Mood: accident prone
Now Playing: Remove the Unconstitutional Signs at City Hall
Topic: City Hall
[original copy was posted here]
Dear Mayor Adams:
I am sending you this complaint because you are still the Police Commissioner. There are a number of signs around city hall that, in my opinion and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, are violations of the Federal Constitution, and we here in Oregon also rely on our beloved Oregon Constitution. I am requesting you order these signs removed. Please have one of your staff read the following cases and you should agree that you cannot pass a city ordinance to replace the above mentioned constitutions.
Start with Section 1----Natural Rights------"
8----Freedom of speech and press-
9----Unreasonable searches and seizures.
Officer Stuart Palmiter, #27244 has been on a rampage for the last few months stealing/confiscating items belonging to protesters outside City Hall, knowing that he has no legal right to act in this oppressive manner; he does it because he believes as stated to me on one occasion that "They" won't do anything to me. I will be there, (city hall) for the Thursday meeting concerning the agreement between you and DOJ. I wish that you let me know if any changes are in the works or I will take it as just another one of your reactions that says, "Screw Off."
The 9th Circuit decision that came down just recently reaffirms that you cannot continue doing what you and your police are doing:
link to www.latimes.com
From a good friend of mine who is a lawyer:
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, FIRST AMENDMENT, PROTECTS PEACEFUL
EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT IN CITY PARKS,
EVEN IF "LEASED" TO PRIVATE GROUP
Gathright v. City of Portland, 315 FSupp2d 1099 (2003), 74 FedAppx 810 (9th Cir
2003), and second appeal, 439 F3d 573 (9th Cir 2006), cert denied, 549 US 815, 127 SCt
76 (2006). Preacher sued City, whose police officers removed him from public property
upon complaints by sponsors of private events on City property (such as Pioneer
Courthouse Square and Tom McCall Waterfront Park). Ninth Circuit upheld lower court
decision that private events sponsors on City property cannot exclude persons based on
their speech or views. The Court later upheld permanent injunction issued by Judge
Ancer Haggerty, U.S. District Court, which ordered City to delete section of City Code
purporting to grant private permit holders the right to exclude persons from public property.
The City cannot "enable private citizens to exclude people from events in public forums
solely on the basis of the content of their speech."
Rohman v. City of Portland, 909 FSupp 767, 772 (1995). Judge Ancer Haggerty held
that Pioneer Courthouse Square of Portland, Inc., the operator Portland's Pioneer Square,
could not restrict preacher to "Free Speech Area" or exclude him from Pioneer Square
because the "venerable tradition of the park as public forum * * * [has] a very practical
side to it as well: parks provide a free forum for those who cannot afford newspaper
advertisements, television infomercials, or billboards."