Brown Act Violations in City Council Chambers: On Friday, Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti made an autocratic decision, without the vote of Council, to ban Zuma Dogg from public comment for the next two meetings (Tuesday 6/16 & Wednesday 6/17) as he publicy accused Zuma Dogg on LIVE TV as broadcast throughout the city for "profane and slanderous" remarks. EXCUSE ME...FIRST OF ALL THAT IS A BESMIRCH TO MY GOOD REPUTATION, so we will deal with that later. But for now, I am sorry Eric, I know it is uncomfortable, but using the verb, "losers" (not and adjective) in discussion of a $7 billion dollar bankrupting blow to the city over pension money in risky and corrupt Wall Street and real estate schemes now being investigated by SEC and NY & CA Attorney General is not profane, and slander must be directed toward an individual, which my comment was not, since I was referring to an entire elected body as a whole; and it was a verb, not an adjective, and too bad anyway, you shady crybaby. No seriously, I know council would like the meeting to be a nice and polite Ritz-Carlton tea party...but this is a public forum and part of it is to express criticism and you have driven the city into bankruptcy protection talk on the agenda on Friday, and excuse us if things are a little too uncomfortable for you after you caused the outrage.
So show up on Tuesday I will, and I DO expect to be able to speak, because at the end of the day, the powers that be know the REAL laws, not the bullshit phony crap Zuma Dogg has been going along with because it's good enough...BUT NOW YOU HAVE BANNED ME...AND THAT'S A STEP FURTHER THAN EVER BEFORE...AND I CANNOT STAND FOR AN ILLEGAL BAN...THAT'S PUSHING THE FIRST AMENDMENT BACK TOO FAR. And if the city wants to push this, they will end up having to endure a lot more. Again, I play by their B.S. rules, but they better not interrupt me for speaking loud...when it is not yelling and not to disrupt the meeting. When the room is quiet and Councilmembers are not interrupting me with their smug comments after loising all the pension money, then I won't have to raise my voice above theirs. But it doesn't matter anyway, because they have no standard of measurement or enforcement. HOWEVER, when ZD DOES get worked up and it gets loud, I don't mind being reminded to lower my voice a bit...but not anything beyond a request that is not a warning that could be used against me. If someone is yelling when the CM is speaking, or does not stop talking when their time is done, or is yelling in a way to be problematic, that's one thing. But I am only talking loud in a way that projects. So I want to be mindful, but not cut off or threatened over it. But this is about being accused on LIVE TV of being "profane and slanderous." So I have to fight for my good name and try and recover my reputation however I can, even if that has to be in court.
Interrupting me for saying "lazy asses" is OUT, too...DION. CAPISHE. You are one un-necessary and Brown Act violating interruption away from becoming ZD's #1 issue. (And that issue won't be fighting for a raise for you. And you can save your dirty looks. THEY MAKE ME HAPPY! JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE THE GRIEF YOUR ASSOCIATES GIVE YOU. TELL THEM YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW FROM NOW ON. ZUMA DOGG HAS HAD ENOUGH INTERRUPTIONS FROM DUMB, INFERIOR LOGIC-LOSERS!
SEE Y'ALL ON TUESDAY!
HERE ARE VIDEOS FROM FRIDAY INCLUDING THE BAN:
1. Zuma Dogg BANNED for speaking at next two City Council meetings for calling Council "losers" (which they are for losing $7 BILLION in pension money).
3. Watch Eric Garcetti violate the Brown Act (CLICK LINK FOR VIDEO)
READER WEIGHS IN:
ZD,
I'm not a lawyer yet, but I wouldn't worry about a defamation claim (slander is spoken defamation). You're right that it generally applies to individuals, but an insult like 'loser' also wouldn't count as defamatory language--which would have to be something that could be construed as an expression of fact, and not a common insult. Matters of public concern are also subject to higher evidentiary standards in defamation cases because of the 1st amendment, so unless you were making false accusations with a reckless disregard for the truth, this shouldn't be an issue.
It sounds like you're well within your rights, so long as you're keeping things substantive.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:tbg53RrxhOgJ:cityclerk.lacity.org/cps/pdf/CouncilRules.pdf+los+angeles+city+counsel+meeting+rules&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Here are the rules of decorum in the city council rules. They need to warn you first, apparently, then remove you, and only then can they remove you by majority vote for up to thirty days.
As to 'profane' language, this may well be overly broad legal language and therefore unconstitutional. I wouldn't try to take this to court though.
MORE READER MAIL: ZD,
I don't agree with everything you say or do, but I would defend your right to have your say to my dying breath.
If the City Council doesn't like democracy, they have a choice; they can resign their $200k annual salaries and try to get a job elsewhere. Calling them 'losers' is fair comment, certainly not profane, and I think within the spirit of free speech.
I hope your attempt to contact the authorities will get a response, and that you get an apology from Garcetti - what he did is not appropriate.
READER WEIGHS IN:
ZD,
I'm not a lawyer yet, but I wouldn't worry about a defamation claim (slander is spoken defamation). You're right that it generally applies to individuals, but an insult like 'loser' also wouldn't count as defamatory language--which would have to be something that could be construed as an expression of fact, and not a common insult. Matters of public concern are also subject to higher evidentiary standards in defamation cases because of the 1st amendment, so unless you were making false accusations with a reckless disregard for the truth, this shouldn't be an issue.
It sounds like you're well within your rights, so long as you're keeping things substantive.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:tbg53RrxhOgJ:cityclerk.lacity.org/cps/pdf/CouncilRules.pdf+los+angeles+city+counsel+meeting+rules&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Here are the rules of decorum in the city council rules. They need to warn you first, apparently, then remove you, and only then can they remove you by majority vote for up to thirty days.
As to 'profane' language, this may well be overly broad legal language and therefore unconstitutional. I wouldn't try to take this to court though.
MORE READER MAIL: ZD,
I don't agree with everything you say or do, but I would defend your right to have your say to my dying breath.
If the City Council doesn't like democracy, they have a choice; they can resign their $200k annual salaries and try to get a job elsewhere. Calling them 'losers' is fair comment, certainly not profane, and I think within the spirit of free speech.
I hope your attempt to contact the authorities will get a response, and that you get an apology from Garcetti - what he did is not appropriate.
Medical Marijuana Dispenaries:
* LA Jemm/co-op listings (Issue double in size in three months time)
* Can't blanket no all hardships (See Wednesday: It looks like the legit reason hardships were incuded. THEY WERE FORCED TO MOVE. Saying "2 blocks from library" is not legal reason because you have no regulations in place. SORRY, TOM!)
* State to cut ENTIRE AIDS drug funding.
* May need MORE co-ops, not less as more AIDS patients will be forced to alternative meds, like Med Marijuana.
* Co-ops need training on how to be legally compliant.
* 2 of 3 co-ops FAILED ZD's random spot check this weekend. (GOTTA BE COMPLIANT IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT THE FIGHT, Y'ALL!
SLAP's slap in council's face over salaries may go to ballot: See post here.
BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION TALK: Was on the agenda on Friday in what is now the famous agenda item Garcetti finally couldn't take any more of. Click here for item. Discussion of item by council starts after ZD's public comment.
AND SINCE ZD ASKED SOMEONE FOR A DIME AT STARBUCKS TODAY, AND THEY ENDED UP RECOGNIZING ME AND GIVING ME $20, I'VE BEEN POSTING THE DARKER SPRINGSTEEN VIDEOS THIS WEEKEND THAT I END UP THINKING BACK TO AND RELATING TO (THE ZD PITY PARTY), BUT ON AN OPTIMISTIC NOTE, SINCE MY EFFORTS LED TO A $20 MIRACLE IN MY RANDOM SPOT CHECK TODAY AT STARBUCKS (ZD ASKS ONE PERSON IN THE CITY FOR A DIME, THEY RECOGNIZE ME AND WANT TO GIVE ME $20!!!);
So...On American Top 40, I'm Casey Kasem. We're up to the NUMBER ONE most infuential song in the day-to-day grind of local L.A. activist icon, Uncle MC Zuma Dogg, affectionately known as, "Big ZD from the 2-1-3."
Zuma Dogg says this song may have been popular in 1979, but should be the lead song on the soundtrack of the movie about his activism in 2009. A song to fire you up for Tuesday morning's city council meeting...here's Bruce Springsteen, and "Badlands", you gotta live 'em everyday. I'm Casey Kasem.
Posts
