcPenaJ Code Section 182 is for two
or more people to conspire to prevent the due administration
of the law... which would include conspir'.ng to prevem the
due administration of the Raloh M. BrownAct.
Be~ow are li:;red five differem provisions of the Brown
Act ~54953, ~54953.5, ~54954.3(a), ~54954.3(c) and
S5496l which this city council has effectively bypassed. In
each case, because two or more people are involved, and
because the effect is to thwart the due administration of the
HrownAct. Penal Code Section 182 is violated.
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
R:.I.ph M. Brown Act, Section 5<1953 guarantees
the right of the public to attend all public meetings of local
lee:islati\'ebodies.
" "The law which guarantees the Public's right to attend and
patticipare L"1 meetings of the loca11egislative bodies is the
Ralnh M. Brown Act." AI least that is the belief of California
AttOmey Genernl Da.'1ie1 E. Lungren as stated in his
inIroductory letter to his 1994 pamphlet "THE BROW]";
ACT, OpenMeetingsfor Local Legislative Bodies."
Plainly when the council. without legal cause. orders
police POWCl' to remove someone from the healing chambers
who wishes to remain. the meeting is no longer open to all
wishing to attend.
And while you might reasonably arg1le that if the person
has unlawfully disturbed the meeting that person has
relinquished these 954953 rights. that arguemem weakens
when no subsequerJ: chw."6ts are actually filed in a court of
law. It weakens even more when the legislative body has
developed the custom of invoking PC 403 sinlply IO remove
unwanted ,peakers. with no charges ever being filed. And
the n..-guemenr disappears alt.ogether when the person ~~
Bob N.]son.. SR 11 Rlre Ranch.. Summit C /; 92t.45
.
simply removed from the meeting by police power against
tbeirwishes. no citation. no chnrges.
The effee; of these sancrionsof speech without subsequent
coun hearings is clear violation of ~54953 in tbar tbe council
coundue;s meetings which are not open to all wishing to
arrend.
Section 54953.5 uuar'.lnr.ees tberiuht of tbepublic to
~ 0
record any public meeting nitll an audio onideo recording
device.
While Mr Wright's public access camcorder was recording
tbe afternoon session of tbe citv council sicring as tbe
, 0
Economic Developmer.t Agency, a San Bernardino Police
Delective directed a city employee to turn off Mr Wright's
"\ideo camera and remove [he tape which was rhen seized as
'evidence. '
Since the "evidence" relawd to fUl alledged urJavdul
dislurbance of tbe public meeting hours earlier, and since the
municiprJ court house was onlv one block away fu1.d was in
, .
session, tbere was abundant time for tbe police to secure a
search WarITuu autborizingrbeseizure- of that tape. \\'hm was
missing, likely, was a judge willing to autbori7.e tbe police
departmenrto seize a video tape from a media camera while it
was covering a public meeting for a subsequent television
report-because the tape was needed foralegedly required for
nrosecution of amisdemeanor crime.
.
:",1orcove.i, the ~l}~ at the- time of t.he seizure of l\1r
Wright's video rape ilready had in its possession an audio
recording oftlie meeting made by the council secret,uf, and
video recordings made by tbe cir-j's Channel 3 staff. And of
course there were perhaps fifty eye-witnesses to the meeting
eventsinc1udinu tbe entire council, Iiumerous staff members.
~ . ,
a.lld the public.
And tbose in conrrol may have had alternative motives.
Mr Wright's camera was set to cover the rostrum during tbe
meeting because the city's cameras consisrent1y declined to
broadcast police removal of speakers from this rostrum.
ln5lead relevision viewers were customarily shown the citY
C'.ouncil 's bored reaction IO police powerbeuig uSc.d [Q silence
speech at tbe upblic rostrum.
We may fairly suppose that the state Legislarure, in its
laresr revision of tbe Iirown Act, specified tbar video
r~cordings of public meetings were allowed because of
incidents in times past when such video recordings were
prohibited or interfered ;;ith. Our own San Bermrrdino
County Iioard of Supervisors, for example, has a patbetic
history going back at least two years of anempting to tbwart
,'ideo recordings of its meetings by tbe alternative media
n:presematives slich as l\'tr \Yrigbt.
Section 54954.3 (a) guarantees the publictherightto
speak to any item on a public meeting agenda before or during
liS consideralion by the presiding agency.
II III
.
5'
California Anomey General Daniel Lungren, in the lares!
arrorneygener-a1 bookletontbe Iirown Act released last year,
makes it clear in two different places that S54954.~,(a)
g'uarunrees the public tbe right to speak to any item on tbe
meeting agenda bdore or during its consideration by tbe
presiding local govenunentlegislativebody.
The council, by adoplion of amendmenr to Resolution 94-
46, would eliminate the public rigbt to speak to any item on
the cons;;nr calendar ponion of the meeting agenda if tbe
public pre\~ously hud an apponunity to speak to tbe item ar a
committemeeting.
As recenrly as tbe January 31, 1995 meeting of tbe San
Bernardino Counry Board of Super.isors, SupCf\isor
Iiarbar'.l Cram Riordan complained tbar the consenr calendar
mechanisim e.ffectiv~lyworke-d to pre.vent a supenisor from
voting against anindividualagendaireffi.
And plainly the function of public testimony at public
meeting-s is to influence the votes of tbe individual members
of the presiding local governmenr agency legislative body.
This amendmenr prevents tbis by effectively removing tbe
decision-mating process from the public meeting place to a
commicree meeting not televised, gener-ally unknown to tbe
public, and necessarily anended by less than a majority of tbe
council members. This amendment assures tbar tbe decision
of this less than a majority of tbe legislative body will be
rubber-Stamped bytbe council in full session. And tbus it no
only limitS public input into the decision making process, it
effectively limits full council membership input into tbe
decision-making process aswel1.
True, any mem.ber of tbe ful1 council ar a public meeting
may pull a cons~nt c.Jendar forward for public discussion.
bqually rrue, tbere would be a real and significantpolitical
price for such insistence on democratic process. The act
would open the matter to public comments as well as
comments from the dias. And the act would open the thirty-
day window to legal altackon any matterr-aised bytbe dillS or
tbe public. \Vhereas any mntt.\;i adopted on the cons~.nr
calendar is immediately immune to legal objection, absent
fraud.
.
Section 5~'154 _ 3 (c) g-uarantees tb~ right of the publicro
criticize tbepolicies, procedures, programs or services of an
agency orthe acts or ommissions of the legislarive body.
The case for tbe council's three amendments to tbeir
meeting rules working to siknce public criticism of their
policies, procedures. programs. set"\~ces and acts or
ommissions was signed, sealed, and delivered by the
comments of one council member in tbe Sun anicle. Not tbar
t.he same case cannot be made from the comments of orher
cuun<:il memb"""... the irUl>nt fif rhis ccuncil La silence
criticism is oYi?i\'Vbe1mingly made by t.heir comments in
session, in commiuee. and to the media.
S,lid the SilO, "Ratchetlug do\\'n the public sf'2aJcing time
is aimed ar SLopping dis1'l.lpl1ollS by Jeff W right and similar
Bob Nelson, 51<11 Rue Ranch, Summit CA 9234:)
,
. '
.
.
council "critics, [Councilman Ralph] Hernandez said.
KJ1EdJeEJns'do wn rhe public vaice is dJitJed;J[ stopping counCIl
'-7irles.
Section 54961 guaramees that all public meetings will be
held in a facility that does not discrimillate against the
admilliUlce of any person on the basis of, among other things,
creed.
Mr Wright has a creed the council abhors. He believes
'un",-on-.'In;. ""e .'~m'-" '.d ~o-" ., pu"I;. '-e- spo--IJ
1 IULUil,- li<ill)' .u.I. Ui Ul~ L) till n lUl U.i J U.I\..o.11 t.: \-L\..
in the deliber-ative process. The council apparently believes
.1.._ 1':_.... -~ .l-,-':_ -.."..- ~~-~.~ ~r~;Cl'ell-lli'''1lJJllIl' -t's.h nood-
I.!!(. .l..1O,.1.11. U..l. UH..ll V"il .)rLUZW ~w.u 1 . La",", w.J\o 1\...\"> ;)
and goals of the city community for their deliberative
process... mar Fh-st- .~'1iendment is an obsolete norion from
our ag,'llrian times of the late eighteenth century. with little
appli cali on to our near rwenry -iirst cenrury republi c.
Individuals who hold to a living First Amendment are
ofren removed from the public meeting place, sometimes not-
charged with any crime. The Brown Act demands a public
seering be open to all wishing to attend. But people who's
political creed embr-aces a live first Amendment llJ'e not
;"e'-o-e ~'" pL-e-- ~e~.;--~ "'rhF"\.- --- h~~-..j ""'~~-. ---
" .1.\.. l.1J i;U.. W.i .)t,; ll.I. \",u...1J.s", .1 -I 4it: UolILJo.:t\,;\.L lut. 1Ut.
belittled. And they are Clfte:n remove<lfrom the meeLing place
by pOll ce power against their 'Wis.'les" Sometimes they arc not
even cited. Never are criminal cbargesaauallyfiled"
Public Comments
~ ~ -;on, N\C:
L 81)l;n:ry ",lj, J.~~.,)
COMMUNITY NEIGHBORS. ..rVBERS OF THIS
COUNCIL. MR MA YOR_
John. Twyn, [tHO e1-:erdzi.ng free spee('!i in En.gh!.nd in
lG63,.. h~ard t-his $entenc~ frl)ttl. the court... '.Taut you
be. ha!'lg~1 by En.:- n~!'k~ l1~d being alive, shall b~
cut down... and yuur pri\'f-nlemn~rS shaH be Cu.[ orL
your entrails shall be [akefi fHJt f)f your bt)dy, ;l,nd you
living. the same to be burn! before )'our eyes... your
head to be ('u[ off, Yf}Ur b~)dy t~) be divided intu ft}ur
quarters and your heao and quarters to be disposed of
at the pleasure of the kin;s majesty."
Jl)hn T~;n. arid l!. ht)SE f)f ~itherS bt'f=H'"e fiim., ~Hid
since. wiliingly risked such terribie deaths because
[hey believed they Wei~ l!H)\'-ing humanity towards
recognit.ion uf an inalienahh~ right to free speerh.
At the last tity counc-ii meeting, ~ii.': of you seven
~dt";:[ed servaIHS ~r~~I~ fr')m .m~... fr~)m !:hi~ rostrum...
[rum YOlJr u)nstitutntsml-Ois right to speak fn:ely,
II III
.
(p
more precious than life itself In the process. this
council violat~d seven provisions of our Unit~d States
Constitution. six provisions of the California
Government Code. two provisions of the state Penal
Coue. anu Ofie provision of the state Civil Code.
And six of you" in the process. turned your back
upon your honor oath. given without nlenta!
reservation or purpose of evasion. to support and to
defend free speHh at these meetings against its most
dangerous domestic foe. yourselves acting
collectively
A copy (If this pap~r, presented to your s~cr~etary.
contains the specifics of the allegation that you
violato=d at least sixteen provisions of OUt. Constitution
and state law at your last meeting.
I request that you seven review this material. and if
you find it troubling. that you schedule a I"eview e.f
your meeting ruits foJ' your next LegislatiYe Review
Committee meeting, which I will attend.
There is 00 civil penalit.y for violating ye'Ul' oath of
office to defend fJ'ee speech... that is between you and
your cc.nscience alone. However. the oath to
support ouJ' United States Constitution. affixed to
every attorney's license to practice law. is an
oioJi;:iLHI1'V oath Dusiness and Professions Code
Section (11):'\ provide for disbarment or suspension
for violation of that oath. or for violation of an
attorney's duties. which include in these situations
counseling only such actions and pJ'oceedings as
appear legal or just
Sho"" us you are yet hone.rable individuals. council
1l'1embers. city attorneys. Take a second look at your
meelio g !'ules as amended They are not legal They
an~ not just.
In our time. IMny Americans... induding the gentle
!Ililn standing guard outside this city hall. have died
roJ' this right Which you so casually take away. the
right to meaningful dissent.
Tell t.hE" 7JJi.lf.l'i17ho perished on hvo Jima fifty Yt-ars
ago almost to this day why you no longer allow
meaningful free speech at tbese public meetings
Ten your own. conscience... this n.ight.
13~ '^
-
Bob NelSoo, SRll Rue i<anch.. Summit CA 92345