On Sept. 15th., the Mayor of Compton who also happens to be a Dep. DA for LA County, along with the blessing of the City Atty. sitting beside him, decided to have two citizens removed during a council meeting, violating both their 1st. amendment rights and the Brown Act. The ACLU has determined that the Mayor did indeed break the law and is going to file federal charges. Oh, and did I mention that this Mayor is a former cop? This is the same Mayor who wants to bring back CPD to Compton against citizens wishes. Is this man stupid or what?
NEW Welcome Ad
Collapse
Leader
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
DA violates 1st amendment rights of citizens
Collapse
300x250 Mobile
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by RLRay View PostThe ACLU has determined that the Mayor did indeed break the law and is going to file federal charges.\
-
Uh, yeah, the ACLU does not file charges in any court. They can file a lawsuit, but criminal charges in federal court can only be filed by the US Attorney. Besides, the Brown Act is a state law - the feds don't have jurisdiction.Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan
I don't think It'll happen in the US because we don't trust our government. We are a country of skeptics, raised by skeptics, founded by skeptics. - Amaroq
Comment
-
Originally posted by RLRay View PostOn Sept. 15th., the Mayor of Compton who also happens to be a Dep. DA for LA County, along with the blessing of the City Atty. sitting beside him, decided to have two citizens removed during a council meeting, violating both their 1st. amendment rights and the Brown Act. The ACLU has determined that the Mayor did indeed break the law and is going to file federal charges. Oh, and did I mention that this Mayor is a former cop? This is the same Mayor who wants to bring back CPD to Compton against citizens wishes. Is this man stupid or what?
Similarly, a declaration of illegality doesn't carry much weight unless it comes from a prosecutor's office like the District Attorney or the Attorney General. The ACLU cries foul all the time but more often than not, that's like the little boy who cried wolf.Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere
Comment
-
This thread fails.
You have freedom of speech but not to disrupt a government meeting.
Nothing more to add since you only posted what you wanted eveyone to hear.Due to the Juvenile bickering and annoying trolling committed by members of this forum I have started an igore list. If your name is listed below I can't see you.
CityCopDC, Fire Moose, Carbonfiberfoot, Damiansolomon
Comment
-
Originally posted by L-1 View PostThe 1st amendment deals with Freedom of Speech, while the Brown Act mandates open meetings. How do you violate free speech when you close a meeting? Can you clarify this one for us?
Similarly, a declaration of illegality doesn't carry much weight unless it comes from a prosecutor's office like the District Attorney or the Attorney General. The ACLU cries foul all the time but more often than not, that's like the little boy who cried wolf.
Somebody might just be teed off because they got told to come back at another meeting, or were told to go away until they can be more civil.--
Capital Punishment means never having to say "you again?"
Comment
-
I'll try to answer a couple of questions. 1st, I don't know if they signed a new contract or not. 2nd, I believe the City Mgr. has been replaced. 3rd, I was there on the night this "incident" occured, and both the 1st. amendment and the Brown Act protect the citizens right to speak during the "Public Comments" portion of an open meeting. It was during this "Public Comments" part of the meeting when the mayor didn't like what he was hearing (how bad of a job he was doing) and he had them forcibly removed. This is where he screwed up. And what makes me even madder is that the City Atty. supports his actions. I think they both need to have the attorney priviliges looked at. I have asked both Steve Cooley and Jerry Brown to look into this. The ACLU do have attorneys drawing up papers as I write also.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RLRay View Post3rd, I was there on the night this "incident" occured, and both the 1st. amendment and the Brown Act protect the citizens right to speak during the "Public Comments" portion of an open meeting. It was during this "Public Comments" part of the meeting when the mayor didn't like what he was hearing (how bad of a job he was doing) and he had them forcibly removed. This is where he screwed up. And what makes me even madder is that the City Atty. supports his actions. I think they both need to have the attorney priviliges looked at. I have asked both Steve Cooley and Jerry Brown to look into this. The ACLU do have attorneys drawing up papers as I write also.
Section 54957.9. of the Brown Act specifically allows for the ejection of individuals who are percieved to have disrupted a public meeting. If the disruption is great enough, it even allows the meeting to continue elsewhere in private, except for the press, who can still be there as long as they were not involved in the disruption.Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere
Comment
-
I can tell by your post whose side your on. You give detail on what the mayor did but nothing about the citizen.
I have a feeling they were being disruptive or speaking beyond their alloted time. This delays the proceedings and infringes on the other citizens rights to speak.
If you have a beef with the mayor so be it. You can't tell us one side of a story and expect us to say "yeah, the mayor sucks".Due to the Juvenile bickering and annoying trolling committed by members of this forum I have started an igore list. If your name is listed below I can't see you.
CityCopDC, Fire Moose, Carbonfiberfoot, Damiansolomon
Comment
-
Both citzens were within their alloted speaking time (5 minures). During 'public comments' people can speak on any subject and they were telling the Mayor they didn't like the way he was trying to run the city, and he interpreted those statements as disruptive so tossed them out. It is my understanding the ACLU is representing the 2 victims and is filing charges with the D A. The California State Bar has also been asked to look into the actions of the two attorneys. As for taking sides, I actually voted for the Mayor in the last election but since that time I have lost all respect for him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RLRay View PostIt is my understanding the ACLU is representing the 2 victims and is filing charges with the D A. .A Veteran is someone who at one point in their life wrote a blank check made payable to The United States of America, for an amount up to, and including their life. That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact!
Comment
-
Originally posted by ray8285 View PostYou still don't understand, the ACLU will have nothing to do with the D.A.'s office. They can file civil rights violations but nothing else in court...D.A's do criminal charges.\
Comment
MR300x250 Tablet
Collapse
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 4433 users online. 243 members and 4190 guests.
Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.
Tag Cloud
Collapse
Welcome Ad
Collapse
Comment