Legendary L.A. City Clouncil, political gadfly, Zuma Dogg (http://ZumaDogg.com), returned to chambers, on Tuesday (08-20-13), to read, into the record and for council and The People to be fully aware, that on August 07, 2013, The Honorable Judge Dean Pregerson issued Summary Judgement on Zuma Dogg's "Code of Conduct," lawsuit (rules for the public during the council meetings/public comment.) Though the ruling applies to Zuma Dogg (the judge ruled that council ILLEGALLY applied their rules on Zuma Dogg); the ruling AFFECTS EVERYONE who speaks at the council meeting -- and EVERYONE who speaks at ANY public meeting -- ANYWHERE in the U.S.A. (Cause FEDERAL is UNITED STATES=precedent for ENTIRE COUNTRY, now.)
In the ruling, the Judge defines what is allowed/what council is expected to endure; so NOW they KNOW. (In case they actually thought they weren't violating the Constitution, all along; and weren't aware how F'D up it was, all along.)
HERE IS THE PASSAGE FROM THE RULING THAT ZUMA DOGG WILL CONTINUE TO READ, DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, by the Judge:
FEDERAL RULING (AUGUST 07, 2013) - Zuma Dogg vs Los Angeles City Council:"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 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.
SO, I'M SURE YOU SEE HOW/WHY THIS IS TRULY, "THE PEOPLES' VICTORY," and a RULING FOR ALL PEOPLE. It's important to know your rights, or you may have them denied, without knowing. It's not like City Council will be notifying the public of this ruling, or that passage, above. So, I will attend as many council meetings, for a long as I can, to read this to The People, to help make up for all the years, people were being denied/censored/limited/
Posts
