RICHARD ALARCON PROVIDES TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DOWD/DOGG "DECORUM" FEDERAL LAWSUIT (AGAINST CITY COUNCIL) Way to go "HOT HEAD ALARCON! THANK YOU!)
THESE MOB PUPPETS IN A SUIT DON'T KNOW HOW TO SHUT THE FUCK UP!: Just sit there, let us speak, get it over with; then don't press the button, and let the machine auto-vote/approve the things your mob boss tells you to do!
DONT' get all all overly-emotional, and all caught up, as though it's not one big circus sideshow, as required by law. YOU ARE THERE TO APPROVE WHAT YOUR MOB BOSS TELLS YOU TO APPROVE...SO SHUT UP SO DOWD/DOGG CAN GET BACK TO THE BEACH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, WITHOUT YOUR DUMB, GRANDSTANDING TIME WASTING.
RICHARD ALARCON PROVIDES TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DOWD/DOGG "DECORUM" FEDERAL LAWSUIT: You may know DOWD/DOGG (Matt Dowd & Zuma Dogg) won a 1st Amendment lawsuit vs City of Los Angeles regarding Venice Beach boardwalk. And we are currently awaiting an October jury trial TO AWARD THE DAMAGES AMOUNT (for DOWD/DOGG and nine other Venice Beach performers, you haven't heard as much about, but are also on the lawsuit.)
HOWEVER, most of you probably DO NOT KNOW that "DECORUM" (City Council's "Code of Conduct" rules for public comment speakers at city council meetings) is YET to be ruled on by the judge.
That will be a summary judgement coming up, sometime before the October jury trial, to award the damages amount, by a jury.
The DOWD/DOGG FEDERAL lawsuit, of which the judge will rule upon, centers around the interruptions, cut offs, loss of time, ejections and bans (including VERY WRONG 30 day bans, of which DOWD/DOGG have at least three, each).
The judge will have two decisions to make:
a) Are council's rule of decorum valid, to being with. ("Facial" challenge)
b) IF it is found to be OK to enforce, is council applying it properly. (As applied" challenge)
So for example, the judge could say, "Yeah, I read the "Code of Conduct/Decorum" rules, and they're ok. It gives speakers enough freedom of expression, doesn't violate the Constitution. However, "as applied," I find council in violation of FEDERAL LAW!" [I personally believe, at THIS POINT, after THIS WEEK (and the past month, in general) council WILL lose on the facial challenge. And I am more confident that there have been OUTRAGEOUS violations "as applied." And DOWD/DOGG have videos of them all.
AND YESTERDAY, after L.A. City Councilman Paul Koretz, said he, "was very tempted to go over there and clock him," (a public comment speaker), INDICTED L.A. CITY CLOWNCILMAN RICHARD ALARcon, had to pop up to defend KORETZ, but it only provided DOWD/DOGG with the legal argument to be introduced, in court. And ALARCON can be subpoenaed to explain himself.
THESE MOB PUPPETS IN A SUIT DON'T KNOW HOW TO SHUT THE FUCK UP! Thank you to RICHARD ALARCLOWN, for providing Zuma Dogg & Matt Dowd with some legal defense strategy, in his "pop up like a pop tart," defense of his fellow former ASSemblyman PAUL, "I'm Very Tempted To CLOCK Him" KORETZ:
Councilman AlarCON's official interpretation, saying that KORETZ's "I'm very tempted to go over there and clock him,": was allowed, because the speaker (KORETZ) is, "entitled to his emotions under the civil liberties of this country."
Alarcon provided an official interpretation that saying "I'm very tempted to go over there and clock 'im," was permissible because the speaker is "entitled to his emotions under the civil liberties of this country."
What KOETZ said (on LIVE TV) constitutes an Assault. The Penal Code defines assault as an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. Pen. Code §240. " 'Generally speaking, an assault is a demonstration of an unlawful intent by one person to inflict immediate injury on the person of another then present.' A civil action for assault is based upon an invasion of the right of a person to live without being put in fear of personal harm." Lowry v. Standard Oil Co. of California(1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 1, 6-7 (internal citation omitted.). "The tort of assault is complete when the anticipation of harm occurs."Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for Southern California (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 232.
Whatever DOWD/DOGG (Matt Dowd & Zuma Dogg) have ever said at Council -- out of "emotion" even bordering on a threat of violence let alone the kinds of things you have actually said -- is protected "under the civil liberties of this country."
AND, there is viewpoint discriminationbecause a City Councilmember can say what he said but you are punished for what you said."
SO THAT'S JUST ONE LITTLE INCIDENT. DOWD/DOGG ARE GETTING TOO GOOD AT PICKING YOU APART. RUN THIS BLOG POST PAST YOUR HIGH-PRICED OUTSIDE COUNSEL (MEYERS-NAVE).