Sunday, January 30, 2011

Can Zuma Dogg Have City Council's $52 Million CRA Agenda Item Overturned Over Brown Act Violation?

I just thought of something. Matt Dowd and Zuma Dogg won a good portion of our 1st Amendment lawsuit vs The City of Los Angeles when a Federal Judge placed an injunction on much of the Venice Beach ordinance 42.15.

There is still a remaining portion of the lawsuit for the Honorable Judge Dean D. Pregerson to rule on, since he only issued an injunction at this point.

Much of the remainder of the lawsuit (I think ALL of it) centers around the "Code of Conduct" portion of the Dowd/Dogg 1st Amendment lawsuit that includes Venice Beach -- AND challenges the "Code of Conduct" for 1st Amendment violations while Dowd/Dogg were protesting the Venice ordinance at the council meeting.

And although DOWD/DOGG could be wrong, we expect the judge may find that although the "Code of Conduct" may host constitutional legal muster -- as they applied the code to Zuma Dogg and Matt Dowd, our 1st Amendment rights were violated ("as applied.")

(You just have to trust us, that most likely, the city will lose, "as applied," because Dowd/Dogg have the advantage of hearing the questions the judge was asking, and it didn't sound good for the city in a summary judgment.)

SO THIS BRINGS US TO THE $52 million CRA item for Eli Broad's parking lot to go along with his museum.

Zuma Dogg was giving public comment, and was cut off and ejected for calling Greig Smith a, "jackass clown."

Maybe disrespectful, but not in violation of any type of code in this country.

So when this goes to summary judgment, and if/when the city LOSES on "Code of Conduct," Zuma Dogg will immediately file for a Brown Act violations on all the item you screwed me on -- and they will have to be reconsidered. (And deadlines will probably have passed on the city's window of opportunity on the CRA money.)

PLUS, I AM GOING TO FILE A "BROWN ACT" VIOLATION IN SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE $52 MILLION CRA/BROAD ITEM OVER SMITH & GARCETTI. (DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...CAN SIMPLY FILE A BROWN ACT COMPLAINT, ON ITS OWN.)

THE LONGER THE CITY WAITS, THE MORE STUFF I THINK OF...AND IT DOESN'T MAKE ME THINK I SHOULD BE LOWERING THE SETTLEMENT FIGURE, BUT RAISING IT.

PARTIAL ARGUMENT ON ZD'S BROWN ACT COMPLAINT ON $52 MILLION CRA/BROAD ITEM: While Mr. Dogg, who had the floor, was delivering public comment, Councilman Smith was shaking his head, "no" to Mr. Dogg (a form of "non-verbal" communication.) This caused a disruption to Mr. Dogg. Additionally, Mr. Smith made "funny, sourpuss" faces and was bouncing his shoulders around in an attempt to taunt, distract and disrupt Mr. Dogg.

Due to the position in the horseshoe in which Mr. Smith sits, in relation to the speaker's podium, Mr. Smith is within the view of speaker at all times, and any measure to try and avoid Mr. Smith's disruption (like closing your eyes) is not a reasonable measure a speaker should have to take during comments on complex and complicated items, while speaking on a two minute timer.

During the exchange, when Mr. Dogg commented on Mr. Smith's communication during his comment, Council President interrupted Mr. Dogg to warn, "control yourself and lower your volume."

"Control yourself" is too vague. Control what? Eye movements, hand gestures, nervous twitches, etc.? Not a narrow enough warning. And when Mr. Garcetti warned, "lower your volume," by what standard of measure. Certainly, other speakers rise to the level of volume Mr. Dogg, who go unwarned.

In response to the disruptions and distractions caused by the faces made by Mr. Smith; the loss of time at the end of the item; and for ejection from the meeting for merely saying, "jackass clown," which is protected under the 1st Amendment and is not in violation of the "Code of Conduct" as applied...

I think Garcetti shouldn't of risked a $52 million CRA item for Eli over the words, "jackass clown."

And now we will see what a judge has to say. This can be filed at the Superior level, or Zuma Dogg has Federal standing on this, as well.

HELLO, ELI!

AND...since I had a lot of time over the weekend, since I am still a gadfly; and since LAPD is still making ZD cranky on their selective enforcement -- THE NEXT VENICE BEACH LAWSUIT IS NOW READY TO BE FILED. (If the L.A. City Attorney's office would like to see it, give us a call and we will start reading it to you, or can show you a copy. INDIVIDUALS WILL BE NAMED!)

Follow by Email