Menu




Call to Action:


HIGH NOON   -   EVERY TUESDAY

 

 

 5/11/15

The City of Portland has a majority of the City Council running for re-election in 2016, Char-lie the Hales, Amanda Fritz, and that jester Steve Novick. Individuals For Justice will not endorse any of them and as of next Tuesday will actively campaign against Char-lie the Hales and name the day "Anybody but Hales Day." We will kick off our campaign with a protest outside of city hall at 11:30 AM to about 12:30 PM May 12th, so we can catch the lunch crowd. We will move from time to time and show up at places like the City Club and other places where people gather. We will do this from the 12th of May until Char-lie the Hales has withdrawn from the mayor's race.


READ ORIGINAL POST HERE:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/05/429826.shtml


 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

-------------------------       ACTIONS     ------------------------

 


 

-----------------------------------------------




CALL TO ACTION



5/7/15....  The City of Portland has a majority of the City Council running for re-election in 2016, Char-lie the Hales, Amanda Fritz, and that jester Steve Novick. Individuals For Justice will not endorse any of them and as of next Tuesday will actively campaign against Char-lie the Hales and name the day "Anybody but Hales Day.

 

 

 

" We will kick off our campaign with a protest outside of city hall at 11:30 AM to about 12:30 PM May 12th, so we can catch the lunch crowd. We will move from time to time and show up at places like the City Club and other places where people gather. We will do this from the 12th of May until Char-lie the Hales has withdrawn from the mayor's race.

 

 


We would like to go after novick,( AKA Brutus,) but our resources are limited and we choose to go after just one for the time being, we will add novick sometime down the line, as he too is arrogant and thinks he knows more than the rest of us combined. What we need is to elect citizen representatives who will understand they represent us and not their own egos.

 

 


We have time on our hands and must use that now because we have little money so we will be annoying for six months and then go positive, (ex) what we want in our candidates. So come and join us for a while on next Tuesday and you can always join us in the Den of Sulfur on Wednesday when the 5 shits hold their circle jerk starting about 0930.

 

 


I will no longer attend the County Board meetings on Thursdays because I just don't have the stamina anymore. I like the 5 County Board members, don't trust them, but do like them and believe they are trying; that is all we ask/demand!

 

 


"Want to take a ride?"

 

 


http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/05/429795.shtml




 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

-------------------------       ACTIONS     ------------------------

 


 

-----------------------------------------------


Appeal of Joe Walsh         

12/5/14             

 

 

 

Hearing Case No 3140345 


Arguments to refute the City of Portland’s submission Exhibit #27.  

City’s Motion to dismiss case and quash subpoenas.


 

The city bases its position that the case is now moot because the decision by the Hearing Officer “Will have no practical effect,” they site Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 405-406 (1991).  In the sited case the court said, “If, because of changed circumstances, a “ ‘decision no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties,’ “ the case is moot and will be dismissed. Yancy, 337 Or at 349 (quoting Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 406, 848 P.2d 1194 (1993)).  


 We submit that this case is ongoing and continues to have a serious practical effect and point to Exhibit #6 or RE: Notice of Exclusion from City Property, Item # 9

 

“After the term of exclusion expires, you will once again be allowed to attend City Council sessions, and to give oral public testimony in accordance with the Rules of the Council, including such limitation as are imposed by the presiding.  Should you engage in further disruption of the Council, you should be aware that any future exclusion is likely to be for a significantly longer period of time.”


 

The City has by their own words threatened future actions based on this 30 day exclusion so; the mootness question is answered not just by us, but by the city itself.  When entering the City Council Chambers I am now under the gun and that has a chilling effect on any activist.  The fact that acting as an activist attending most council meetings that there will be another confrontation is very real.  For both reasons one cannot say, “Hearing on November 3, 2014 of the appeal to an expired exclusion will have no practical effect.”


 

A question the Hearing Officer must consider is this appeal timely?  We followed the city instructions to appeal this case and now they say, “…the appeal to an expired exclusion will have no practical effect.  The appeal should be dismissed.”  If the Hearing Officer adopts that line of thinking he would have to admit that in my case and any case that the city is involved in would be moot.  We consider Brumnett does not and cannot apply here.  The mootness argument should be rejected. 

 


The second question the city raised is one of Privilege.  The city seems to be suggesting that the mayor and commissioners enjoy some blanket immunity from being questioned in a civil process.  We disagree and do not read State v. Babson the way the city does.  We offer the same case and point out that the case was sent back in part for the trial judge to allow the questioning of the elected officials:

 


State v. Babson

 

“….are not exempt from neutral laws that do not target assem-

bling, instructing representatives, or applying for redress of

grievances. The Oregon Constitution does not prohibit the

government—in this case, the Legislative Administration

Committee—from enacting laws in terms that do not target

speech or the rights protected under Article

I, section 26, even if those laws may have some incidental impact those

rights, as the guideline at issue here does.”

 

“For the reasons discussed above, on its face, the

guideline does not violate Article

I, section 8, or Article1, section 26, of the Oregon Constitution. The case must be

remanded, however, to permit defendants to question the

co-chairs of the LAC about their role, if any, in enforcing the

guideline against defendants. Based on that testimony and

the other testimony presented, the trial court must determine whether enforcement of the guideline was a reasonable restriction on the time, place, and manner of defendants’expression and assembly, or whether it targeted defendants because they were engaged in expression and assembly, and

therefore violated Article I, section 8, and Article

I, section 26, as applied to defendants. Because of our resolution of

that issue, we do not reach defendants’ First Amendment

argument.

 

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and <%2