Customize

ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

Discussion in 'GoldBase' started by Resistance Is Futile, Dec 15, 2008.

  1. ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    Ordinance No. 884 was first introduced to the Riverside Board of Supervisors on November 25, 2008.

    The initial discussion among the Supervisors is a fascinating piece of history.

    Here we have Supervisor Jeff Stone who has been persuaded to passionately front the ordinance after viewing a “pamphlet” from a “white superiority group” he believes were holding “potentially violent demonstrations that were inappropriate.”

    Supervisor Bob Buster doggedly defends the Constitution of the United States, debating Stone, County Counsel Joe S. Rank, and Scientology's lawyer, Samuel Alhadeff. The debate between Buster and Alhadeff is an absolute must see for anyone who doesn't believe Scientology's goal is to stop picketing by subverting the Constitution.

    Buster is a true representative of the people and knows exactly what's at stake with the ordinance. Before entering his "no" vote on the record, he says to Stone, "I know what you're trying to do. I know what you're trying to do."

    http://209.128.123.171/ppportal/agenda/webcast.aspx

    From the Agenda, choose the *second* entry of 11/25/2008 on the list. Note that this site is Internet Explorer only; i.e., Firefox does not stream the video. The topic of the ordinance starts at 40:31 (40 minutes in). The debate between Buster and Alhadeff begins at approximately 1:00:00 (one hour in).

    ============================

    This is the ordinance as it was originally introduced:

    ORDINANCE NO. 884, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
    COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    FROM: Supervisor Jeff Stone

    SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    SUBMITTAL DATE: November 16, 2008

    RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Board of Supervisors:
    Introduce and on the following week adopt Riverside County Ordinance No. 884 regulating targeted residential picketing.

    BACKGROUND:
    Picketing activity that is targeted at a particular residence disturbs the peace, tranquility, well being, sense of security and privacy in the home. Such activity can harass, intimidate and cause emotional distress to the occupants. It also creates a "captive audience" situation because the occupants cannot readily move to another residence in order to avoid the unwelcome picketing activity.

    Both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have affirmed that ordinances prohibiting such targeted picketing of a residence are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which do not unconstitutionally violate the First Amendment. (See Klein v. San Diego County (9th Cir. 2006) 463 F.3d 1029 and Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474.) Several cities and counties currently have ordinances in place regulating such activity. There is no State law that adequately protects the right to privacy in the home against such targeted picketing activity. The proposed ordinance is necessary to reconcile and protect the rights of picketers to peacefully communicate and express their ideas and opinions and the rights of persons to enjoy the right to privacy in their homes.

    The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside ordains as follows:

    Section 1. FINDINGS. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside finds that:

    a. The preservation and protection of the right to privacy in the home and the enjoyment of tranquility, well-being and sense of security in the home are in the public interest and are uniquely and critically important to the public health, safety and welfare.

    b. Picketing activity that is targeted at a particular residence or household whose occupants do not welcome such activity may harass and intimidate such occupants, is inherently and unreasonably offensive to and intrusive upon the right to privacy in the home and may cause the occupants of such home to experience great emotional distress.

    c. Such unwelcome and targeted picketing activity creates a "captive audience" situation because the occupants of a residence or household cannot readily move to another residence or household in order to avoid the unwelcome picketing activity being directed at them.

    d. This "captive audience" situation and the protection of the right to privacy in the home requires the enactment of a reasonable time, place and manner restriction upon such unwelcome picketing activity that is targeted at a particular residence or household.

    Section 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of picketing activity targeted at a particular residential dwelling. This ordinance prohibits picketing focused on and taking place in front of a particular residence. It is not intended to preclude the right to picket in a residential area generally and in such a manner that does not target or focus upon a particular residential dwelling. The limited purpose of the prohibition is to preclude intrusion upon the constitutionally protected privacy rights of the targeted resident.

    Section 3. DEFINITIONS.

    a. Picketing. The posting of a person or group for a demonstration or protest.

    b. Targeted Picketing. Picketing activity that is targeted at a particular residential dwelling and proceeds on a definite course or route in front of or around that particular residential dwelling.

    c. Residential Dwelling. Any permanent building being used by its occupants solely for non-transient residential uses.

    d. This ordinance does not and shall not be interpreted to preclude picketing in a residential area that is not targeted at a particular residential dwelling.
    Section 4. PROHIBITION. No person shall engage in picketing activity that is targeted at and is within three hundred (300) feet of a residential dwelling in the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside.

    Section 5. PENALTIES. Any person violating this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any provision of this ordinance is committed or continued.

    Any person so convicted shall be (1) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation; (2) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation. The third and any additional violations shall constitute a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or six months in jail, or both. Notwithstanding the above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor.

    Section 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person, entity, etc. is found to be invalid this shall not affect the provisions of the ordinance that can be given effect.

    its adoption.

    Section 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
    OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    By:
    Chairman, Board of Supervisors
    ATTEST:
    CLERK OF THE BOARD
    By:
    Deputy
    (SEAL)
    APPROVED AS TO FORM
    November/7 , 2008
    PAMELA J. WALLS
    Assistant County Counsel
  2. Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    Re: Klein v. San Diego County (9th Cir. 2006) 463 F.3d 1029 and Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474

    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit information found here:

    463 F.3d 1029
  3. Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    As of yet, Ordinance 884 does not appear on tomorrow's Board of Supervisors meeting agenda, however it is being monitored carefully.

    If any WWP poster would like to have a message read to the Supervisors when the ordinance does come back for final vote, please post your message to this thread.

    Thank you.

    RIF
  4. reznik Member

    Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    Dear Mr. Supervisor.

    I herd u liek mudkips?

    please confirm or deny. Anonymous needs to know !!!

    / reading your tl;dr post now.

    it would be helpful for the more lazy Anons for you to put a short summary of the document and what it means in rather thanj just copypastaing it ..... just a little /r/equest.
    edit: ok you did sorry. just saw the copypasta

    by the way. even though i may seem a little uniformed from the above (or at least not able to read your OP ) i did watch the video. Glib did v well. AO was reasonable considering the situation. Bob Buster was good also. Any chance of getting a PDF scan of the Anonymous pamphlet?
  5. Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    Thanks, Rez. The document Supervisor Stone presented is the one discussed on this thread:

    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/122-...e-document-anonymous-hatecrimes-leaked-30978/

    The meeting video you mention where AO and Glibby spoke was actually the second meeting, which was held on 12/9/08. I posted the information from the first meeting (11/25/08) to show the genesis, how it all began. There's some boring-as-hell blah blah in the first meeting (http://209.128.123.171/ppportal/agenda/webcast.aspx starting at 40:31), but by in large it is VERY relevant to Anonymous and protesters.
  6. TheBitch Member

    Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    Gentlemen,

    Last week one among you was quick to point out to a former "Anonymous," whose anonymity was stripped from him by Scientologists, that he, "... was on television." It was in fact stated as though it would change the former Anon's answer, and in such a way as to imply some fuzzy sort of "threat." Given that a member of the Board saw fit to say such a thing, as an Anon I should like to take the opportunity to both educate you in the ways of the internet and of men generally, by replying: "No U!"

    Chicago is the brunt of corruption jokes at the moment. It would surely be a shame if the new punchlines involved how the Governor of Illinois "should have passed a Riverside ordinance before he started taking bids!" The implicit "threat" of being on video works both ways, gentlemen. I would respectfully suggest to you that you have far more to lose by voting for this ordinance than any questionable campaign contributions or undeclared conflicts of interest which may at these moments weigh particularly heavy upon your shoulders.

    Would it not be a shame if the Riverside motto in the national zeitgeist suddenly became, "Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than Illinois.... Welcome to Riverside!"

    Respectfully,

    Anonymous
  7. Au Reida Member

    Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    Jeff Stone, Jeffrey E. Stone, broke the law. Jeff Stone is a corrupted official hiding caught hiding campaign contributions. Jeff Stone is a liar. Jeff Stone is a criminal. His associate in crime is Charles March of March Family Trust. The dox.
  8. Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    All I see is that he failed to keep a copy of a (single) check and had to pay a fine of $2,000. Ex-clam much?
  9. Obi-Wan-anon Member

    Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    Yes. I have a comment about the following:

    This is WHY there's picketing at gold: the "residents" already ARE a captive audience, and "cannot readily move to another residence or household" (at least under their own free will).

    They also have absolutely no expectation to privacy while within the walls.

    They also have to prove the "residence or household" clause, and Co$ should be called upon to list the residents of the "compound" (Supervisor' Stone's own words). If they can't account for the residents, then who's being harassed?

    Remind them that there is also a business out there, and shouldn't fall under the rules.
  10. A.Non Hubbard Member

    Re: ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

    Can we confirm this is the same Jeffy Stone?

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