Wednesday, August 7, 2013

FEDERAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT! City of Los Angeles Found To Be In Violation of Zuma Dogg's Constitutional Rights During Public Comment At Council Meetings [Mr. Dogg May Now Seek Damages Against L.A. City in January 2014 Awards Trial]

REPORTERS/MEDIA: If you would like a .PDF of the entire ruling, on this Venice Beach boardwalk, and City Council public comment (free speech/1st Amendment/U.S. & California Constitutional lawsuit), email ZD@FinerBeats.com. 

UNITED STATES/AUGUST 07, 2013: Today, a FEDERAL JUDGE ruled in favor of Zuma Dogg on his "as-applied" challenge to the Los Angeles City Council "Rules of Decorum" under the United States Constitution and the California constitution. Zuma Dogg may seek damages at the January 2014 jury trial. 


The court declined to issue a preliminary injunction but finds that the provisions of the Rules of Decorum at issue here are constitutional -- only when there is an actual disruption beyond a per se breach of the Rules. (The "as applied," ruling means the judge agrees that Dogg was not being disruptive, yet banned, anyway. #SlipperySlope #CensorshipAtHandsofCouncil)


FEDERAL RULING (AUGUST 08, 2013): "The court finds the discussion of a councilman’s alleged criminal activities is relevant to a discussion of funding that the City intends to give to that councilman’s District. Indeed, this incident is exemplary of why it is unconstitutional to restrict speakers from making personal attacks in City Council meetings; it chills speech
41Case 2:09-cv-06731-DDP-SS:
1 critical of elected officials, which is speech at the heart of the First Amendment. In one of the largest cities in the world, it is to be expected that some inhabitants will sometimes use language that does not conform to conventions of civility and decorum, including offensive language and swear-words. As an elected official, a City Council member will be the subject of personal attacks in such language. It is asking much of City Council members, who have given themselves to public service, to tolerate profanities and personal attacks, but that is what is required by the First Amendment. While the City Council has a right to keep its meetings on topic and moving forward, it cannot sacrifice political speech to a formula of civility. Dogg “may be a gadfly to those with views contrary to [their] own, but First Amendment jurisprudence is clear that the way to oppose offensive speech is by more speech, not censorship, enforced silence or eviction from legitimately occupied public space.” Gathright v. City of 18 Portland, Or., 439 F.3d 573, 578 (9th Cir. 2006). The city that silences a critic will injure itself as much as it injures the critic, for the gadfly’s task is to stir into life the massive beast of the city, to “rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long.” (‪#‎PLATO‬, Five Dialogues, Hackett, 23 2d Ed., Trans. G.M.A. Grube, 35 (Apology).) 24 The court GRANTS summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the as-applied challenge to the Rules of Decorum. VICTORY=DOGG, LOSERS=L.A. CITY COUNCIL & THE PEOPLE OF L.A. WHO ARE PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS.


The People and Media of Los Angeles stood-down, and stayed silent, as the Voice of The People (Zuma Dogg) was SILENCED, ILLEGALLY, as he was exposing the fraud/waste/abuse/corruption, brought to him by those people. (IT'S CALLED BEING COWARDS! EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU.)

NOTE: The three YouTube videos, above (top of this blog) are the videos submitted to the judge, of which a portion was used, in his ruling, today, in favor of Mr. Dogg.

MESSAGE FROM ZUMA DOGG: "THE IMPACT/HOW THIS FEDERAL RULING AGAINST L.A. CITY COUNCIL, IN FAVOR OF ZUMA DOGG, AFFECTS Y-O-U! (And, they are gonna make a new tax for street repair.) I proposed a settlement, a couple years ago, which would have not only allowed me to mitigate my damages (I am now diagnosed medically disabled, by State of CA), which I believe to be caused by the years of civil rights violations, at Venice Beach (which was also part of this lawsuit, and the judge ALSO ruled in my favor, that the city should not have banned my amplifier from the boardwalk, which caused me to lose my income/I became homeless/and am now disabled.) The city said they needed more info, and spent a bottomless pit of general fund dollars on depositions/medical exams/my own attorney fees, which they pay -- and at the time, the only ruling I won, was the Venice Beach amp portion of the suit; as the "Code of Conduct" (Banning of Zuma Dogg during public comment, for 30 council meetings at a time), ruling, did not come out until, today. SO, those are MAJOR ADDED DAMAGES, that weren't a part of the settlement they rejected, as they spent a BOTTOMLESS PIT OF MONEY, that geometrically trumps the amount I was desperate to settle for. AND, now, the L.A. City Attorney Office, their MOST EXPENSIVE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, and my attorney -- CONTINUE to prepare for a January 2014 jury trial, where the JURY will decide how much L.A. City (A Municipal CORPORATION) will pay Mr. Dogg.) The amount of money spent on attorneys/trial preparation, FAR EXCEEDS what I proposed...and then, who KNOWS what a jury will award the political activist/gadfly, Zuma Dogg, who was exposing City Council corruption/fraud/waste/abuse -- as they banned me for 30 council meetings, at a time, multiple times. A nice way to censor the political opposition. PEOPLE DON'T SAY A THING. THEY JUST LET THE GENERAL FUND BLEED OVER THIS."



Follow by Email