Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:31:51 -0700 From: freedominitiatvs@GETNET.NET (John Wilde) Subject: Re: PCC outlaws politically incorrect picket signs To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
oops meant to say it "shouldn't go to trial for years"
g'day John Wilde
John Wilde wrote:
> 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 Court
> 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.
> John Wilde
> RD wrote:
>> 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 anyne 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
>> > 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
>> > and be forgotten? Thoughts?