To: Matt Dowd (Please cc: L.A. City Attorney Office & L.A. City Council)
Fr: Zuma Dogg
Re: Venice Lawsuit/Summary Judgment
Dt: January 26, 2011
Matt (and other related parties):
Walsh said, "Tricky-Ricky Garcetti," and, "Alarcon is 'playing with himself'..."
Yet, Garcetti allowed him to remain seated for the rest of the meeting where he was allowed to continue to speak on other items. Even though, Garcetti considered his comments to be, "sexual" in nature -- and Mr. Walsh refused to quiet down, after NUMEROUS warnings.
LISTEN TO THE LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE (and interruption of the meeting) MR. WALSH CAUSED -- AND WAS STILL ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN CHAMBERS FOR THE REST OF HIS 1st AMENDMENT PROTECTED SPEECH. (MAKE SURE YOU LISTEN TO THIS AUDIO!)
AUDIO: John Walsh, Zuma Dogg & Eric Garcetti
(Link if embedded player does not appear.)
Zuma Dogg said, "...Greig Smith, jackass clown."
Garcetti immediately interrupted Zuma Dogg for making personal insults. (SORRY...we'll see what the judge has to say about the use of the term, "a historic jackass clown," especially as contrasted with Garcetti's application of "Code of Conduct" by comparison, just moments before.)
Garcetti can claim ZD was warned about personal insults...but not at this meeting...and how am I supposed to know what is illegal to Garcetti's ears? I though, "Jackass Clown," was a legal and censored way of saying, Fucking Asshole." So I think his definition may be too vague. Because I think any judge would remind Mr. Garcetti, that 1st Amendment -- AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT states that elected officials must endure coarse speech. And I'm sure any judge would say, "Jackass Clown" is not a violation of Code of Conduct, as applied -- and is not a violation of 1st Amendment, by any applied standard. GOOD LUCK, Mr. Defendant!
(FOR THE RECORD: Earlier during this public comment, Mr. Garcetti warned Mr. Dogg to "control yourself and lower your voice." That seems, "vague" -- control yourself? By what standard and measure. And they continue to have no standard to enforce for speaking volumes, while a speaker has the floor. BUT, Mr. Garcetti ejected me from the meeting, entirely, for "insults" -- when the previous warning was to, "control yourself." (VAGUE and nothing to do with the words, "Jackass Clown." That could have been whispered and still would have been considered an insult, since I wasn't ejected over volume.)
It should also be noted, that Mr. Dogg had a card in on the LA Housing Department Rent Escrow (REAP) item on the agenda. Mr. Dogg had already notified council of an FBI investigation or inquiry -- as Dogg was contacted by community members telling him they were meeting with the FBI.
Perhaps, Mr. Garcetti didn't care if Mr. Walsh remained for the rest of comments, because they were not going to be related to the REAP item -- and Mr. Walsh did not have the first hand information regarding the FBI inquiry (or investigation) -- and Mr. Garcetti most likely was using the"jackass clown" comment as a thin excuse to make sure Mr. Dogg did not have a chance to speak on the REAP item -- by ejecting him from the entire meeting, rather than issuing a warning -- and then simply taking the remainder of time my for the rest of my item, as he did with Mr. Walsh.
Seems like the "Code of Conduct" as applied today on Zuma Dogg may present some legal challenges for the City in Summary Judgment and in 9th Circuit (if necessary).
Donna Pearman addressed Mr. Garcetti very directly, speaking directly to him, with no warning from Garcetti or City Attorney about addressing council as a whole. The previous speaker, Theresa (from Boyle Heights) addressed Councilman Jose Huizar directly and spoke directly to him, with no warning from Mr. Garcetti or City Attorney.
And Zuma Dogg now announces that Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti will be named, personally, in a lawsuit to be filed by Mr. Dogg, for today's 1st Amendment violations as alleged by Mr. Dogg.
The presiding City Attorney, Dion O'Connell, questioned Mr. Garcetti's process in the total ejection of Mr. Dogg, shortly afterward.
Yesterday (1/25/11), Mr. Dogg announced that settlement talks were over -- and a date of February 28, 2011 is available and has been tentatively penciled in for the date of the Summary Judgment hearing, pending Mr. Dowd's submittable of the motion by this Monday. (And he is typing as we speak.)
Previously, Mr. Dogg has stated that he now wants to take it all the way for a complete ruling by the judge, because most of what is yet to be ruled on is the "Code of Conduct" portion of the lawsuit. (Most of the Venice Beach portion had an injunction placed on it -- and there is little for the judge to rule on, there. BUT THE CODE OF CONDUCT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED...AND IT IS STILL AN ISSUE, TO THIS DAY...)
I want this to be decided upon for the rest of time. It's an important 1st Amendment issue. And in these times of constituent outrage, when Council is and will be cracking down, more and more, ZD wants the judge to lay down the law -- so this stuff will not happen to others in the future.
SO I AM VERY FIRM ON GOING ALL THE WAY FOR A TOTAL RULING...
HOWEVER, there ARE other people involved -- and I have to be SOMEWHAT practical -- so I had an offer of $400,000 that I would have to be willing to accept -- to prevent moving to summary judgment.
AND I DON'T CARE IF THE CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY COUNCIL THINKS THAT IS TOO MUCH...THEN FINE...SUMMARY JUDGMENT...(You have a problem now, cause I WANT to go to summary judgment.)
But after today's incident at City Hall, the figure has been amended to $500,000. (The amount I would have to prudently accept on behalf of others who factor in to this decision and I would have to live with the defeat of not having "Code of Conduct" ruled by the judge.)
So again...EVEN if the City Attorney settles with ALL THE OTHER 11 plaintiffs to avoid summary judgment...because that's what this is all about...THE CITY WANTS TO AVOID SUMMARY JUDGMENT AT ALL COST..AND ZD WAS IN A HURRY TO GET PAID...BUT UNFORTUNATELY, NOW HE'S SO PISSED OFF -- AND TIME IS UP -- AND IT IS NO LONGER ABOUT FINANCIAL REASONING AT THIS POINT!
You forgot to evaluate who and the type of person you are dealing with. I walked away from a Times Square Radio & Record career because Billboard tried to "triple my work -- at the same pay." I said, "No." When they insisted, I got pissed...and QUIT!
THEN...they BEGGED ME TO STAY -- AND THEN they offered the money I asked for in the first place. BUT TOO BAD...I MOVED TO L.A.
AND, when I moved to L.A. -- You MUST remember...YOU ARE DEALING WITH A GUY WHO WAS WILLING TO SLEEP ON THE CEMENT SIDEWALK TO YELL AT YOU BASTARDS, EVERY DAY -- YOU PISSED ME OFF SO MUCH!!! (So what makes you think I won't wait a while longer to double, triple, quadruple the money to teach you the biggest lesson possible, since that's all you understand -- AND PILE A COMPLETE & TOTAL CONSTITUTIONAL VICTORY ON TOP?)
You waited too long...threw too much BULLSH*T roadblocks in the way; you appear to be doing NOTHING but trying to buy more time...AND YOU CONTINUE TO VIOLATE MY RIGHTS, BOTH ON VENICE BEACH -- AND IN CITY HALL.
I AM REALLY, REALLY SURPRISED that Garcetti threw me out for the entire meeting, so quickly, instead of just taking my time for the rest of the item -- give these FEDERAL CIRCUMSTANCES AT THIS POINT:
So my only recourse is to file a NEW lawsuit, focused ENTIRELY on "Code of Conduct" where I will not only argue in full, the problems with it -- that were not brought out and exposed and detailed by the losers in Norwalk who filed a suit against, "Code of Conduct." (THERE ARE HOLES, Y'ALL...AND ZUMA DOGG WILL BE TYPING IT ALL UP, RIGHT AFTER I FINISH THIS BLOG POST.)
AND THEN...there is the even EASIER to slam-dunk, "as applied" on Zuma Dogg. (They violated their own Code of Conduct with my ejections for the reasons they ejected me for, "as applied" to the Code of Conduct.)
SO GARCETTI NAMED, PERSONALLY, AS A DEFENDANT ON THIS ONE! (When you compare his enforcemtn of John Walsh, compared to Zuma Dogg...the city is lucky I didn't up it to $1.2 MILLION...I WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT...MATT DOWD NOW KNOWS -- YOU CANNOT TALK ME OUT OF THIS...except if I am forced to accept defeat by accepting $500,000 for the physical pain and suffering I was forced to endure while sleeping in a small car, and then the cement sidewalk, due to the economic and emotional duress, suffered. (In consideration of others involved. BUT UNDER $500,000 FORGET ANYONE INVOLVED!)