DA violates 1st amendment rights of citizens

[RLRay]

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?

[SRT936]

The ACLU has determined that the Mayor did indeed break the law and is going to file federal charges.

I couldn't find anything about this incident so I won't comment on the incident itself, but as we all know the ACLU is definitely the final arbiter on what is lawful conduct....

[ateamer]

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.

[L-1]

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?

I'm really confused on this one. The 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.

[MCSD]

The ACLU sucks, period.

[Nightshift va]

The ACLU sucks, period.

AGREED 100% Anti-Christian Liberal Union

[leesrt]

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.

[RR_Security]

The 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?

Most people can cite the freedom of speech/religion/press part, and I'll admit I had to look it up for the last sentence: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

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.

Yup. Professional whinebags, they are. Even if they're right about something, just seeing the ACLU mentioned in connection with anything makes me roll my eyes.
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.

[RLRay]

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.

[L-1]

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.

Was it that the Mayor didn't like what was being said, or that he believed the person's conduct was disrupting the meeting? There is a difference and the law is on his side if he claims disruption.

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.

[leesrt]

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".

[Rogue One]

. The ACLU do have attorneys drawing up papers as I write also.

What sort of papers is the ACLU "drawing up"?

[RLRay]

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.

[ray8285]

It is my understanding the ACLU is representing the 2 victims and is filing charges with the D A. .

You 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.

[SRT936]

You 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.

But on the flip side, we're talking about California. The DA probably does check with the ACLU on their decisions, just to make sure they're toeing the party line...