Riverside Ordinance media aid

Discussion in 'GoldBase' started by restim, Jan 21, 2009.

  1. restim Member

    Riverside Ordinance media aid


    Annotated and indexed stream of the Feb 24 meeting:

    Riverside Board of Supervisors 2/24/2009 8:59 AM

    The first four meetings are also available there.

    This is still a work in progress, at least potentially. I'm done with my annotations but I will include more if others prepare them.

    Anyone who wants to include additional details for this or any of the other indexed meetings, please post your annotations in this thread. All I need is the start time as hh:mm:ss or seconds, and the text you want to use. I'll take care of the rest.

    End edit

    I've finished annotating the Jan 6 meeting, which was the only one

    I realize that has been unavailable from time to
    time over the last few months, so I have zipped this portion of the
    site for local playback. The zip is small, only around 45 k, and
    also includes a text file with all of the annotations listed. It's
    not pretty, but it may help if someone is looking for a particular

    edit: updated URL
    For your online viewing pleasure, go to

    The zipped content can be found at

    Here is the complete list of annotations for anyone interested.

    Nov 25 2008 annotations

    1 Supervisor Buster expresses concern that the proposed ordinance would prohibit pickets such as the Dokich picket that the supervisors participated in

    2 Supervisor Stone (introduces the ordinance) "This ordinance came about as a result of a group of individuals that have been very outspoken and admonishing the rights of others to practice a religion and they have been extremely contentious and it was as a result of their request that we examined what we could do because some of thesevery hateful individuals that just have a problem with this particular religion were engaging in some very contentious and potentially violent administrations, uh, demonstrations in front of their property that was totally inappropriate. We are also seeing that, as a result of prop 8 passing, that there has been some demonstrations agianst church groups and protests that have maybe stepped over the line. This does not stop residential pickeing whether it's a public official which was actually the last person I thought would benefit from this. I was really thinking of this particular issue where we have political issues like prop 8 that can be very controversial and we have 49% voting No, 51% voting yes and some very serious issues in the minds of people that get very passionate. But this does not limit one going into a neighborhood, just that you must keep a 300 foot distance from the property that you are protesting. I think it'll go a long ways in preventing violence. I think tht people will still have the right to protest, but we are living today in a world where there still exists a lot of hate. I wish I could tell you that things were different. But there is hate for different religions, there is hate for different creeds, there is hate for different races. You know, like Senator John McCain said when he congratulated Barack Obama for being president, he said Barack Obama is now going to be my president, he's going to be all of our president, and it's my undersanding that the number of hate threats against him because of color is an embarrassment I think to this country and it's something that cannot be condoned and we need to do what we can locally her to allow people to have the freedom of expression and not provide a bully pulpit for hate and I think that by creatign this ordinance which by the way was modelled after the City of Palm Desert's ordinance, where Chairman Wilson presided over many many years very successfully and it worked and I have no problem tweaking if we find that it limits one's constitutional rights of expression but my goal is to allow for peaceful demonstration in private areas that does not create a danger or heighten anxiety for those that are being protested against from leaving their homes in trying to escape, if you will, the demonstration that is being implemented against them. So I'm looking forward o hearing testimony from the public, but this was brought forward by a group that was very concerned about hate crimes. I wish I had the pamphlet that was given to me by this, I believe it was a white superiority group that has had problems with this one particular religious group and condoned a lot of very nontraditional ways of life that I think many of us would find very appalling. But that is their right to try to promote that lifestyle but I think it creeated a potnetial danger for those that were the beneficiaries to some of their slander and outrageous protests against their religion.

    3 Supervisor Tavaglione talks about having his own home picketed, that City of Riverside has an ordinance, that being picketed is part of the job for public officials, but that he likes the ordinance

    4 Buster raises issue of displacement.

    5 Stone says that doesn't matter because you are not picketing the residence you have been displaced to.

    6 County Counsel Joe S Rank acknowledges that the displacement would be obnoxious for the people at the non-targetted residence when the picketers were forced to move there.

    7 Buster does not want to relocate the picketers to the homes of uninvolved parties

    8 Wilson asks Rank if there was a constitutional review

    9 Rank talks about constitutially valid restrictions

    10 Stone remarks that there are speakers

    11 Wilson asks "Mr. Alhadeff, do you want to address this item?"

    12 Sam Alhadeff, lawyer for scientology, speaks without indicating that he is acting on behalf of scientology. Whether the Board was aware of Alhadeff's client and his consequent obligation at that time is undetermined. Alhadeff: "Yes, thank you very much. Supervisor Buster, I appreciate your comments and what occurred here was a complete analysis of existing statute, existing ordinances in cities and counties..

    13 Buster

    14 Alhadeff

    15 Buster

    16 Alhadeff

    17 Buster

    18 Alhadeff says ordinance will have effect of discouraging pickets

    19 Buster says this is either disturbing people 300 feet away or effectively preventing picketing

    20 Alhadeff

    21 Buster

    22 Alhadeff

    23 Buster

    24 Rank

    25 Buster

    26 Alhadeff

    27 Buster

    28 Alhadeff

    29 Buster

    30 Alhadeff

    31 Buster

    32 Alhadeff

    33 Buster

    34 Alhadeff

    35 Buster

    36 Alhadeff

    37 Buster

    38 Alhadeff

    39 Wilson stops debate between Alhadeff and Buster

    40 Stone starts out talking about Dokich

    41 Stone talks about "potentially very intimidating and dangerous situations", says he would "be very happy to release the pamphlet that I have of this hateful organization that doesn't like a particular religion and says very specifically what they would like to see happen to members of that religion that is appalling, disgraceful, and embarrassing and in a way this becomes a little bit of a public safety issue when you get some of these extremist organizations that certainly have the right to protest but they don't have the right to step on people's property and intimidate them into fear and to trying to escape their own private residences. This has been tested by the courts. It's been adopted by respectable municipal agencies and we'll monitor it and if it becomes a problem where people are protesting in front of a home adjacent to a home that is the target of the protest and they have problems then I'm sure we will hear from them. And if we have to tailor the ordinance to make it accommodatable to all those that are affected by the ordinance, then we'll take a second look. But I think at a first glance I think County Counsel seems very satisfied with it. I think it gives people that are being protested against, especially those that are being protested by hate-mongering organizations, that they have some remedies in the event that these protests get out of control on their private property, that they have the appropriate protections that they're also afforded under the Constitution of the United Stated. So, with that I'd like to make a motion that we introduce ordinance number 884 regulating targeted residential picketing."

    42 Wilson calls for vote

    43 Buster

    44 Stone

    45 Wilson asks for result of vote

    Dec 9 2008 annotations

    1 Buster declares his continued opposition to the ordinance.

    2 Wilson opens discussion of ordinance

    3 Speaker 1 Julie Walcz

    4 Wilson calls speaker 2

    5 Susan Elliot

    6 Wilson calls spealer 3

    7 AO

    8 Wilson announces speakers are finished and asks for Board comment

    9 Wilson asks Alhadeff if he wishes to speak

    10 Alhadeff

    11 Alhadeff continues "I've talked to County Counsel in terms of this ordinance. I would be pleased if it would be acceptable to spend a little bit of time with the County Counsel and to perhaps look at what could be done to improve the language of this particular ordinance. I think we've drafted in a very constitutionally defensible way. When I say we, the Coounty Counsel, she and I had talked, Pam, Pam Walls and I had talked about this this morning. This very same language has been upheld in the United States Supreme Court..."

    12 Stone asks Alhadeff how the ordinance would apply to Dokich

    13 Alhadeff says picketers coulld have marched up and down the street to protest Dokich

    14 Alhadeff continues and offers to change the ordinance if the Board is concerned abou the 300 foot "distance factor". Quote: "If it's the distance factor that is questioned in most people's mind then I think we should look at that just in terms of what the cases have upheld and take a distance factor measurement and perhaps change that."

    15 Stone is concerned that the "congregation with KFI" across from Dokich would be illegal under the ordinance.

    16 Alhadeff "It would have been considered targeted picketing to a particular residence but the sex offender would have had to have been the one to call and request the assistance. So, if that's the question, Supervisor, certainly Miss Walls and I could look at that with your staff."

    17 Stone starts talking with Alhadeff about "hateful groups", "one of which is called Anonymous", and asks Alhadeff if Anonymous was responsible for any of the recent protests against Scientology at "the Hemet location"

    18 Alhadeff talks about having personal experience of hateful behavior and prejudice because he has an autistic son, and loss of family in Nazi concentration camps. He says Anonymous has targeted Scientology, the epilepsy society, Jews, and ahve done many hateful things. Alhadeff implied Anonymous was responsible for the recent mass murder/suicide in Finland. "When they do come to protest, and they have come to protest here at the campus, they wear masks. They wear robes."

    19 AO again

    20 Stone goes to podium to show Scientology-provided propoganda.about Anonymous

    21 Stone shows propoganda, acts as if he believes it is factual.

    22 Buster says there are existing laws to deal with conspiracies and hate crimes.

    23 Wilson agrees with Buster that ordinance goes too far.

    24 Stone wants the right to protest Dokich then introduces freedom of religion and says he thinks there should be some limits protecting people in private residences and ensuring public safety is not jeopardized.

    25 Stone finally moves "that we continue this off-calendar, work with County Counsel, work with Mr. Alhadeff if he'd like to participate, and work with the Sheriff to get his input because I want the Board to be as united on this as possible. Again, this was not an attempt to limit right of expression, right to protest. I fully support the right of protest, I support the right to petition, but I also am a very strong believer in the freedom of religion and we cannot condone the violent attacks of organizations like Anonymous on religious groups or any other groups based on race, color, or creed. We shouldn't condone it as a society and we should expose these people for what they are."

    26 Tavaglione seconds with a comment that the ordinance will not "prevent cowardly people who wear masks and capes from protesting, wanting to be seen, wanting to be arrested, truly cowarnds. It's not going to prevent that"

    27 Wilson calls for vote

    Jan 6 2009 annotations

    1 Swearing in Stone

    2 Stone acclaimed as Chairman

    3 Stone reintroduces ordinance then calls first speaker

    4 Madison Davidson

    5 Tavaglione asks speaker if she represents Anonymous

    6 Stone calls speaker 2

    7 Garry Scarff

    8 Stone calls speaker 3

    9 Graham Berry

    10 Stone calls speaker 4

    11 Susan Elliot

    12 Stone calls speaker 5

    13 Donald Myers

    14 Stone calls speaker 6

    15 Alhadeff says repeatedly ordinance is "not about religion"

    16 Alhadeff continues "We have listended to County Counsel, we worked with County Counsel to give them our thoughts and suggestions and County Counsel has independently arrived at what they consider to be an appropriate distance factor It's been upheld in the 8th Circuit, in fact the 300 feet has been upheld in the 9th Circuit as we talked about before. There are many counties that already have such an ordinance, many cities that already have such an ordinance..."

    17 Stone calls speaker 7

    18 AO

    19 Stone

    20 Buster asks if there is a spot picketers can protest, given the constraints of the ordinance

    21 Stone says "I believe they can go on the other side of the street. Mr. Alhadeff, can you verify that? We know it's a pretty topographically challenged area, but..."

    22 Alhadeff responds "Yes", without elaborating.

    23 Wilson asks for an explanation

    29 Stone says "There is room for people on the other side of the road to fall within that 50 feet from the property line to effectively protest what they believe to be problems within the religious institution"

    30 Wilson questions Stone's interpretation of "property line" and is concerned the ordinance will eliminate legitimate protests at Goldd Base

    31 Walls answers Wilson's concerns despite the fact Alhadef had come to the podiun and was about to do so himself. She says "the ordinance does not prohibit general protesting, only protesting directed at a targetted or particular residence, and it does allow for protesting on the opposite side of the street. That is an exception in the sidewalk space, and that area is the area between where the street ends and the right of way, the improved area from the street to the property line.

    32 Buster questions whether this contemplates the situation where a single owner owns properties on both sides of the street.

    33 Walls says that the ordinance only applies to targeted residences, so ownership of property across the street is not a factor.

    34 Alhadeff jumps in uninvited and says "To answer Supervisor Wilson and Supervisor Buster, what County Counsel has done is given you defined terms, so in the ordinance itself, at section 3b, it defines targeted picketing and then, at section 4, the prohibition is against picketing activity that is targeted. So there is plenty of places where people could voice their particular viewpoints and come well within being close to any area except the residence. Does that make sense? So, the answer, when I said 'Yes', the answer is there's many places along there where they can picket."

    35 Buster asks for assurance there is no ambiguity about what constitutes a "residence"

    36 Alhadeff says residences are "limited to an apartment complex on one side, and individual homes on another side", and picketing could occur across the street from residences.

    37 Stone asks if protesters could go right up to the fence in the area of the film studio.

    38 Alhadeff responds "absolutely"

    39 Stone seeks assurance that the ordinance "only puts a radius, basically, that is in front of or adjacent to a residence"

    40 Alhadeff responds "Yes, that's correct"

    41 Buster can live with this.

    42 Wilson wants to know if County Counsel agrees with Alhadeff, which she does. He then asks a hypothetical about a large industrial site

    43 Stone says protesters can go right to the property line unless the site includes residential units

    44 Walls adds that protesters can generally protest, that they can protest in front of any commercial entity, that the ordinance only governs protestign a "particularized" residential dwelling

    45 Wilson asks if protesters can demonstrate at the main entrance of the Scientology compound

    46 Alhadeff says this is permitted,and says the problems of Jan 5 were caused by protesters obstructed the entrance and prevented ingress and egress.

    47 Wilson asks "So, for the record, by passing this, we are not prohibiting protests, legitimate legal protesting, at the Church of Scientology's compound in Hemet, is that correct?"

    48 Alhadeff responds "That's correct"

    49 Stone moves adoption of ordinance 888

    50 Ashley seconds, and asks that AO be allowed to speak since Alhadeff had lots of time

    51 AO

    52 Stone asks AO to give a map of the Gold Base compound to the Clerk so areas where protests are permitted can be marked on it.

    53 Ashley does not see a 50 foot radius as much of an imposition on protesters

    54 Buster asks who determines conforming locations for protesters if they ask in advance of a protest, and urges that some procedure be established to answer such inquiries.

    55 Stone agrees to incorporate this as an amendment to the ordinance

    56 Wilson asks for a second amendment to require a report including detailed descriptions of all instances in which this ordinance is enforced, to be submitted in 6 months

    57 Stone and Ashley agree to both amendments, at which point Stone calls for a vote.

    58 The Clerk indicates the Board is voting on ordinance 884, although Stone moved adoption of ordinance 888 at link 49

    59 Stone moves adoption of ordinance 888, which passes without discussion

    Jan 13 2009 annotations

    1 Riverside County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff Stone calls speaker 1 to address Ordinance 884

    2 (from the official webcast site) SUPERVISOR STONE: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 884, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing. (3.28 of 1/6/09) (9:31:52 AM)

    3 Lyra(?) Bishop

    4 End

    5 Stone calls speaker 2

    6 Julie Walcz(?)

    7 End. Stone lectures about religious freedom

    8 Speaker 2 explains first amendment

    9 Stone implies speaker doesn't understand ordinance

    10 Speaker 2 suggests Stone might want to rewrite the constitution

    11 Stone objects to applause for speaker 2 and calls speaker 3

    12 Susan Elliot(?)

    13 End

    14 Stone calls speaker 3

    15 Graham Berry

    16 Stone warns time for speaker 3

    17 Stone ends time for speaker 3

    18 Stone calls speaker 4

    19 Donald Myers

    20 Stone warns time for speaker 4

    21 End. Stone calls speaker 5

    22 Garry Scarff

    23 Stone warns time for speaker 5

    24 Stone ends time for speaker 5

    25 Speaker 5 finishes

    26 Stone asks County Counsel to address ordinance

    27 Stone tells AO he can't speak because he gave up his time1

    28 Stone gets back on religious freedom bandwagon, asks County Counsel to show map of Gold Base

    29 County Counsel Pamela J. Walls

    30 Walls identifies residential areas on photo, says picketers cannot target a residence while proceeding "in front of that residence"

    31 Supervisor Wilson asks where the entrance is

    32 Walls responds

    33 Wilson asks if ordinance was a factor in incident with LA Times reporter

    34 Walls responds, mentioning firearms for some reason

    35 Supervisor Buster asks if ordinance even applies to Gold Base dispute

    36 Walls responds, saying it does not apply "to a general protest that doesn't target a residence"

    37 Buster asks why is this ordinance needed

    38 Walls responds that they understood picketers were targeting residences

    39 Buster asks if ordinance applies to entire property if it includes a residence, or if ordinance only applies to individual residences on the property

    40 Walls responds that it apples to individual residences

    41 Buster objects that picketers have no way of knowing which buildings are residences

    42 Walls responds, saying it is defined that protesters "have to be proceeding in front of or around a residence and that it has to be targeted at that residence". She then talks about other jurisdictions and courts that recognize this limitation, and she thinks it's clear

    43 Buster asks what is the need for the ordinance if it doesn't apply to Gold Base

    44 Stone says "this ordinance is not in response to just the Church of Scientology"

    45 Buster asks for an instance where the current laws were not sufficient to handle safety and other problems

    46 Buster asks where is the specific spot that he was assured Gold Base protesters could use, but can't get an answer, nor can he get a clear answer whether the ordinance does or does not apply at Gold Base

    47 Stone says he doesn't "want to wait for an incident of somebody getting maimed or killed... before we write an ordinance ot protect the public..." then punts to Walls

    48 Walls says much of Gilman Springs Road is not affected by the ordinance

    49 Buster asks if the ordinance allows protesters to cintinue to use the spot they currently use

    50 Walls responds that picketing in the area she understands they use is permissable under the ordinace

    51 Stone states there are additional speakers and calls speaker 6

    52 Sam Alhadeff says he clearly understood the directions the Supervisors had given at the last meeting, says he proposed a "collaborative meeting with the Sheriff, with County Counsel to do exactly what the Board asked us to do and then to report back". Alhadeff continues that none of the objections raised at this meeting were responses to the directions given at the last meeting

    53 Alhadeff ends (without a time warning from Stone)

    54 Buster tells the Chair the way he reads the ordinance, it prohibits picketing within 50 feet of the property line of the entire Gold Base property

    55 Alhadeff starts talking about the long walk from the "residence, which is an apartment, to the dining hall" and picketers misbehave during that walk

    56 Buster asks Alhadeff if the ordinance allows demonstrators to continue what they were doing before the ordinance was introduced

    57 Alhadeff doesn't answer

    58 Buster "I'll take that as a 'yes'?"

    59 Alhadeff agrees but insists the ordinance is needed to protect people who "go from their residence to a dining hall"

    60 Buster wants to give clear direction to those enforcing the ordinance, complains about complexity of ordinance with respect to Gold Base

    61 Alhadeff "Mr. Buster, I couldn't agree more. And if you would allow us to do exactly what you ordered us to do, that's exactly what we're going to do. We're going to meet with the Sheriff's department. We're going to meet with the County Counsel, we're going to work through this. That's what we were supposed to do. We were back here today because, quite frankly, five or ten people wanted to come and have..

    62 Buster "it becomes a County Ordinance so that we don't have any one particular interest directing our Sheriff, or directing our different departments as to how it's interpreted and that's one of my concerns here too. Miss Walls, it seems to me this doesn't meet the particular problem out of which it arose, and unless I can get a clear sense that it's really needed in this county because of other instances, I can't really support it at this point.... I don't see a use for this ordinance at this point.'"

    63 Alhadeff Unsolicited response to comment directed to County Counsel, defending ordinance

    64 Buster responds, concluding "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"

    65 Alhadeff argues "There's 500 people who live there who also have rights"

    66 Buster comments that the ordinance does not even apply to those 500 people

    67 Alhadeff says ordinance does apply, and claims the ordinance has moved protesters from the residential area, and "we are trying to do exactly what you wanted us to do, which is to meet and confer and work through this and come back and give you a report"

    68 Stone calls speaker 7

    69 Catharine Fraser: "we too have rights and I think we can work with the Sheriffs and the County Counsel to work this out so that we too have our first amendment rights and they have their first amentment rights and I am sure that we can work that out. Thank you very much". Turns and walks from podium

    70 Wilson calls Fraser back to the podium and asks if she was involved in the event when the Sheriff showed up

    71 Fraser confirms she was there

    72 Wilson asks if the ordinance prompted Fraser to call to the sheriff

    73 Fraser says it did not, and says the ordinance was not in effect because "we had to work out the details, and they did do the protest and the police did come and they were allowed to protest"

    74 Wilson asks why the police were called

    75 Fraser said the police were called because of safety concerns, and that she had been personally threatend by the protesters at a different location

    76 Wilson asks Fraser if she understands that the ordinance does not apply to the Gold Base entrance or any other areas except in front of the residences

    77 Fraser says she is not "totally clear on that yet", and says she wants to "go over it with the sheriffs because where we have the dining hall is exactly at that point next to the entrance and that's part of the biggest issue..."

    78 Wilson says the ordinance "doesn't mention dining rooms, it mentions reisidences"

    79 Fraser says she will get together with the County Counsel and the Sheriff to work that out.

    80 Walls says they have had discussions about whether or not the dining hall is a residence, and continues that the residential areas she identified earlier would have to be targetted, "not necessarily a dining hall"

    81 Fraser says she is "totally aware of that and I know that's something we need to work out"

    82 Stone calls AO

    83 AO

    84 Stone calls Graham Berry

    85 Berry raises several concerns, including concerns about the role of Fraser and her associates in working out the details related to the ordinance and its application.

    86 Stone calls Assistant Sheriff Pete Labahn with several questions

    87 Labahn makes clear the Sheriff's Office will not be working with Alhadeff when giving input to County Counsel. He gives some history of pickets at Gold Base, and says the Sheriff's Office attempts to resolve issues at pickets without enforcing ordinances

    88 Supervisor Tavaglione asks if the Sheriff's department prefers to be involved in discussion before ordinances such as this are passed, and suggests a continuance.

    89 Labahn thinks this is a good idea and describes some of the challenges at Gold Base. He says the Sheriffs' department was not, to his knowledge, involved in prior discussion about this ordinance

    90 Buster reminds people that the Sheriff's department has to be able to work with the ordinance and asks for the department's involvement

    91 Labahn comments that his department seems to be finding some balance in mediating disputes between the picketers and the Scientologists

    92 Wilson moves a continuance, which passes unanimously

    Sorry for the tl;dr to anyone still reading :)
  2. TinyDancer Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Oh, nice work.
  3. mnql1 Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Here is a link to a YouTube playlist of videos relevant to Ordinance 884, arranged in chronological order.

    YouTube Playlist - Riverside County: Ordinance 884 and protests at Gold Base

    At present, the playlist covers:
    • Oct. 26, 2008 Gold Base security guards attack AnonOrange
    • Nov. 25, 2008 Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting
    • Dec. 09, 2008 Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting
    • Jan. 06, 2009 Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting
    • Jan. 06, 2009 Protest at Gold Base
    • Jan. 08, 2009 Commentary posted by CrazyDelaney
    • Jan. 08, 2009 Protest at Gold Base
    • Jan. 13, 2008 Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting
    • Jan. 13, 2009 Protest at Gold Base
    • Jan. 14, 2009 Commentary posted by ToryMagoo44 (Tory Christman)
    • Jan. 16, 2009 Commentary posted by XENUTV (Mark Bunker)
    • Jan. 17, 2009 Los Angeles John and Ken radio show on Riverside County with guest i'mglib
    • Jan. 19, 2009 Protest at Gold Base
    • Jan. 21, 2009 Video posted by hartman5555
    • Jan. 21, 2009 Commentary posted by shalindriaharam

    The playlist will grow as more videos appear on YouTube.
  4. i'mglib Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    You guys are good. Thanks. There might be more fireworks come Feb 10, 2009, when the supervisors are supposed to discuss the ordinance YET AGAIN. If the Scilons had just ignored the protesters there wouldn't have been all this fantastic media coverage, not to mention the education of the Riverside Supervisors about the real COS, and all the people attending the meetings. SO GOOD. It's like they set up a stage for the critics to step upon, with microphones, cameras, and a capitive audience no less. Thanks a million, COS. You are making our job so much easier.
  5. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Thanks to you for being there and standing up to people like [strike]cult stooge[/strike] Chairman Stone, glib!

    Did I spell your name right in the link to your presentation to the Board?

    Edit: I've finished annotating the Jan 13 video at Riverside Board of Supervisors Jan 13 2009 AM. There are now 92 annotations, each of which links directly to the relevant point in the official video stream :)
  6. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Added much detail to OP
  7. mnql1 Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Beautiful work, restim! Your annotations and the point-and-click functionality you created are really cool. Thank you!

    Note: The link for online viewing has changed to
  8. not shure Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    great job, now with vitamin C.
  9. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Thanks, glad is useful!

    Also, I can't give enough credit to the Webmaster Extraordinaire at, who has devoted many hours to improving and enhancing the work I did.

    Ray, the afore-mentioned webmaster, now has the meetings streaming natively in Firefox - with the annotated hotlinks - as long as the Windows Media Player plugin is installed (and if it isn't, you'll be prompted to install it).

    Note to tinfoily Anons who use NoScript and have plugin blocking set to eleven:

    You may not see video, and seek to hot-links may not work, even with scripts enabled for If that happens, go to Noscript->Options->Plugins and uncheck "Apply these restrictions to trusted sites too".

    Then a reload should have everything working nicely.

    Many thanks to Ray, who has probably spent a fair bit more time on this than I did.
  10. mnql1 Member

  11. TinyDancer Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    The first of 11 parts of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors 24 February 2009. [ame=]YouTube - Riverside County 2009 02 24 Ordinance 884 1/11[/ame]
  12. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Updated OP with URL for Feb 24 meeting
  13. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Many kudos to ya Restim, you have done super work!
    Caeks in the mail! ;)
    Keep up the great job ladies and gentlemen, this makes putting things into perspective so much easier for us 'outsiders' to follow.
    *doffs hat*

  14. mnql1 Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    The links below can be used to download .wmv files of the Board meetings on Ordinance 884. (Note: Sound is available on only one stereo channel in the source video and the same is also true for the excerpted videos.)

    November 25, 2008
    RapidShare: Easy Filehosting
    December 12, 2008
    RapidShare: Easy Filehosting
    January 6, 2009
    RapidShare: Easy Filehosting
    January 13, 2009
    RapidShare: Easy Filehosting
    February 24, 2009
    MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service
    March 3, 2009
    MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service
    March 3, 2009 Addendum
    MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service

    Here is a link to a YouTube playlist of videos relevant to Ordinance 884, arranged in chronological order.

    YouTube Playlist - Riverside County: Ordinance 884 and protests at Gold Base
  15. mnql1 Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    XENUTV has posted enhanced video and audio of the March 3, 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting on YouTube:

  16. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    I'm about half way through transcribing the video from 3/3. Do you want me to post the text here?
  17. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Sure, that's excellent!


    If you post moderate sized chunks as you complete them, I can work on adding them to the web page while you are still transcribing.
  18. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    3/3/09 Meeting on Ordinance #884

    2092, Start of Policy Calendar
    Jeff Stone (JS): We will now go to 3.6. This is the adoption of Ordinance 884 an ordinance of the County of Riverside regulating targeted residential picketing. We have a number of speakers. Our first speaker will be Doug Owens from Pasadena. He has been given three minutes from Tom Provenzano from West Hills and Len Campbell from Los Angeles. Mr. Owens, nine minutes you have.

    0:35:39, 2139, Doug Owens (false start)
    Doug Owens (DO): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Doug Owens and it is a pleasure to address you today.

    JS: Thank you.

    DO: I’ve made arrangements with Clerk’s Office to show you a short PowerPoint© video presentation. May I play that presentation for you now?

    JS: We’ll have somebody assist you in just one moment.

    DO: Thank you.

    JS: You bet. You’re not losing any time, so….

    JS: Did you give a disk or something?

    DO: I’m sorry. I gave it to the County Clerk’s office and they have it installed on your computer here. I… thought the County Clerk….

    JS: You’re… here he comes to the rescue.

    JS: I guess before we get started, I want to just reemphasize that this is a residential targeted ordinance. That we appreciate if you would not utilize this forum for any issues you have with any religious institutions. If you’d just limit your comments to the ordinance we’d really appreciate that.

    JS: Mr. Owens, with your indulgence, I’m going to call the next speaker. Is that okay? For three minutes….

    DO: Absolutely.

    JS: …until we get our situation working here. I’ll call on Mark Condon from Cherry Valley. You have three minutes, sir. Good morning.

    0:37:54, 2274, Mark Condon (retired Riverside County sheriff's deputy)

    Mark Condon (MC): Good morning and thank you for allowing me to speak to you. First of all, I would like to thank Bob Buster for using conservativeness when the purchase of his vehicle; not buying a luxury vehicle and my hat goes off to you on that mere fact.

    What I’m here to speak about. I’m a retired Riverside County sheriff’s deputy. And it concerns me when I read in the paper this 884. I’ve read it in its entirety. It seems really poorly written. I personally think that our Constitutional rights are very important. And I’m afraid that we are going to slowly whittle away at them. And some of the ordinances in the recent past have done that to where it’s becoming more and more difficult to live in Riverside County and not be in violation of some code enforcement. There’s already a huge bunch of state laws that we enforce now. And, as I understand, were enforced recently at this last incident that this seems to be a tailor fit law to. The fact that you could be across the street seems like well that’s a great thing. I can be across the street and, but if they own the street across, then I can’t picket across the street.

    Now, personally, I have no intention on picketing that particular person or establishment but I want to be able to picket sexual offenders that move into my neighborhood and if they own the street across from this street, I can’t do it. If they don’t have a sidewalk, this specifically discusses sidewalks, I can’t do it. It even says that if I’m guilty of it and they cite me for it, I can be cited once a day. It doesn’t describe what a day is. If I actually am cited for that, I can continue the rest of the day. So, it doesn’t stop what you want to do. Which is to stop the protesting.

    I would like the County to not get involved personally with little battles and whatnot. I don’t know that much about the particular church or group that is being picketed against and I don’t know anything about the group that is picketing for them. I know that in the past, when I was a sheriff’s deputy active, the Scientology people did not give us access in a homicide investigation and they weren’t our friends. And I think since then, that things have been, you know, that we have been, you know, made great strides to be good neighbors. It concerns me that we are specifically tailoring a law just to protect them. And I would really like to see that we not get involved in that and just work with the penal code section. Thank you very much.
  19. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    3/3/09 Meeting on Ordinance #884

    0:40:24, 2424, County Counsel Pamela Walls
    JS: Thank you, Mr. Condon. Ms. Walls will have a comment.

    Pamela Walls (PW): Thank you, Mr. Condon. I just wanted to address a couple of things regarding the specific language of the ordinance. And sidewalk space is defined in the ordinance. Doesn’t necessarily mean you have to have a concrete sidewalk. It’s defined as including the area between the property line and the vehicular traffic line. So, you don’t necessarily actually have to have a curb and gutter there. And also he did mention about whether each and every day that there is the targeted residential picketing taking place whether that would be a separate violation. And under Section 5 of the penalty section, it would be a separate violation. And the last comment I’d like to make, is this is an ordinance that only regulates targeted residential picketing. And that’s picketing that precedes in front of or around the residence. If it’s not targeting a residence, it’s not going to be regulated by this. It’s a narrowly drawn ordinance. And it may or may not apply to the conduct of, the, that is going on in front of the Golden Era Production Studios. Thank you.

    0:41:46, 2506, Doug Owens
    JS: Are we [?] on our presentation, so I can call Mr. Owens back up? Great. Mr. Owens, sorry about the delay.

    DO: Thank you. If I could show you this short presentation.

    [“The Riverside County Sheriff at Scientology’s International Base aka Golden Era Productions; 24 February 2009; Running Time 5:02” Presentation shown]

    DO: Okay, I shot, I shot that video. That video is unedited. I would like to ask each of you, how you would’ve felt if the Sheriff had acted this way towards you during the David Dokich protest. I believe by passing Ordinance 884 today, you will be sending a message to Ms. Fraser, who is in the inter-fanatical core of Scientology. Do you support her calling law enforcement unnecessarily to facilitate her unlawful citizen’s arrest of lawful, lawfully abiding protestors? Also, by passing this ordinance today you will be sending a green light to the Sheriff’s Department to make unlawful and vague demands and to unlawfully cite peaceful law-abiding protestors as a pretext to deprive them of their greatest constitutional rights: to peaceful assemble, to have free press and exercise free speech: all hall, excuse me, all hallmarks of our great country. I urge you to send a strong message to the Sheriff’s Department to ensure the rights of demonstrators instead of depriving them of their rights. Vote no on the second reading of this ordinance. As a government body, don’t take the dangerous risk that your vote will unduly harm someone’s freedom of speech, assembly and the ability of a free press to flourish in this great country. Thank you.

    0:48:50, 2930, Stone talks about trespassing
    JS: Mr. Owens, thank you very much. I appreciate you bringing your video. I just want to reiterate that this was not a breach of the ordinance. This was a breach of trespassing and a property owner has the right to warn you that you are trespassing and if you continue to trespass then you’re breaking the law.

    JS: Mark Bunker from San Diego. No.

    0:49:20, 2960, Mark Bunker
    Mark Bunker: I was also arrested that day for the same trespassing charge. We went back a few days later on Saturday. The exact same thing, no problem. Walking through the driveway, the Sheriff’s deputies said fine. Anyway. Bear with me for a moment, Mr. Stone. And you’d mentioned that you were Jewish. I’d just like you to imagine for a moment, that this building is run by a Rabbi. And everybody who works in this building is now also living in this building, so it’s a residence. And around the building is a big iron fence topped with a barbed wire and motion detectors. And there are guards at the gate that won’t let anyone in or out without the permission of the Rabbi. You’re working ninety hours a week for fifty dollars. If you’re lucky, once every two weeks you may get one day off.

    Now, Mr. Stone, your office now has bunk beds cause all of you are living in your office. And it’s crowded. And maybe Mr. Wilson one day says, “Boy this sucks.” Well, Mr. Luna then has to write up a report and send it to the Rabbi saying, “Mr. Wilson says this sucks.” Mr. Wilson is hauled up in front of the Rabbi’s ethics officer, who hooks him up to a lie detector and says: “Why on earth would you say this sucks? I mean, you want to help people don’t you? I mean, you came into this building to help people. Then you know, you are the only people who can help the people of this county.” So, to get yourself back in the right mindset, the Rabbi puts you in the Rehabilitation Project Force. And you’re isolated from anybody else and you can’t talk unless someone else has talked, has first talked to you. You’re fed rice and beans. And you work hard labor half of the day and the other half of the day you have to study the teachings of the Rabbi until you get back into the good graces. Now, that could last for months or even years. And during that time, Mr. Wilson’s wife, his children, his grandchildren may not even have an idea of where he is or what his health is like. Now, these things are going on everyday inside the Scientology’s building. The people, Mr. Wilson’s wife couldn’t reach to somebody outside this building because their phone calls are monitored and their mail is read.

    I’m telling you, if this was happening in this building, I would be outside this building protesting for your rights Mr. Stone. There are people in this county who need your help. And it’s not David Miscavige who is causing these abuses, it’s the people who are actively in there who can’t turn to you for help. Thank you.
  20. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    3/3/09 Meeting on Ordinance #884

    JS: Thank you, Mr. Bunker. Our next speaker is Julie Waltz. Julie, if you could please mention your address and the city you are from for record. I would appreciate that. Okay, Julie Waltz wants to be on hold, is that right? Donald Myers from West Hollywood. Good morning, sir.

    0:52:30, 3150, Donald Myers
    Donald Myers (DM): Good morning. I’m sure I speak for everyone in the room when I hope that we are done speaking on this issue. So since this is the last time that we can speak on this issue, I would like to thank Mr. Stone for reading the Black PR about Anonymous early on in this because it made some very mean, nasty people on the internet wake-up and realize that what they say and the slanderous things they talk about have repercussions, regardless of how you feel on any issue. And almost anything you do on the internet involving a conversation is a, you’ll get smeared and I’m very glad he pointed that out. Also, the internet stream looks great here but on the internet, everything is sepia toned and this camera doesn’t really work very well. Catherine Fraser had a dramatic picture of an overturned car and when you see her give that presentation on the internet, you can barely even see what the pictures are. So, I hope you’ll check out that camera.

    As was mentioned when you saw that video, there were arrests last Tuesday after this meeting. And Sergeant Kurlowicz acted in an extremely improper manner. Catherine Fraser just pointed at people at random and had them arrested. Now Ms. Walls, you worked hard on this to make sure to make sure this was legally well-written. But the trouble was it didn’t stop us from protesting, so the Scientologists have got to find some other way to stop us. Now, you all promised us that we could protest there, if we did not target residences. This Sergeant, this Kurlowicz, had us moving all over the place in a desperate attempt to get us away from the front doors, to the point where he told us to move back to the Sea Org buildings we are not supposed to protest. His every effort was to either bait us into being arrested or to get us away from the front gate at all times. And then this weekend, the opposite happened. There were no cops and I had to stomp on the flowers in the public property in order to get the cops to show up because we want police there. I don’t trust the Scientologists. They also wasted a huge amount of water, spraying water all over us. And ruined my signs.

    Now, Mr. Stone, have you heard of a Scientology process called a Purification Rundown?

    JS: No.

    DM: It’s a Scientology exercise where they take large quantities of vitamins, especially niacin. Now, Mr. Stone, you are a pharmacist, correct? And how long have you been a pharmacist in Hemet?

    JS: I am not a pharmacist in Hemet. But I have been a pharmacist for twenty-eight [?number mumbled] years.

    DM: And is it true that you don’t just sell vitamins but you mix vitamins? Is that true?

    JS: I make all kinds of things.

    DM: But do you make vitamins?

    JS: Yes, we do.

    DM: And do you make niacin?

    JS: Is that germane to this discussion?
    DM: Yes, it does. Because it explains, it explains why you were so eager to help Scientology out.
    JS: I don’t think, I don’t think.… I don’t make niacin. I don’t make any products for the Scientologists. [Cannot hear further comments.]

    DM: Okay. Your actions over many years are now gonna put you in a bad position. You can either be seen as soft on organized crime when you do what the Scientologists want. And when you don’t do what the Scientologists want, they’re going to eventually break your thumbs. Have you ever thought that this is an organized criminal organization? They killed Judge Swearinger’s dog and they could kill your dog, too, eventually. Thank you.

    JS: Thank you, Don. The next speaker will be Graham Berry. He has been given three minutes by Gary Sharf and three minutes by Patricia Curtis. Graham Berry from Los Angeles. Good morning, sir.
  21. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    3/3/09 Meeting on Ordinance #884

    0:56:07, 3367, Graham Berry
    Graham Berry: Good morning ladies and gentlemen both on the board and the audience and across the world who are watching on the videocam as far away as Sweden and Russia.

    Last week, I pled with this board to rework and clarify this ordinance and its application at the Scientology compound before unlawful arrests were made and they have been. Ordinance 884 does not pass Constitutional muster. It is vague, ambiguous and unenforceable because there have been critical changes made to the San Diego ordinance that the county relies upon for its legitimacy here.

    Section three of the definitions section of the set Riverside ordinance differs significantly from the San Diego ordinance. It adds three definitions clearly designed to apply to the Scientology premises. Sidewalk space. Everyone knows there’s none at Gold base. Then there’s the definition of street which is defined arguably to include the very space that the Scientology attorney, the Board’s Council and several board members have said was available for picketing. The very area near the guard house and opposite which is where last week’s arrests were made. If Catherine Fraser speaks here again today, I ask you to question her on these three arrests. A targeted, a definition of targeted dwelling is also added to the Riverside County Ordinance.

    Now, section four is really where the material changes are made. Because the San Diego ordinance restricts targeted picketing to 300 feet from the targeted dwelling. The Riverside ordinance restricts targeted picketing to 30 feet from the property line on which the targeted dwelling is located.

    And then you have section five which adds a whole series of additional penalties. Clearly designed and directed at people like Keith Henson who picked Gold base for an entire summer, was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for six months for misdemeanor terrorism and interfering with the practice of a religion for mentioning the possibility of a Tom Cruise Missile arriving at Gold base.

    These are material differences and they cause the vagueness problem now being experienced. Last Tuesday morning, as you have heard, in contradiction of the representations made to this board, people were arrested by the Sheriff’s Deputies already waiting at that location when the picketers arrived.

    Roy Wilson (RW): But they were not arrested on this ordinance. This ordinance hadn’t taken effect yet.

    GB: Mr. Wilson

    RW: They were arrested for trespassing.

    GB: Mr. Wilson, if you are going to interrupt me, either stop the clock or perhaps give me my question.

    RW: Let’s stick to the facts, shall we.

    GB: That is not a fact. They are arrested for trespassing on an area covered by this ordinance. And with.
    [Crosstalk unintelligible]
    GB: And because. And I trust that the time is off now, sir. Because you’re eating into my nine minutes.

    JS: I will give you enough time.

    GB: Because you have encouraged Ms. Fraser and the Scientologists to act as though they are making arrests under this ordinance. You have given them the green light for that conduct. Now….

    JS: Sir, if anybody trespasses on any residential property in this county they have a right to make a citizen’s arrest and they have a right to call the police or the sheriff.

    GB: With the time still off, your honor, this is clearly public property. The area from one curb to the other curb, straight line, is public property. That is the line on which the arrests were made. Parallel in line with the curb.

    JS: If that, if your assertions are correct, you have due process, you can go to court and you can prove that and have any charges reversed. Correct?

    GB: And that is because of vagueness caused by this resolution. Which has caused these people to cause these people additional and expense to, to validate their civil rights which have been encroached upon as a result of this ordinance. Either in its application or its formulation. Now, can I continue with the time starting again?

    JS: Sure. Please.

    GB: These are material differences…. Sorry. Last Saturday, two deputies took the exact opposite position on camera and videotaped, which is now available for evidence through the Federal court when this matter gets there.

    Now, the next significant issue is that the public roadway extends 50 feet from the center lane. When it was a state highway, it proceeded a hundred feet from the center lane and the public property that people would normally walk on here has been encroached upon by the Scientology enterprise with non-native flowers, with listening devices, with other vegetation, with sprinklers and pieces of concrete saying, “this is trespassing.” It is irrelevant that the public land has been encroached upon by Scientology. The people are still entitled to picket on that land and to walk on that verge even though the Scientologists have covered it with flowers, vegetation, listening devices and water. It is a traditional public forum in fact, as well as in law.

    And where are these 550 supposed residents of Gold base? Where are they? You have not heard from one. You’ve heard from Catherine Fraser, the Riverside County Council, yourself and the attorney for Scientology. Now, what about the non-Scientology residents of Riverside? The only one of those you’ve heard from is a former deputy sheriff. And I can add that there are deputy sheriffs all over California expressing their outrage on the internet, as what, as to what is happening here. Now, why are the local residents not here in support of this ordinance? Probably because it restricts the picketing rights already in place for sex offenders and the like. What is vague and therefore makes the ordinance, as drafted, unenforceable is the vagueness of the property line itself. Here, the Riverside ordinance does not even clearly provide ample alternative means of communication as the Klein and Frisbee cases require. The law should provide a clear and definite line as to what and what is not permissible and that is why this ordinance may be found unconstitutional.

    Now, some of these problems could be resolved, if only the County Council and the Sheriff would meet with representatives of the picketers. In a spirit of cooperation, it could probably be agreed that picketing at Gold base would be restricted to the entrance to the main gate, the entrance across from the main gate and the four other entrances and exits and above the two pedestrian tunnels that go under the road. When a similar dispute to this arose in the city of Clearwater, another Scientology Mecca, the city of Clearwater responded by defining clearly designated areas around Scientology offices and dwellings such as the Fort Harrison Hotel that anti-Scientology crime and abuse picketers could demonstrate in. The law requires you and the sheriff to act in a fair, impartial and equitable manner, such as meeting with all effected groups and not just the Scientology representatives.

    Now, there is one other matter here and that is, for the record, an objection to conferences and conflicts of interest which arise from the relationships between the Chairman of the Board and the Church of Scientology attorney who represents the Scientology enterprise. Those matters have been gone into, but for the record, I reassert them. And also for the record, the only injuries and violence at Gold Base or anywhere else in the world have been caused by the Scientologists. One instance of three of them dog-piling, hog-tying and injuring a person picketing on the property on October 26. Which resulted, again, in a citizen’s arrest. And there is going to be civil litigation against Gold base and its staffers for that and last week’s arrests. If Catherine Fraser speaks to you today, I ask you to question her as to those arrests and why the water sprinklers were turned on the protestors as soon as they started walking beside that road last Saturday. Thank you.
  22. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    3/3/09 Meeting on Ordinance #884

    JS: Thank you, sir. [aside] Pam, could you also talk about conflict of interests?

    1:05:25, 3925, Walls
    PW: Sure. Thank you. I would just like to point out that the definition for targeted picketing in this ordinance is verbatim the definition that is from the San Diego County ordinance and that was upheld in the Klein decision. And the Klein case is a 9th Circuit case that upheld targeted picketing ordinances. And in that case, it further cites the Thornberg v. Austin and the Burnell case as being acceptable targeted picketing ordinances. And in both those cases, the courts upheld a distance of 50 feet from the targeted residence’s property line and upheld that as the Constitutional regulation of picketing activity. This ordinance is even narrower than the Klein, the ordinance San Diego County, ordinance upheld in Klein and the Thornberg and Burnell ordinances. It only regulates up to 30 feet from the property line and it accepts the sidewalk area across the street from the targeted residence. It, I don’t believe this is an issue that the First Amendment challenge would be successful in that matter. Thank you.

    JS: Thank you, ma’am. Julie Waltz, are you ready now? Julie?

    1:07:05, 4025, Julie Waltz
    Julie Waltz (JW): Good morning….

    JS: Good morning.

    JW: Honorable Supervisors. I’m here today again to speak about Ordinance 884 Residential Targeted Picketing. And just for the record, I’m not affiliated with either group. Okay. As Riverside County Supervisors, when you were sworn into office you all took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet, now that you are in office, it appears that you, it appears that the United States Constitution plays second fiddle to special interest and special interest groups. It appears that many of you, as Supervisors, have been subject to protests in the course of your careers. The ram-rodding of the ordinance gives the appearance that you want to stifle opposition to your proposals and actions in county government issues.

    This ordinance is only an attempt by you to silence the people who disagree with you. You are elected to represent all the people of Riverside County not just special interest groups. To silence the voice of the people should not be within your realm of power. From your own statements, you chose only one party from this dispute to meet with. County Council, County, you, excuse me, from your own statements, you chose only one party from this dispute to meet with County Council to write this ordinance that you were directly involved in. This appears to be a conflict of interest. You should have both sides meet with you, regarding this dispute, to write this ordinance. If convicted, high-risk sex-offender David Allen Dokich had complained to the Board of Supervisors, would you have invited him to write his own ordinance? Now remember, the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. “We the people.” Not you the elected officials. Remember, you are elected not anointed.

    Today, I know you will vote this ordinance in because you don’t want to…, because you want and you refuse to hear the voice of opposition. And I also would like to, for the record….

    JS: Julie, your time is just about up.

    JW: I’m sorry but please let me finish. This is important. Your Chief of Staff, Mr. Lorenz, said the ordinance was requested by the Church of Scientology International, the target of a repeated protest by people who disagree with the religion at its 700 acre campus along Gilman Springs Rd, north of Hemet. The campus is the site of Golden Era Productions which produces the church literatures and videos. They were victims of rather a nasty, aggressive picket.

    JS: Julie, your time’s up. Thank you very much.

    JW: Thank you.

    1:11:15, 4275, Stone denies Alhadeff's involvement

    JS: Just a couple of quick comments. Number one, I don’t think this ordinance has been ram-rodded through. This has been vetted many times for the public to have the opportunity to discuss it. This was not authored by anybody other than our County Council with the consultation of our Sheriff and looking at the San Diego ordinance. So, there’s a lot of mistruths that have been stated here today that we need to clarify. And you’re absolutely right, it needs to protect all people. And we’re protecting people that live in residences that are targeted through residential protesting. 30 feet, we showed what 30 feet was. It is basically from one side of the chairs to the other. It still gives you ample opportunity to make the protest that you need.

    Susan Elliot, if you’ll come forward and please state your name, your address and city you are from for the record. Good morning.

    [More to come later today.]
  23. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    I see that I don't need to finish the transcription of this part.
  24. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    This part is now complete. It's a shame the web page doesn't work properly on a Mac. I'll post the plugin and codec details, then maybe technically inclined Mac user can see if it is possible to get the page to display properly.

    I hope you have chance to see it soon on a Windoze box so you can appreciate the impact of all of your work. Amazing!

    I'll keep going with the rest of your transcriptions shortly. It would go faster on my end too if Stone would keep his damned mouth shut :)

  25. RHill Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    The JS code was instancing the embedded browser only for browsers which I can test (Firefox, IE.) I changed the code to instance the IE way for all other browsers then Firefox (FF needs special handling.) Unfortunately I can't test on Mac. I can only use, still no idea whether it works:

    Safari 3.2.1 / Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) - Browsershots

    WMV/WMA can be played embedded in a browser on Mac:
    Download details: Windows Media® Components for QuickTime

    I just didn't find yet if the embedded object is instanced the exact same way as the player on Windows/IE.
  26. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Have you made any changes to the js? I'm just using the same js I shamelessly stole from you a few weeks back, but I can easily update.
  27. RHill Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    I just changed it a few minutes ago to no longer prevent instancing if the browser is not FF/IE. If this allow the embedded video to work on a Mac (hopefully someone will validate whether it works), I might further fine-tune the code to direct MAC/Safari people to the proper plug-in in case of failure.

    Btw, I currently use the xml file on your site for the Mar 3rd hearings.
    Riverside Board of Supervisors 3/3/2009 8:58 AM
  28. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Cool. I will update it as I go with the transcriptions then.

    Gadfly, when you take a break from transcribing, could you try the above link and see if the video works for you?

    edit: The web page now includes all transcribed content from previous posts in this thread.
  29. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    3/3/09 Meeting on Ordinance #884

    1:12:15, 4335, Susan Elliot
    [Document shown on projector:
    Column A: November 16, 2008. 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 are of the County of Riverside.
    Column B: January 29, 2009. Section 4. PROHIBITION. No person hall engage in picketing activity 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 of the street from the targeted residential dwelling.]

    Susan Elliot (SE): I am Susan Elliot from Laguna Beach. After last week’s meeting, I was extremely confused. But thanks to the help of a lot of people, who poured over the videos of the meetings and the various versions of the ordinance, things have become clearer.

    Last week, Mark Bunker asked Ms. Walls if she wrote the ordinance. And Ms. Walls said, “I went ahead and wrote that ordinance and I based it, I think, on the San Diego ordinance.” Then Mr. Bunker asked if she wrote the first version, which she said she did. And then he asked who wrote the second version. And we don’t know the answer to that question because Mr. Stone interrupted. The confusing part is why did Ms. Walls interrupt every speaker who spoke against the ordinance, insisting the ordinance in its current form allows people to protest in an area away from the residential dwellings when that is clearly not what the ordinance in its present form says. Her interpretation pertains to the original ordinance, which we know she wrote, but not to the current ordinance, whose author is unknown.

    Did Ms. Walls change the words “residential dwelling” that you can see in November 16th to the words “property” as measured from the property line? There’s no mention of residence there. Obviously, what she falsely stated is not what is here in black and white. Why? Does she know what it says? Because she… Or does she not know what it says because she didn’t write it? Or does she know what it says and deliberately misrepresented it? In either case, it’s alarming. The worse part is, I assume the Supervisor is about to pass an ordinance not based on what it really says but on Ms. Walls’ false interpretation.

    And what if the ordinance is passed? We were told last week that this ordinance has nothing to do with the Church of Scientology but rather it is for a mythical Mormon Bishop who voted yes on Prop. 8. No one knows who this mythical bishop is or where he lives. Maybe, not even in Riverside. But in any case, the second version of the ordinance is actually worse for this mythical bishop. Instead of having protestors 300 feet from his house, now they are 30 feet from his property line. But, guess what, if a certain church had a huge, mile long property occupying both sides of a road with residences any where on the property, the second version moves the protestors a mile away. Whereas, the first version would have had them 300 feet from the residential dwellings. The other problem is the original version mirrors the San Diego version which was successfully defended in court. And this one is different and it is also missing text from the Nebraska version.

    JS: Ms. Elliot, you’ll need to summarize. Your time is just about up.

    SE: Okay. I like to believe the best in people and I’ve seen some actions, especially from Mr. Buster and Mr. Wilson that shows they are men of character and integrity. And I believe that there is an inkling in all of your hearts and minds that something isn’t right here. And I urge you to go with that feeling. Thank you.

    JS: Thank you Ms. Elliot.
  30. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Added to the March 3 video.

    Have you tried watching the link recently? Ray has made some changes to try to make the video more Mac-tolerant, but has no way of testing it.
  31. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    I still don't get the video but from what I can see, it looks awesome.
  32. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    3/3/09 Meeting on Ordinance #884

    JS: Our next speaker is Lirra Bishop and she has been given three minutes from Thelma Grant and three minutes from Francoise [?]. You have a total of nine minutes.

    1:16:00, 4560, Lirra Bishop
    Lirra Bishop (LB): Good morning.

    JS: Good morning.

    LB: Actually, we do know what was said on February 24th ‘cause I listened to it over and over. Supervisor, oh, my name is Lirra Bishop and I am from Paris. Supervisor Stone and County Counsel Pamela Walls continue to insist that attorney Alhadeff and his client, the Church of Scientology, were not involved in the drafting of Ordinance 884 or instrumental in drafting the ordinance. On February 24th 2009, the following exchange took place between Supervisor Stone, County Counsel and Mark Bunker at 1:30:12, at one hour, thirty minutes, twelve seconds: Stone: “Pam, would you please explain who drafted the ordinance? It was not Mr. Alhadeff.” County Counsel: “I went ahead and drafted that ordinance and I based it on, uh, I believe it was the County of San Diego ordinance.” Bunker: “The, the first ordinance that Stone brought to us or this revised version, version?” Walls: “The original ordinance that was brought I drafted based on a case, I believe it was the County of San Diego or the City of San Diego.” Stone: “I gave her the copy of the City of San Diego. Bunker: “Was Scientology involved in it, the drafting of it?” Stone: “No, it was a copy of San Diego’s ordinance; that was 500 feet, where we’re talking about 30 feet today.” Bunker: “So, Scientology had nothing to do with bringing this ordinance?” Stone: “They did not construct, did not have anything to do with that ordinance.”

    But on November 25th 2008, the day that Supervisor Stone introduced the Ordinance 884, he stated at 46 minutes, 43 seconds, sorry: “The ordinance came about as a result of a group of individuals that have been very outspoken in admonishing the rights of others to practice a religion and they have been extremely contentious and it was as a result of their request that we examine what we can do because some of these very hateful individuals that just have a problem with this particular religion were engaging in some very contentious and potentially violent administrations, uh, demonstrations in front of their property that was totally inappropriate. We are also,” and he, you went on to say, “we are also seeing that as a result of Prop. 8 passing that there has been some demonstrations against church groups and protests that have, uh, maybe stepped over the line.” Well, demonstrating a group is completely different than demonstrating a residence. On that same day at 50 minutes, 38, Supervisor Stone stated: “This was brought forward, uh, a group, by uh, a group that was very concerned about hate crimes.” That’s not a residential concern, if it’s brought by a group.

    And on January 13th 2009 at one hour fourteen minutes and fifty-six seconds, attorney Alhadeff stated: “What I had proposed to County Counsel and what we’re working on is a collaborative meeting with the Sheriff with County Counsel to do exactly what the board asked us to do. And then to report back.” At one-fifteen, forty-eight, he said: “All of the things that were discussed today really are not germane to the ordinance. They only, the only thing that really is germane or relevant to the ordinance today is for us to do exactly what the board asked us to do and to report back to the board. And that’s what we propose to do.” He continues at one, seventeen, fifteen: “Basically what happened is the Sheriff said, ‘If this was the City of Riverside, we could protect you.’” This is, presumably, the catalyst for attorney Alhadeff and the Church of Scientology approaching Supervisor Stone for his assistance in introducing Ordinance 884. At one, seventeen, forty-eight, attorney Alhadeff says: “I don’t know what else to add except I think we ought to go about doing what we were supposed to do and follow the orders of the board.”

    In conclusion, the following exchange between Supervisor Buster and attorney Alhadeff leaves no doubt that the Ordinance 884 was introduced to protect the Church of Scientology and that its legal counsel worked side-by-side with County Counsel and the Sheriff in drafting Ordinance 884. At one, twenty, thirty-five on January 13th 2009, Supervisor Buster: “Why is it needed?” Alhadeff: “It is needed.” Buster: “Why, why, why are we, why are we going to such great lengths? Why is it needed?” Alhadeff: “It is needed because we are trying to protect these people, who live there and work there and go from their residences to a dining hall. And who do not particularly care to have people yelling or screaming at them as they go in their apartments or in their homes. And we’ve, and this ordinance has had a prophylactic measure on that question.” Alhadeff never mentioned concern for protecting a Mormon bishop. Supervisor Buster, this is what you said, “I want to make life simpler for, for everyone involved particularly those who have to enforce these laws. The Sheriff, they need to have clearer, clearer rules, too, under which otherwise, otherwise all kinds of problems can ensue. And this is, this seems to me to be very, very much more complicated than it needs to be.” Attorney Alhadeff: “Mr. Buster, I, I couldn’t agree more and if you would allow us to exactly what you ordered us to do, that’s exactly what we’re going to do. We’re going to meet with the Sheriff. We’re going to meet with County Counsel. We’re going to work this through. That’s what we’re supposed to do.” Now, Supervisor Buster did go on to say that that probably wouldn’t be a good idea but this was already in January. This was introduced in November and attorney Alhadeff had already been working with you guys. You know this whole ordinance is tainted. The motivation behind it, Mr. Stone, is tainted.

    Supervisor Jeff Stone and County Counsel Pamela Walls deliberate lies to the board and to the public warrant an investigation by the California Attorney General’s office. If you guys are, excuse me, if you other Supervisors are willing to vote yes based on these words by Mr. Stone, County Counsel and Alhadeff, then you, too, warrant investigation by the Attorney General’s office.

    And, let’s see, I still have time. I’ve got. I’ve never used this. [Sets up image on projector. Pointing at image.] That’s me. [unintelligible] My son. [unintelligible] [Changes image on projector.] This is the protest. This is [unintelligible] Stone. She was not thirty feet away from the property line on that day. I wasn’t thirty feet from the property line. This, the blonde lady here, was the Vice-Principal from Columbia Elementary School with her son. There’s Julie Walls. Thank you. [Changes image on projector.] We have protestors in front of the gate. Sheriff cars. Nobody’s being arrested. So, why were the people at Gold base arrested?

    JS: Because they trespassed.

    LB: Well, aren’t we trespassing here? You can’t trespass on a public way.
    JS: [unintelligible]
    LB: Now, no matter how many times you try and spin it, it’s not going to change that it’s public. [Changes image on projector.] We’ve got parole cars, Sheriff cars. Here we are with the bullhorns. We’ve got somebody standing here. Nobody’s being arrested. [Changes image on projector.] Here you are with a KFI microphone. You’re, you’re not, you’re probably thirty feet from the property line only because you’re right off of the highway. But Mr. Ashley, you were there that day. Mr. Buster, you were there that day as well as Mr. Stone. And you know that we were always walking, in front. We weren’t blocking it. [Changes image on projector.] There’s a back view of you.

    Now, just one more thing, I don’t know if you guys are aware that I put a parole officer by the name of Joel Nolette under citizen’s arrest at the David Allen Dokich protest for assault with a deadly weapon. That weapon being his car. Now he in turn, turned around placed me under citizen’s arrest for a penal code 148: interfering, obstructing a peace officer. Do you know that we never got processed? We’ve got assault with a deadly weapon and a 148. Then you’ve got trespassing at Gold base and they get processed. What’s up with that?

    JS: You have ten seconds.

    LB: Why don’t you go online to Google and Google “Jeff Stone’s changing story”?

    JS: Thank you Miss Bishop. Next speaker will be Sam Alhadeff. Sir, I’m sorry, you’ve already spoken.

    1:25:40, 5140, Berry asks Stone to recuse himself. Stone punts to Walls
    GB: [unintelligible] I understand. I have one request that you recuse yourself from voting.

    JS: There is no reason to recuse myself. I’ll have the County Counsel define why anyone should recuse themselves from this discussion and it does not pertain to myself.

    1:25:56, 5156, Walls on recusal

    PW: Thank you chairman and members of the board. There are certain instances where you would be required to disclose and disqualify yourself if you had a financial interest under the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Political Reform Act. For example, under government code section 84308, if you had a financial interest, it could require the disclosure and disqualification. In this particular government code section, it would be a proceeding having to do with a license, permit or other entitlement. Also, this is a legislative action. It’s not an action on a permit proceeding or license or other entitlement. Also, I know that it was raised about campaign contributions. And even this code section exempts out elected officials from having a financial interest in connection with their campaign contributions. So whether there’s a legally imposed obligation to disqualify in this proceeding, I would contend there isn’t a absolute legal requirement to do that. Thank you.

    JS: Mr. Alhadeff.
  33. Gadfly Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    3/3/09 Meeting on Ordinance #884

    1:27:25, 5245, Sam Alhadeff
    Sam Alhadeff (SA): Sam Alhadeff, Temecula, California.

    JS: Thank you.

    SA: I really don’t know where to start. Last, last week, I was sort of the one card. This week I stand in good company with County Counsel, the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff and I don’t know who else. But, let me try to quickly get to the chase here. Number one, Miss Walls drafted this ordinance. Number two, Miss Walls and I never had a conversation about the draft that is before you today until after it was submitted in a Form 11 and it was made public. Number three, we did provide copies of various ordinances to County Counsel when this was initially looked at because we wanted to give the opportunity, when I say we, just me, give the opportunity to County Counsel to just look at what had been done in other cities. This is very common by the way, when I was City Attorney in the City of Indio, I would often call on my friends and colleagues from other cities or municipalities to give me examples of what could be available for a particular ordinance. So, I did not find that uncommon or in any way out of bounds.

    As Supervisor Wilson so aptly pointed out, this ordinance is not yet in effect. So, what happened out there, I wasn’t there, but from what everything I’ve been able to understand is that there were violations of the penal code and there were violations of county codes with regard to where people walked or where they didn’t walk. It is clear that from the penal code that you cannot obstruct entrances. I noticed that on the video there that the mail truck was trying to get through when everybody was standing in the middle of this driveway.

    Going on, I found it interesting that this ordinance was being contested when it is not yet effective. So, having said that, turning quickly to what occurred with regard to constitutionality, the City of Riverside has a very similar ordinance, the distance is different. They went through these issues in 1996 and 1997 when they passed not only this ordinance but an ordinance prohibiting people from blocking entrances and exits of health clinics and the like.

    Finally, with regard to campaign contributions, I have in the past over the number of years given campaign contributions to various elected officials. I will continue to do that; that’s my constitutional right. I have never seen anybody influenced by a contribution, that I’m aware of, and I’ve gotten a lot of no’s as well as yes’s, so I understand that. Having said that, I think what we’ve done here today is a real hallmark in American democracy. You’ve given every opportunity over a, about a, five month period to a small group of individuals to come in and lay out their concerns. You’ve been patient; you’ve been considerate. I’m not sure they have been as patient and considerate with you but I appreciate what you’ve done. And in fact, I appreciate the fact that we all have this opportunity. I think this has been a well-vetted, well-vetted ordinance. I applaud the County Counsel for their integrity and standing up for what’s gone on. And I appreciate the time I’ve had to speak to you. And thank you.

    JS: Thank you, Mr. Alhadeff.

    SA: One other point, there was one point and I apologize.
    JS: Make it fast please, sir. Your time is up.
    SA: I will. There was delivered to the, to the board letters from individuals who do reside at the Golden Era campus with regard to their feelings about what’s going on. And I might add, parenthetically, that I did enjoy the one comment about the individual’s that he was happy when the police came because he felt more protected.
    1:31:22, 5482, Alhadeff mentions $3000 worth of plants
    SA:I guess what happens though, when you damage about $3000 worth of plants, you get arrested. Thanks.

    JS: Mr. Alhadeff. I don’t see anymore requests to speak. Is there anyone else wishing, that hasn’t spoken, to address the board on this issue before I close the hearing? In that case, I’ll close the hearing. Supervisor Buster.

    1:31:42, 5502, Bob Buster

    Bob Buster (BB): Yes, can someone enlighten me about the particular physical circumstances at that entrance? If someone is walking down Gilman Springs Road on that side of Gilman Springs Road, can they continue across that entrance both, you know, approaching it and crossing the driveway, obviously on the pavement, but then can they get up? Is there some kind of a path, a dirt path at least, where they don’t have, where they can walk by and they don’t have to get out in the street? That they don’t have to get out on the pavement, like an ordinary sidewalk or do they have to go out in the street even on the verges of that entrance way there? In order not to trample on the flowers or not to have the sprinklers get on their clothing? What, what, what happens there? What, just from a pedestrian, not anybody that’s going to protest, just somebody walking down Gilman Springs Road, what happens when they get to that entrance? Do they have to go out into the street and possibly watch out for cars that may be, may be turning in there and creating a hazardous situation or are they going to have to trample on the flowers or do they have an actual path or walkway that they can stay off the street until they have to cross that driveway? Can someone answer that for me?

    GB: [unintelligible]

    BB: Yeah. Sure.

    GB: When you walk down that roadway, there is the curb and the side…

    Board members: Move up to the mic.

    BB: Why don’t you come up to the mic?

    JS: There’s a microphone up there.

    GB: The curb ends and the Scientology vegetation and their sprinklers and their motion detectors and sensors start. There is no pathway that you can walk down beside the roadway. If there, you’ve either got to walk….

    BB: So, you have to get out on to the roadway, then at that point.

    GB: You either walk on the actual curb itself or in the gutter.

    BB: Or in the gutter.

    GB: And if, that is public land, beside the roadway, but they encroached upon it as I said. And if they turn on the sprinklers….

    BB: I didn’t want an explanation. I think, I think I understand. So, a pedestrian that happened to be coming along at the time this protest were, when the sprinklers went on, were on, would either have to get wet or, and possibly trample on some flowers or they would have to actually get off, get off the side of the road and come out into the roadway before they cross this driveway, is that correct?

    GB: Exactly.

    BB: Okay.

    GB: Exactly.

    BB: Alright.

    GB: [unintellible] [Puts up image on projector.]

    JS: Okay, I think that we’ve answered your question. Thank you.

    BB: Alright, well. Let me just suggest that this particular case out here. That part, that’s part of the problem here. That there’s no place for the pro…, there’s no sidewalk, even an undeveloped dirt path. That, and it forces anyone, to go out into the, into the roadway before they even, even cross which can be, could be a dangerous circumstance for anyone walking. I mean, normally you get to a driveway and you are going to look around to see if there’s any traffic coming. But if you have to get out in the road, I mean, I, I know there are a lot of roads like this in the county. I have Washington Street near my house, for example, and in, in certain areas there is a lot of vegetation and fences and what not and they encroach into the right of way, probably, and force any pedestrians, particularly those walking side-by-side to really get out too close to cars and there’s overhanging branches and the like. So, you have a similar circumstance here, where the protestors, when they’re there, they’re put between a rock and a hard place. They’re either, they’re either out there, they don’t want to get wet, they’re in a dangerous situation, or they’re blocking traffic going in and out of the driveway. So, they’re kind of in a no-win situation. I understand why Scientology doesn’t want to have protestors embellishing it’s front entrance way for everybody to look at. I mean, I understand that. At the same time though I think you have to provide for safety there. And I think that’s partially the responsibility of Scientology and the county, if they’re encroaching on that area so that a pedestrian and protestors can get off the street. So, I think that is what is contributing here to the confusion and the lack of consistency. And the difficulty for law enforcement agencies, to make what are often difficult calls out there and they’re primarily, and I thought that officer was trying to create a safer, safer situation for, for everybody involved.

    But here we have this ordinance and it has gone through a lot of changes which is also caused a lot of confusion, as well. And really, a good ordinance should come out of clear, clear circumstances and consistent circumstances and how, and in this case have a compelling interest behind its passage. And that’s where I think we fall short here. Because the ordinance itself, and I appreciate the comparison that was put up here, helpful but that’s not all what this ordinance says. The ordinance defines targeted picketing as picketing that is targeted at a particular residential dwelling and proceeds on a definite course or route in front of our around that particular residential dwelling. If both these things have to occur, one could argue that this ordinance has no bearing at all on protestors that are in front of the entrance way. They’re not, as I understand it, they’re not what we would normally think of as in front of a particular residential dwelling. There’s, there’s different levels at which you can misunderstand this ordinance or when you’re trying to apply it, you can foul up too. When you say particular, are they singling out one residential dwelling out of, I don’t know how many there are out there, four or five dormitories. Cause that’s what this says, you have to single out one, a particular one, not just a whole host or group of them, too, and you have to be in front of them. What does in front mean? There’s no definition of that. But usually you look at a building and the way it’s facing and the entrance way where you walk in and you go in front. And I don’t know how far off to the sides is in front of, maybe we better get that defined, too.

    So, you look at this ordinance, it doesn’t seem to apply to the only case that’s been brought before us that says we need some ordinance to correct a real, real, real serious problem here. If it does apply, then I would think it’s, it’s, it’s too difficult to enforce and it’s too difficult for people and protestors or the people who own the property or the people living in the dwellings in the property out in Scientology to even understand what it means. There’s, there’s several levels at which you can argue about what this actually allows. Just this own ordinance out on that particular property out there. Now, again, usually I like to see some particular problem, serious problems, quell up in different parts of the county and the, the sheriffs and all our staff say, well, our current ordinance don’t, can’t really cover that. We really need something more here. We don’t have that in this case. And I don’t care what San Diego does and I don’t care what Orange County does. I don’t care what the other counties do cause often they make mistakes. And we make mistakes and we’re going to make mistakes if we blindly just follow, try to copycat some other ordinance without a clear and compelling case here. So, I can’t support this ordinance. I hope you can clarify it if it does go into effect because it seems to me, it’s going to be really a problem for everybody to try to interpret and eventually you’re going to spend a lot of money in court. People are going to try to get down to what this means, actually means and there’s going to be a lot of needless strife. It’s going to create more, possibly more strife than, than it solves.

    1:40:12, 6012, Stone
    JS: Thank you Supervisor Buster. And I might mention that this has been vetted now, for many, many months and I want to applaud the opponents to ordinance because it was through your testimony when we first tried to model it off San Diego that the 500 feet was just too restrictive. And I agreed wholeheartedly, the board at the direction of Supervisor Wilson said we have to take another look at this. And we did. And 30 feet was determined to be a reasonable distance to effectively target residential development. This ordinance does not have any bearing on you going to the entrance of Golden Era and doing your protests. No, no bearing. I think even if you were to not block the entrance to Golden Era, I’m not so sure that there would have been any contentious issues with the Sheriff. Had the direction just been followed, don’t block the ingress and egress to this facility. So it was a trespassing issue. But that doesn’t stop you from continuing any protests in front of that facility. We vetted it, I certainly respect Supervisor Buster’s input, but we have had County Counsel collaborate with the Sheriff and there was this inference that, again, that Mr. Alhadeff was the tail wagging the dog and getting this thing done and, you’ll remember that when we have Sheriff, Assistant Sheriff Pete Lebahn came up when Mr. Alhadeff said I’m happy to meet with County Counsel to work the details out. Mr. Lebahn very appropriately said, no, the Sheriff Department in the absence of the private attorney will meet with County Counsel and so that we understand what is being enforced in this ordinance. And they’ve had that collaboration. And as a result, the Sheriff of this county supports what we are trying to do. Ms. Walls, it’s been tested. I believe that there’s clarity in the ordinance. And I just want you to reaffirm that in your legal views that it is clear and transparent and it does provide the parameters for which the sheriff can very clearly enforce this new ordinance that we’re entertaining here today.

    1:42:32, 6152, Walls
    PW: Thank you. This ordinance, a similar ordinance has been upheld in Klein has been upheld in Thornburg. It should satisfy constitutional challenges and muster. We have worked with the Sheriff’s Department. They’ve asked that this stay in place as a possible tool they can use if not with respect to this particular matter, but in other situations that may arise down the road.
    1:43:03, 6183, The extent of its applicability to the protests that are going on in front of Scientology now, we have affirmed that it is not <i>necessarily</i> applicable to that situation. Thank you"
    PW: It, the extent of its applicability to the protests that are going on in front of Scientology, now, we have affirmed that it is not necessarily applicable to that situation. Thank you. It isn’t.

    JS: Supervisor Wilson.

    1:43:20, 6200, Wilson
    RW: Mr. Chairman, as you just got through saying, this has gone through so much revision and so many reiterations. I initially shared many of the concerns Supervisor Buster had. I understand the opposition. I understand those that feel fearful that perhaps they won’t be able to do another Dovich protest if we adopt this and so forth. And so, back about three or four reiterations ago, I asked for a six month bring back and report and I don’t know if that’s been lost. But if we have a motion to approve this today, I would like a report from the sheriff in six months on how many arrests have been made on this ordinance, not on trespassing nor the things that we saw on the video, but on this ordinance. I would like a report back of how effective it’s been, how it was used and whether there were problems involved in that enforcement. So, if you are going to make a motion to approve, I would like to have that included in the motion.

    JS: I will go ahead and make that motion with the recommendations of my colleague Supervisor Wilson.

    1:44:45, 6285, Vote
    JS: Please Vote. That passes with four, Supervisor Buster dissenting.
  34. restim Member

    Re: Riverside Ordinance media aid

    Beautiful work and much appreciated, Gadfly.

    The web page now includes all your transcriptions from this thread, including Lirra Bishop's presentation.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins