Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:27:31 -0700 From: freedominitiatvs@GETNET.NET (John Wilde) Subject: Re: PCC outlaws politically incorrect picket signs To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
And because this does involve a first amendment issue, it should go to trial for years, even if the courts ultimately reject the first amendment argument. This is lawyering 101.
When a first amendment issue is mixed in with a criminal charge, the first thing that must be done is a motion to dismiss with a hearing on the first amendment issue. The courts have said that when involved with the first amendment you "have a right not to be tried" until the first amendment claim is fully vindicated. If the trial court denies the Motion to Dismiss, in Arizona the next step is a special action in the Superior Court and the subsequent appeals to the U.S. Supremes. The other course would be an action in Federal ourt for an injunction against the state trial court, with the appeals to the U.S. Supremes. Personally, I would do both.
Only if the U.S. Supremes either decide not to take jurisdiction or otherwise reject the first amendment claim can the case be sent back down to the trial court for trial on the merits of whether the person committed the offense.
The other side being, if the first amendment claim is upheld at some stage of the proceedings in either the state or federal court, then of course the person never goes to trial on whether he committed the offense. In upholding the claim the court will find that he has a "right not to be tried." United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., Inc., 458 US 263, 267 (1982) (per curiam) (citing United States v. MacDonald, 435 US 850, 860-61 (1978)
Will be interesting to watch. All I can do from here is contribute these little tidbits.
g'day John Wilde
> It depends upons which group of Libertarians this guy is associated with. If he
> is associated with the Pima county Schmorg, hell, they've sued many dozens of
> And of course, the very language cited below is so broad as to be
> Dave Kopp wrote:
> > That bit, from a legal standpoint, is about as all inclusive as one can get.
> > It would basically allow them to remove anyone for any reason, as long as
> > they say they have "reason to believe ...".
> > So, is the aggrieved party in this instance ready to shell out the thousands
> > of dollars it would take to bring a First Amendment case against them, or
> > will this case simply join the ever growing list of "abuses and usurpations"
> > and be forgotten? Thoughts?