Tuesday, February 21, 2012
City Hall Police Tells Zuma Dogg - Announced in "Roll Call," City Hall IS GOING to REQUIRE ID, JUST TO ENTER CITY HALL, BEFORE YOU CAN ATTEND COUNCIL MEETING WITHOUT Having To Show ID: HOW DO YOU GET TO COUNCIL MEETING, THEN -- WITHOUT SHOWING ID, FIRST??? #DOH! #FEDERAL #LAWSUIT #ZUMADOGG
On February 17, 2012, Zuma Dogg went on-the-record, to notify council, that the City Hall police asked for my identification. I the officer that I did not want to show ID. [VIDEO]
The officer asked me where I was going. I said the council meeting. She insisted for the ID again. I again replied that I did not want to show ID to attend the meeting. She called another supervising officer to the desk, who again, asked me where I was going, then asked for ID.
I again, had to explain I did not want to show ID. Then he required me to utter the words, "Brown Act," before the other officer would hand me the pass.
The point is that no ID is required to attend the council meeting. Not that the person, showing up to give public comment or observe the meeting, has to be a legal expert and know the names of the laws. The laws are merely to be followed.
This was more than anyone should be expected to reasonably endure to be admitted to the council meeting. The request alone has a chilling effect.
February 21, 2012, I once again entered Los Angeles City Hall, went through the metal check, the walked to the lobby desk for a "visitor" pass, to attend the L.A. City council meeting.
The officer (a different officer) said, "Let me guess, no ID." I said, "right." She explained, "That's fine." (As in cutting a break/no biggie/slack was being given). Then added, but, the Brown Act applies to the council meeting. This is the lobby. We don't share information. And you are not required to show ID to enter the meeting.
When I said, "That means you have to show ID to enter the meeting," there was some more back and forth. HERE IS THE ENTIRE AUDIO OF THE CONVERSATION:
NOTE: I like this officer. She's cool. Gave ZD the "express treatment." BUT, the position she was presenting, made me cranky, overall...at TRUTANICH, not her.
I see TRUTANICH'S strategy: He says, "We DON'T require ID to attend the meeting. But, due to security issues, everyone must show ID (and the police write the name and address down on paper, as in a record book). And then, they may attend the meeting without showing ID. And since the City Hall lobby doesn't share the information with Council, it's allowed.
However, not requiring ID to attend the meeting, means you don't need to have an ID. BUT, if you need an ID to enter City Hall, that means you cannot enter the council meeting.
Additionally, the process has a chilling effect on anyone who would walk up to City Hall, see a line of people showing ID to the police, or if no line, getting to the lobby desk and having a police officer ask you for ID.
The City will argue that it is required for security, but if someone breaks the law in city hall, then a cop will detain the person -- AND THAT IS THE POINT IN WHICH YOU ASK FOR ID!
So I don't think City Hall's cute little arugment will stand legal muster, which NOW, it WILL be forced to stand.
The officer told me, it was annouced in "roll call," that they WERE going to start REQUIRING ID, with no "Brown Act" proclamations in the lobby, because Brown Act does not apply to the lobby.
This already has a chilling effect on Zuma Dogg, cause I don't wanna wake up early, leave my beach area, to head all the way to Skid Row adjacent, through gridlock traffic, only to find out, TODAY, is the day the city starts enforcing that ID is required. CAUSE I AIN'T GIVING CITY HALL THE INFO (LIKE MY ADDRESS) -- TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING!
HELLO, JUDGE PREGERSON!
BOTTOM LINE: There is no way to attend the L.A. City Council meeting without showing identification, FIRST.
UPCOMING ISSUE: ONCE you SHOW ID to City Hall, do they run info for outstanding bills, collections/any business they can give the collection agency that represents itself (illegally) as the city attorney's office? Does this collection agency add additional (illegal) penalty fees, on top? Isn't it ILLEGAL for an outside collection agency to represent itself on the phone as "The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office," when it is just someone in a cubicle at a collection agency. DO THEY NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION TO THE PERSON THEY CALL ON THE PHONE OR SEND A LETTER TO IN THE MAIL. IS THIS THE BIGGEST FRICKIN' 10,000 POUND ANVIL, that ZUMA DOGG JUST REMEMBERED HE HAD WAITING IN THE WINGS...and still needs ammo. [CITY HALL IS ALREADY FLIPPIN'!!!] #FBI, fo SHO!
Posted by Unknown at 10:09 PM