Customize

FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

Discussion in 'GoldBase' started by Resistance Is Futile, Feb 27, 2009.

  1. FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    First, an announcement. The final adoption of Ordinance No. 884 is definitely on the agenda for 03-03-09:

    AGENDA

    One last chance to speak your mind for anyone who is able to attend the meeting. Just a simple heads up - some of the Supervisors do not respond well to the masks. That's all I'm sayn.
  2. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Now for some facts...

    Because Ordinance No. 884 is on the agenda for next Tuesday's scheduled meeting of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in order to receive its final vote for adoption, and because Sup. Jeff Stone and County Counsel Pamela Wells are so fond of playing the "this is the same ordinance as tested by the 9th Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court" card, I thought I'd do a little comparison of the San Diego Ordinance No. 9452* and the Stone/Wells backed Ordinance No. 884.

    (*Used for Klein v. San Diego County [9th Cir. 2006] 463 F.3d 1029 and Frisby v. Schultz [1988] 487 U.S. 474. I'll be posting a copy of this very interesting read later in this thread.)


    Ordinance No. 884 begins with an overview that makes its connection with Ordinance No. 9452:

    Next, a comparison of findings:

    Picture3-2.png

    In this continuation of findings, the wording between the two ordinances begins to change. For instance, notice 884 must incorporate the term "residential dwelling" in place of "residence or household" to account for the dorms and trailers. Also notice any mention of 1st Amendment rights has been eliminated from 884:

    Picture4-1.png

    Now we see some tricky "sidewalk" language incorporated to throw people off.

    Hint...

    a) Everyone knows there are no sidewalks to be found on either side of the street on Gold Base, and

    b) Everyone knows "the adjacent property line" is considerably farther away than just across the street.

    Picture5-2.png

    Here's where the rubber meets the road - the actual wording of the restrictions:

    Picture6.png

    And the penalties should the ordinance be defied:

    Picture7.png

    And one final clause on 884 that's lacking on 9452:

    Picture8.png
  3. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Here's Klein v. San Diego County (9th Cir. 2006) 463 F.3d 1029 - pretty fun reading for a legal brief!

    463 F.3d 1029

    Some of the good bits:

  4. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Just to be thorough, here is the wording of Ordinance No. 884 as it was originally introduced On November 16, 2008:

  5. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Jeff Stone was kind enough to have markers, two blue lines, placed within the chamber so he could demonstrate for us what constitutes 30 feet:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR14QdI-5DM]YouTube - Jeff Stone demonstrates 30 feet...[/ame]

    I wonder if we could get him to go out to Gold and do the same thing?

    (Listen to what he is saying toward the end of the clip. "This ordinance will reduce the risk of violent confrontations over emotionally charged issues and reduce the risk of targeting residents who become captives in their own homes, forced to endure the threats of a hostile group...especially those who are elderly or infirm." Suppose he's referring to the people locked up in the SP Hall there...?)
  6. kissyfur Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    A+++++ to you RIF!

    Dear Stupid (that's YOU Stone):

    A. The only ones who initiate violent confrontations are scilons - 30 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet away, doesn't matter

    B. So what you are saying is that you don't believe that someone should be a captive, threatened to endure a hostile group? Well crazypants, THAT IS WHAT THE PROTESTS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT.

    I sure hope someone can get in touch with miss Lirra before the next session and give her ALL the important info Anons have come across. She's my hero!!! <3
  7. restim Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Nice work, RiF.

    At the Jan 13 meeting, index 64, Buster said "We don't want to pass ordinances that are used in an incorrect way to intimidate people from, in this case, exercising what are their rights".

    Maybe I misread him, but I thought Wilson was worried about that same point when he dragged Fraser back to the podium at item 70.

    This raises two questions for me. First, I wonder why the ordinance fails to include any sanctions against bogus complaints of violation. Picketers can freaking well go to jail for three convictions, but the culties can call in bogus complaints until hell freezes over. There is something wrong with that.

    I also wonder, if I did read Wilson correctly on the 13th, what prompted his about-face. He was hostile from his first comments on the 24th.
  8. AnotherMrPink Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Hate to say it, but in reading the differences and what Riverside has changed or added it gives CoS a clear case to say protesting gold is illegal.

    The sidewalk issue #1
    The property line issue #2
    The must protest across the street from the property line (when they are on both sides leaves no side) #3


    CoS can and will abuse this, as they already did with the two Marks. Please people that go point this out to council. Council must make a decision as to where protesters are allowed to be at Gold Base before this is voted on. It is crucial, especially with the arrests.

    SHOW THEM COS IS ALREADY ABUSING THE ORDINANCE!

    also, is anyone in direct contact with Buster and the other guy who was dissenting early? Can we pass all info directly to them?
  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    I assume there are maps in the hearing where allowed protesting is marked?
  10. subgenius Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Deep bow of respect to brain of OP.
  11. AnonLover Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    omg - this is an awesome summary!!!

    GTFO w/ this the san diego standing up to scrutiny being relevant to the legimate standing of 884!!!

    plz tell me someone knows how to contact the residents who have been making comments (Ms. Red and Ms. give-stone-hell ponytail) so we can fwd this info to 'em?
  12. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Restim, for some reason Wilson flip flops from one meeting to the next. It's just a guess, but I think he has failed to do his own homework on the issue and possibly 'trusts' that Stone is counseling him honestly. Wilson has been the wild card all along.

    AMr.Pink, again it's just a guess but it appears the intent is to ultimately define the "property line" as the perimeter of the 500-acre Gold Base, which would preclude protesting anywhere on along the road. Essentially, the closest to the gates one would be able to protest would be about a mile away.

    Yes, an enlarged map of the base was submitted to the board with a request to identify where protesters could be, but it has yet to be done.
  13. AnotherMrPink Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    If that is the case with property line it goes directly against what the entire council previously stated. They said in past that protesters COULD protest outside gate, and this is trying to slip in that they cannot.
  14. Optimisticate Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Locals need to be notified. Any grocery stores with public bulletin boards? Most public service buildings should have notice boards as well. Flyers/door-tagging would be great and I would be glad to prepay a bit to Kinko's to help in the cost of the flyers.

    It is most important that the LOCALS be the ones to raise the warning to other residents. Is Ms. Camburn available? She would be the ultimate win IMO. However, I believe that out-of-towners who travel any distance to picket who are also affected by laws should be heard. If Stone doesn't want to hear from anyone but locals, ask him if non-locals will be exempt from the law. }:{>

    And most excellent job, RIF. You've done a great service with this!
  15. rummychick99 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    The sidewalk part of this is to cover the following:

    30 feet from target is in the neighbors yard. So you can protest on the sidewalk even though it is only 20 feet from property line. One question that should be asked - what about when there is no sidewalk such as in the case of Tavalogne (I don't remember how to spell his name). Where would the protesters be allowed to protest?


    Lirra's address might be in the phone book. You could send her a copy of this out today and she would get it in time. She is very good and clearly doesn't think much of Stone.
  16. rummychick99 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    "because Plaintiffs raise a facial challenge, we cannot strike down the ordinance unless it is "unconstitutional in every conceivable application." See Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 796, 104 S.Ct. 2118."

    Facial challenge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    "In the context of American jurisprudence, a facial challenge is a manner of challenging a statute in court, in which the plaintiff alleges that the statute is always, and under all circumstances, unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges that the statute may be, in part, unconstitutional, in redress of specific and particular injury."


    Here is a free speech book online:

    Freedom of Speech: A Reference Guide ... - Google Book Search

    By the way, did you notice how many times the words "narrowly tailored" were uttered. They are trying to keep it from being thrown out on a challenge.
  17. mrfyde Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    bump
  18. Mitsu Too Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    "R NO. 884
    Section 4 PROHIBITION
    No person shall engaged in targeted picketing within thirty (30) feet of the property ( measured from the property line) upon which the targeted residential dwelling is located, except on the sidewalk space on the opposite side off the street from the targeted residential dwelling."

    What I see here is this.
    If you are targetting the residential dwelling you
    a. must be 30 feet from the property line
    b. across the street on the sidewalk space since there is no actual sidewalk
    Nothing here refers to the entire property. I think that is why the scilons were so pissed. It only applies to the area where the residential buildings are.

    If we are NOT targetting a residence then
    NONE OF THIS APPLIES. PERIOD.

    Therefore they can't use this ordinance unless you TARGET the residential dwellings or appear to. So long as eveyone stays clear the fuck away from the area where the residences are then nothing should change. SO long as you don't mention the name of anyone who could be inside those residential dwellings you cannot be seen as targetting.

    BUT we know the scilons will try to use it. I would get someone to draw a map pronto showing the area of the residence and measure that 30 foot zone in front and across the street from those residential dwellings and ask the lawyer to say whether this complies to the law. Even though you are not targetting better to be safe so there is no doubt. The rest of the area including the guard shack can be colored in green for normal non targetted picketing and ask if that is ok. Pass those maps out to anyone going to the raid and to make absolutely sure no one is on the curb in front of and on the same side of the road as the residences. Assign people to designated areas; some across the street from the residences in the red zone and others in the usual green zone.

    I think this is why the county supervisors kept insisting this has nothing to do with scientology. Of what I saw of Mark + Mark they were cited with trespassing. Not the same thing here.

    Oh and have some ceak and party music.
  19. diesel1967 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Excellent work RiF. The scilons willl try to exploit the wording of this ordinance to prevent picketing within 30 feet of the entire property line. Despite what County Counsel Pamela Wells says about the location of the residential dwellings on the property the scilons will simply tell the RCSD that almost every building is a residential dwelling. And going by the RCSD's past actions & incompetence they'll believe exactly what the scilons want them to believe & act upon the scilons interpretation of the ordinance.
  20. pacora Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    I think the the most important part of this wording is this...

    "...within thirty (30) feet of the property (measured from the property line) UPON WHICH the targeted residential drelling is located,..."

    Let's pretend that property "A" is a perfect square. And UPON that property, let's say directly in the middle of it, a "residential dwelling" exists. Let's also say that on all four sides of the residential dwelling 1,000 feet are between it and the property line. According to this ordinance protestors would be 1,030 feet away from the targeted "dwelling".

    In other words, the ordinance forbids protestors to be away from the property line no matter how far in the targeted dwelling is located.

    Nothing like the San Diego ordinance.
  21. diesel1967 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

  22. Relyt Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Technically we should still be able to stand next to the driveway. There's a concrete corner right next to the guard shack that doesn't cross the property line. And the area around the guard shack is not residential. However, there may be too many people just to stand on that one little corner, and again they'll TRY the "trespassing" angle again, and if not that, then the "blocking egress and ingress" one, just for walking in front of the driveway (which is not a crime, and they can't prove that there's any blocking being done).

    By the way, did they ever present the "video evidence" of protesters lying down in front of the gate for thirty minutes? Or did they just use a bunch of technical words to make it sound like they're not lying?
  23. pacora Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884


    Ms. Red and Ms. give-stone-hell ponytail, are already on it.:D
  24. rummychick99 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884


    Ms. Red and Ms. give-stone-hell ponytail, are already on it.:D[/QUOTE]

    Lirra needs more time to speak. Maybe she could get someone she knows to ask for time to speak and then have the person give up their time.

    If Tavaliogne sells his house to someone who ends up being a child molester..where would Lirra be able to protest? If that house that I looked at is his residence, there are no sidewalks on that street.



    Here are some interesting parts of the Klein case

    firstamendmentcenter.org: news

    The law was not upheld on an as applied challenge..just a facial challenge:

    "The federal judge said that, since the picketers technically did not break the law, the case would be viewed solely as a facial challenge."

    The attorney for Riverside makes it sound like it has passed all tests before the Ninth Circuit. It hasn't.


    What are ample means of communication? Here is a blurb from another case:

    "Protestors have not been barred from the residential neighborhoods. They may enter such neighborhoods, alone or in groups, even marching. . . . They may go door-to-door to proselytize their views. They may distribute literature in this manner . . . or through the mails. They may contact residents by telephone, short of harassment."


    Frisby v Schultz


    So what are the ample means of communication in a mixed use environment when the target of the picket is a residential dwelling on a mixed use property owned by a business who owns the property on both sides of the road with no sidewalks?
  25. kissyfur Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Lirra needs more time to speak. Maybe she could get someone she knows to ask for time to speak and then have the person give up their time.

    [/QUOTE]

    AWESOME! I hope every single non-scilon gives up their time to Kickass Ponytail Gal and she takes over the whole session!
  26. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

  27. rummychick99 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

  28. Mitsu Too Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    pacora I agree.

    What I was trying to say is that is what the supervisors are probably thinking. SO we need to bring a map to the next meeting and ask them precisely is that what they meant. And I like your example too. BUT I think the bottom line is the supervisors ( not including Stoner) probably think it doesn't apply in the CoS case because it is not targetted picketing. My experience is you must spell it out to them in black and white as they depend on council and from what I've seen she is not thinking this through to the big picture. As pointed out previously they still have not told us WHERE it is safe to picket at Gold.
  29. PimpXenu Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    They already started doing it. In one of the meeting vids, the main scifag lady said something like she thought it was understood that the mess hall should be considered a residential building and protestors should follow the rules around that. Some of the supervisors gave her some grief over that and she basically said she have to work out the details of it.

    Well...if the mess hall is somehow considered residential...what about the walk ways from the residents to the messhall, cause residents have to use those to get to the mess hall right? So that should be stayed away from. And after all, residents have a job to do so they have to go there, so the residents are traveling back and forth there so obviously protestors should stay away from the places of work and the path traveled there, because we're trying to protect residents afterall. You see the logical train they might start to use already.

    Plus, it always makes me wonder, whats to stop them from installing a toilet (they seem to be adept plumbers from the lawn sprinklers) and an army cot into the guard shack at the front gate and calling that a residence?
  30. rummychick99 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Counsel has said it is okay to traverse up and down the road as long as you don't target a residence but fat cop says that it is not okay. He even told GB that he was trespassing when he was many feet away from the curb inlet.

    It is clear to me that this action was brought forth on behest of Scientology with the idea that the dining hall was going to be deemed a residence and protesters would need to stay 500 feet away. (dont remember if it was 500 feet from property line)

    Fraser is still trying to get this applied to the dining hall. It can be seen at the end of one of the clips where Counsel tells her that she has already been told it doesn't apply and Fraser keeps saying we will work on that...

    I would really like someone to ask the Supervisors where you will be allowed to protest if you decide to target a residence given the nature of the location..and where will you be allowed to protest if you don't target a residence. For example, a relative of someone may decide to target a residence in hopes of getting the Scientologist to see the sign. I saw a protester do this overseas. She was trying to communicate to a husband or some other relative via a bullhorn.


    There are very few ways to try to get to a person on that compound...one of which is through a targeted picket. Twin A has already told them about the communication problem and someone should be bringing up the police report on Marc Headley. It would be very good if Twin A got up there again and said, I want to file a missing persons report and I expect your police department to find my sister to make sure she is not being held hostage.

    I hate to say it but I hope the cops are real pricks this weekend and arrest some people. It will give you ammunition at that meeting that they continue to be unreasonable.
  31. pacora Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Try and get as many people as you can to speak to the supervisor's or donate there time to others who are willing to speak. 3 minutes add up fast - and the board is REQUIRED to listen to all speakers. We could keep them their for HOURS!

    A few board meetings ago, anti neuter/spay activists kept them there until almost 8:00 P.M.
  32. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    ^^What a delicious thought!^^ Let's do it!
  33. rummychick99 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Would it be illegal to go by a pseudonym when registering to speak so you won't be name fagged.
  34. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    The original version of ordinance 884 was based on the decision in Klein v. San Diego.

    The current version of ordinance 884 is based on a Nebraska law discussed in Thorburn v. Austin, 231 F3d 1114, 8th cir 2000.

    http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/10/992146P.pdf
  35. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Nope.
  36. Anonymous Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    unconstitutional?
  37. Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    In Thorburn v. Austin, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court which had said the Lincoln Nebraska law was constitutional.
  38. restim Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    For some reason cult [strike]legal whore[/strike] attorney Sam Alhadeff forgot to include this bit from the Nebraska law

    when he wasn't drafting the ordinance which was drafted by County Counsel Pam Walls without any input from the cult.

    Go figure.
  39. rummychick99 Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884


    Thank you for posting that. It solidifies my belief that the fight lies in what happens when you target a residential dwelling at Gold Base. Imagine this scenario.

    You target all the residential dwellings but you stand in front the Staff Berthing Areas - back left. You want all residents to know that there is help out there if they choose to escape. In fact, you post a telephone number and tell them to call . Use Grand Central for a number - not your home number.

    http://www.portlandmercury.com/extras/pdf/feature/base-map.pdf

    You have to be 30 feet out from the property line . Where is the property line when you are standing there picketing. You don't know. So you go across the street. What's across the street?
    The upper Villa. Where's the property line there?

    It appears you may now be in violation of the Ordinance. It would all depend on where that property line is by the Upper Villa. I am assuming that is a residence.

    Scientology calls up the police. They arrest you. What now?

    You have a Constitutional Right to target a residential dwelling for protest. You should have the right to stand in one place and do the targeting.(though maybe you get hit with the "other forms of communication argument")

    Counsel for the City needs to assure you that you will not be arrested under the ordinance OR THE TRESPASSING LAW if you target that section of the property and there is a safe place to stand with your sign.

    I wish I was close enough to go to that meeting. I would stand up there and tell them I want to target the residences, I want to offer a number they can call if they want to escape, I would point out the police report about Marc Headley ...and probably be admonished for bringing it up, and I would ask them to tell me where I can stand without being arrested and go on the record with that so that I can point it out to any cop who comes along that tries to harass me as I try to save those imprisoned inside!
  40. i'mglib Member

    Re: FUN FACTS ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 884

    Dear RIF, this is such good stuff.

    All you guys who have posted analysis and the videos THANKS SO MUCH. Especially RIF, Restim, Hombre, and mnlq1 (or however you write it--the person who posted all the videos on Youtube).

    I am so fired up right now. I can't believe that Ms. Wall interrupted EVERY SPEAKER last week who spoke against the ordinance, and insisted on a FALSE INTERPRETATION of the ordinance.

    This REALLY pisses me off.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins