Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DA violates 1st amendment rights of citizens

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DA violates 1st amendment rights of citizens

    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?

  • #2
    Originally posted by RLRay View Post
    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....
    Originally posted by kontemplerande
    Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

    Comment


    • #3
      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by RLRay View Post
        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.
        Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

        Comment


        • #5
          The ACLU sucks, period.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MCSD View Post
            The ACLU sucks, period.
            AGREED 100% Anti-Christian Liberal Union
            "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. The MARINES don't have that problem." ....Ronald Reagan

            Comment


            • #7
              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


              • #8
                Originally posted by L-1 View Post
                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.
                --
                Capital Punishment means never having to say "you again?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RLRay View Post
                    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.
                    Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RLRay View Post
                        . The ACLU do have attorneys drawing up papers as I write also.

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by RLRay View Post
                            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.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
                              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...
                              Originally posted by kontemplerande
                              Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5512 users online. 380 members and 5132 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X