Home > Uncategorized > Candlelight Vigil at County Courthouse Tonight (Sat 4/7) 9pm – 10pm

Candlelight Vigil at County Courthouse Tonight (Sat 4/7) 9pm – 10pm

From Dave Meserve: We are inviting you to defend the First Amendment, at an Arts Alive After-party and Candlelight Vigil, on Saturday, April 7, 2012, at the Humboldt County Courthouse, from 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM.

Whatever your feelings about Occupy Eureka, please understand the importance of defending our right to assemble and speak freely at our local seat of political power. We the people of Humboldt are the ones who must defend free speech from the oppressive new “Urgency Ordinance.”

Candles with safe, wax-catching bases will be provided. Bring your own “Self-Stabilized Sign,” or a flag, or a lawn chair if you wish to challenge the law.

Risk arrest (or not), but please be there to defend your rights.

[Note: The Board of Supervisors has declared presence at the courthouse grounds verboten after 9:30pm, due to an emergency. --HH]

The complete message from Dave Meserve follows:

Urgency Ordinance vs. The First Amendment

Defend the First Amendment at a candlelight vigil, from 9 to 10pm, on Saturday, April 7, after Arts Alive, at the Humboldt County Courthouse.

The ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors last week that restricts protest activities in front of the Courthouse is unconstitutional and wrong-headed.

Restricting freedom of speech and assembly at the seat of our local government is a threat to groups of all political persuasions that use the public forum to freely express their views.  These groups include social justice activists, Native Americans, peaceniks, Tea Partiers, Veterans for Peace, anti-abortion activists, pro-choice advocates, Occupiers, Humboldt CPR, Women in Black, gay, LGBT people, supporters of victims of domestic violence, unions, Take Back the Night, health workers, conservation groups, and many others.  Over the years, demonstrators have hung signs on railings or the flagpole base, set up tables, canopies, bulletin boards, stages with PA systems, free-standing displays, signs and flags on bases.

Now, in an over-reaction to the Occupiers, these First Amendment protected activities have been outlawed, and a 9:30pm to 6:00am curfew has been imposed on the courthouse grounds.

Since the Occupy Movement began, there have certainly been some serious problems, mostly caused by non-politically motivated victims of a broken system, who have joined the occupation but do not necessarily participate in Occupy’s decision-making process or rules.  In the Legislative Findings section of the new ordinance these problems are enumerated: “…These incidents include numerous complaints of public urination and defecation, threatening and abusive language, sexual harassment, and smoking of marijuana… calls for service involving assaults and public drunkenness.”  Also mentioned are littering and improper disposal of waste and damaging public property.

Hmm…going down this list of incidents, aren’t all of these activities already illegal?  And how will restricting signs and banners and tables and hours of legal protest prevent the listed crimes?

Also mentioned in the Findings is that the Occupiers are somehow preventing other groups from using the public space at the Courthouse.  Occupiers have never opposed the right of other groups to demonstrate.  The only constraint on additional protests has been the chain link fence that severely limits the amount of available public space and creates a bottleneck at the courthouse steps.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors have become unwitting participants in “Reactionary Lawmaking.”  In reaction to the local Occupy Movement, they have enacted a law that restricts the First Amendment rights of everyone who might want to take up a cause in the public commons.  This is how our right to free speech is whittled away by well-intentioned officials.

Further, the Board has passed this as a so-called “Urgency Ordinance,” thereby limiting public discussion and comment on a very serious infringement of our rights.

The real solutions to the problems at the Courthouse do not involve further restriction of rights:
Take the fence down.
Allow demonstrators to place and pay for a porta-potty, near the courthouse, as they have offered to do.
Arrest and prosecute anyone who verbally or physically assaults anyone else.
Enforce all other existing laws that guarantee the safety of the public.
Provide an emergency camping facility somewhere near the downtown, for anyone who needs a place to sleep and cannot afford it.

Reactionary laws, responding to the challenges posed by the Occupy Movement, are being passed in cities across the country.  They are “abridging the freedom of speech… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  While reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner of First Amendment activities are legally permitted, laws like the Humboldt Urgency Ordinance go way too far in restricting public protest.  Vibrant, unfettered public expression is essential to a working democracy.  We must actively defend our freedoms, or they will be eroded by a myriad of new laws and regulations.

We are inviting you to defend the First Amendment, at an Arts Alive After-party and Candlelight Vigil, on Saturday, April 7, 2012, at the Humboldt County Courthouse, from 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM.

Whatever your feelings about Occupy Eureka, please understand the importance of defending our right to assemble and speak freely at our local seat of political power. We the people of Humboldt are the ones who must defend free speech from the oppressive new “Urgency Ordinance.”

Candles with safe, wax-catching bases will be provided. Bring your own “Self-Stabilized Sign,” or a flag, or a lawn chair if you wish to challenge the law.

Risk arrest (or not), but please be there to defend your rights.

–Dave Meserve

  1. What Now
    April 6, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Good luck with THAT.
    That whole vigil has turned into a pathetic circus.

  2. Mitch
    April 6, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    You don’t have to support Occupy Eureka or even share its goals to realize that it is important to defend first amendment rights.

    A woman was arrested a few days ago for bothering no one while putting a sign up on the fence that keeps people off the courthouse lawn. That lawn is a traditional site for protest in the county, and the fence is now as close as anyone can get to it.

    The lawn and its new keep-out fence are in front of the main building for county government, on the most traveled road in the county. It’s the most sensible place for protest, especially protest of government. That someone can be arrested for putting a sign on that fence so that it is visible to traffic is not acceptable. That has nothing to do with Occupy Eureka.

    The new urgency ordinance is an extraordinary overreach by a government.

  3. High Finance
    April 6, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Dave Meserve sure likes to keep his name in the news doesn’t he ?

    Any excuse will do.

    [Several emails from several different people showed up within a half hour of one another. Dave's came in first. --HH]

  4. What Now
    April 6, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    MItch, I’m well aware of the issues at stake but it’s counter productive to have self-appointed “guardians of civil rights” blocking handicap access curbs (Mr Noonan was quite insistent that he had that right when i challenged him) or Verbenna and others screaming at every outrage, real AND perceived and offering NO substantive understanding of the issues they raise.
    Bless you for fighting the good fight, Mitch but THAT gathering has deteriorated into it’s own worst enemy.

  5. Mitch
    April 6, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    If you are saying that Jack Nounan (sp?) was blocking a curb cut and refusing to move when asked, I find it hard to believe there isn’t more to that story.

    Anyone blocking a curb cut or a handicapped parking spot and refusing to move is causing a public nuisance and the Sheriff should intervene if called, just as the Sheriff should intervene if called about a mentally ill person disturbing the peace, or someone defecating in public. None of that has anything to do with the first amendment issues here.

  6. RefFan
    April 6, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Please don’t go down there! This protest has over stepped its boundries and is now trying to over step the law. If you ppl did not turn the front of the courthouse into a campground, things wouldn’t have gotten so bad. Dave, a porta potty is socially unacceptable in front of the courthouse. Get a grip on reality and step back a few to rethink the direction of occupy eka, for pete sake. YOU WILL LOSE

  7. What Now
    April 6, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Mitch, believe whatever you want, I have no quarrel with the OWS movement, but that charade at the courthouse has not only caused many who were “undecided” to back away, it’s caused many who are in favor of the OWS aims and goals to seek effective organizing in other venues.
    At the same time Jack was blocking the curb and arguing with someone who was pointing that issue out to him, he was telling an OWS critic to stick around and offer suggestions on how to make OWS more inclusive.
    At THAT point, I packed up and left.
    I’m done.
    Enjoy your charade, Mitch.
    I’m sincerely sorry the vigil self-destructed.

  8. Mitch
    April 6, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    What Now,

    It’s not my charade — I’ve been there a grand total of one hour and I agree that it’s been quite counterproductive in terms of obtaining local support for the goals of OWS. (Not casting blame here, just acknowledging reality.)

    I’m just surprised to hear someone suggest that Jack Nounan is a “troublemaker” or anything other than courteous. It doesn’t fit with what I’ve seen. That’s why I suspect there might be more to the story.

  9. walt
    April 6, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    “YOU WILL LOSE”
    Resistance. . .is. . .futile. . .

  10. Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    You nay-sayers are real class acts. The people who are being protested are now dictating strict conditions of vocal contempt over their very corruption, under penalty of violent force. One would think you people would be happy homeless are actually trying to convene only on the grounds of government buildings. One would think you intelligent people would be the first to point out those who protest but are of your own occupation, appearance, income, lifestyle and demeanor. Amerikkka, U$A, future home of two-minute hate zones. (reference for literature savvy thinkers).

  11. Amy Breighton
    April 6, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    The ONLY restrictions on our Constitutional right to protest are when protest activities interfere with others legal activities.

    The desire of anyone preferring not to look at this nation’s victims can simply do what nearly all media in the U.S. does.

    Avert your eyes.

  12. Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    I’m all for sticking up for my personal freedoms. Nothing in the ordinance makes me feel like my frights have been infringed upon. I won’t be attending. I’m a little scared about what type of alarmist whackos would be there.

  13. Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    “I’m a little scared about what type of alarmist whackos would be there.”

    Don’t be scared, you are simply ignorant.

  14. Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    I haven’t been to OE for awhile but early on the occupiers were people in either early 20’s or nearly seniors. I hope a lot of the 30-40 year old parents will come out. They need to work to preserve whatever freedoms we have left for their children. Little league sports, dance classes, art classes are great but you need to take the time to work for a better society as well. Here’s one person who’s not an “alarmist whacko” who’ll be there.

  15. HUUFC
    April 6, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    I think I’ll be washing my hair then, sorry, wont be able to make it.

  16. Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    Don’t be scared, you are simply ignorant.

    Unlike you, I read the ordinance. For your not understanding the ordinance and crying wolf in lieu of seeking to understand, well, I’m embarrassed for you.

  17. 713
    April 6, 2012 at 6:42 pm
  18. Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    Hate to admit it but HiFi is right. Merserve is an far left idiot

  19. Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    “a” far left idiot. Not “an”. Dave is no idiot, and he is nice, but he is certainly too far left for me.

    I have no interest in this event, and am tired of those who are using the courthouse for their podium when they have little to say.

  20. April 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    …and am tired of those who are using the courthouse for their podium when they have little to say..

    Great point!

  21. Amy Breighton
    April 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    “Nothing in the ordinance makes me feel like my rights have been infringed upon.”

    Damn! If only the Founding Fathers could have consulted you first, there could have been curfews attached to our rights.

  22. 713
    April 6, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Do you interpret the second the way way you do the first?

  23. Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Fred, do you receive government assistance?

  24. 69er
    April 6, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    I’ll be happy to read and/or the names of those cited and/or arrested for breaking the law. Se you on the news Dave and Mitch, if you have the balls to go there.

  25. 69er
    April 6, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Should be “and/or hear the names…..

  26. Amy Breighton
    April 7, 2012 at 12:35 am

    “Do you interpret the Second Amendment the way you do the first?”

    Fascinating point.

    No guns on city streets 9:PM to 6:AM!

    It might have saved that 16 year old kid in Sanford, Florida from an armed “Neighborhood Watch” idiot.

    I’m not rich, but I have a few friends who can come up with $5,000 to pay a KIEM TV-news reporter to please interview Virginia Bass and the others to explain how abridging the U.S. Constitution for some courthouse funk-shua is more important than potentially saving lives with a gun curfew.

    Or, since there’s no Constitutional right to drive a car, we could save hundreds of lives and injuries with a traffic curfew on Broadway daily from 4 to 6PM.

    Now there’s an EMERGENCY!

  27. 69er
    April 7, 2012 at 1:39 am

    Amy Breighton says:

    “No guns on city streets 9:PM to 6:AM!

    It might have saved that 16 year old kid in Sanford, Florida from an armed “Neighborhood Watch” idiot.”

    Have you kept up on the latest on that 16 year old punk???

  28. 713
    April 7, 2012 at 5:04 am

    At some point your right to bear arms, or free speech, or whatever ends. Usually it is as soon as you interfere with somebody else’s. You guys miss that somehow. You still have the right to assemble at the courthouse. Just not all the time. Does occupy have a permit?

  29. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 6:59 am

    713,

    “You guys miss that somehow”

    With respect, I think it is you that are missing the point. All Humboldt County needed to do to maintain decent conditions at the courthouse is enforce existing laws against public nuisance. As you say, you have a right to protest, not a right to break valid laws against public nuisance, disorderly conduct, etc…

    Nobody had a right to camp out on a downtown office building lawn — not before the ordinance and not after.

    Nobody had a right to defecate in public — not before the ordinance or after.

    Nobody had a right to block public access to the courthouse, or to cause a typical person to feel endangered — not before the ordinance or after.

    The County could not or would not enforce the common sense laws, instead blaming Occupy Eureka for every incident of nuisance behavior. The County’s refusal is documented in email from the Sheriff to the District Attorney. The County chose to blame the problems Occupy Eureka attracted on that group, rather than on the existence of large numbers of homeless people and mentally ill people formerly wandering the downtown streets. By coming to the courthouse, they found a location where there would be witnesses to their treatment by law enforcement, and where they would be less invisible.

    Instead, the County chose to pass, prior to a sensible public discussion period, a law that imposes restriction on protest. You might not mind that being enforced against Occupy Eureka and those who have attached themselves to it, but it is not only against Occupy Eureka that the law will exist.

    Protesters who would have been able to present their concerns on the courthouse lawn have now been forced onto the sidewalk, where any law enforcement organization can tell them they are blocking people’s paths, and arrest them at will. A woman has been arrested for posting a banner on the fence that blocks people’s access to the lawn. The banner might be disagreeable to some (it had an American flag and the words “Freedom of Speech?”), but if the woman wanted it to be visible to passing traffic on 101N while not interfering with anyone, she chose the exact correct location.

    Protest is fundamental to American democracy. The courts have held that government buildings are among the most valid places to protest, and that place restrictions are least credible when against protest at government buildings. The courts have ruled that restrictions against protest must not be overbroad. Here we have a ban from the traditional location of protest in the county, so broad that it restricts anyone from pushing a picket sign’s post into the ground or providing a card table for leaflets or a lawn chair for an elderly person.

    This is a county whose government is incompetent and incapable of exercising common sense. It thinks the way you deal with young women interfering with a Congressional office is to swab their eyelids with pepper spray, and it thinks it can smash a group rather than work with it. You’ll notice that the other local “occupies” just seem to have drizzled out on their own. Occupy Eureka has been energized by the county government’s stupidity. This Board of Supervisors has disgraced itself.

    I agree there’s been a problem at the courthouse. In fact, I think there are two. There’s a problem of many homeless and mentally ill people congregating outside it, but there’s a far bigger problem whose offices are inside of it.

  30. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 7:08 am

    Apparently not, 69er. Why don’t you fill us in?

  31. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 7:15 am

    Here’s a suggestion that will fund a homeless shelter for Eureka, and mental health services. Lay off 10 top managers at DHHS and use the resulting savings to buy and renovate the Downtowner or some crony-owned property. Then reassign 10 of the remaining managers to cook and patrol the building.

    The county pretends it treats the vulnerable well, but shoving money at DHHS’ management payroll is not solving the problem, it is ensuring that the problem is not addressed.

  32. High Finance
    April 7, 2012 at 8:03 am

    They could open a homeless shelter that would serve 100 people and soon 200 new people would come to the county.

    If they were ever stupid enough to open a homeless campground the problems at the front of the Courthouse would pale in comparison to the insane problems that would grow at the campground. If the campground could fit 500 people we would have 1,000 people camping there and it would attract 2,000 more people to our county.

  33. Just Watchin
    April 7, 2012 at 8:32 am

    I’ll fill you in Plain Jane……the “kid” in Sanford was not the little 12 year old depicted in the pictures the media ran with. He was nearly 18 years old, 6’2″ and between 170 and 180 lbs. George Zimmerman is 5’9″.
    The “kid” had been suspended 3 times in the last three months for such innocent things as posession of burgularly tools and stolen property, and posession of weed. He was a known small time dealer in his school. Most recently he had “swung on” a school bus driver. He was only visiting Sanford because he was on suspension.
    His Twitter posts, available on line, paint an interesting picture as well. Hi account name was “No_Limit_Ni**a”.
    The media did everything they could to turn this into a race issue until the truth began to come out. When it was discovered that Zimmerman was not white( he’s mixed race), they began to refer to him as “white hispanic”. NBC has fired the person responsible for doctoring the 911 tape.
    It was a terrible turn of events, but the “kid” was a wannabe thug, and it caught up with him early.

  34. April 7, 2012 at 8:36 am

    A “wannabe” thug, you say, who was not committing a crime when he was murdered. Zimmerman appears to be an actual thug given this unnecessary shooting and his past arrest record.

  35. 713
    April 7, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Mitch,
    I do appreciate your position on this but I do not believe anybody’s rights have been violated. If I want to go down there right now I can hold up a sign that says “fuck the county”, can I not? I can bring 100 of my closest friends, right?

    Regardless of that, it is totally ineffective. What do you think has been accomplished thus far the the Occupy Eureka? Have they moved the dialogue forward?

    Total waste of time and time resources.

  36. Just Watchin
    April 7, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Heraldo…… not committing a crime? Assault is a crime. Zimmerman was returning to his truck when approached from behind and punched in the face. He was taken to the ground and had his head pounded into the pavement before Zimmerman fired. Self defense is not murder.
    Even Rev. Al Sharpton seems to have toned down his rhetoric. I think Tawana Brawley might have called and reminded him that the truth is sometimes slow to come out.

  37. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 9:20 am

    1. Assuming the jewelry was stolen is without foundation since it was never been reported as stolen and he wasn’t charged with a crime.
    2. A screwdriver is only a burglary tool if it is being used to commit a burglary. Carrying one in your backpack is not evidence that it has ever been used or planned for use in a burglary. I carry a screwdriver but have never used one to commit any sort of crime.
    3. Zimmerman didn’t even know his name so he couldn’t have known anything about him to cause suspicion. His suspicion was due to Martin being black.
    4. Zimmerman lied about screaming for help. Several experts have said it is definitely not Zimmerman screaming on the tapes. They don’t have an audio of Martin to check but since there were only 2 involved in the altercation and Zimmerman has been ruled out, we have to assume it was Martin screaming for help.
    5. Zimmerman has been arrested twice for violence, once against the police and once domestic which were settled by his entry into an alcohol treatment program.
    6. Martin’s cell phone conversation with his girlfriend at the time he was attacked throws Zimmerman’s entire claim out the window. He accosted and murdered an innocent boy who was talking on the phone with his girlfriend about being followed by a stranger. He didn’t initiate the encounter and (by Zimmerman’s own claim to the police dispatcher) was running away.

  38. High Finance
    April 7, 2012 at 9:24 am

    “not committing a crime”?

    According to witnesses, Trayon was on top of Zimmerman pummeling him.

    What is interesting about all this was the number of people wanting to lynch Zimmerman before they ever got half the facts about the incident. Yet Zimmerman is a Democrat, a hispanic and voted for Obama in the last election.

    Since the shooting somewhere around 6-900 other people have been killed across the country and nobody seems to care about them. Obama hasn’t stuck his nose in any of the other killings. Race hustlers like Sharpton & Jesse Jackson haven’t released any comments about those other killings.

  39. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 9:29 am

    Being a Democrat and voting for Obama is relevant exactly HOW? And how in the hell would you know who Zimmerman voted for? Does Florida keep track of secret ballots some how?

    According to witnesses and Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman yelling for help but we know that was a lie. Why would you believe anything from people who have been proven to have lied to the police?

    The cell phone conversation with his girlfriend is evidence that Martin was attacked, not the other way around.

  40. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Poor HiFi can’t understand the outrage over a vigilante killing of an unarmed kid and the authorities just letting him go. Murders happen, but in most cases when the perp is known they are charged, tried and usually convicted, especially if they are black.

  41. 69er
    April 7, 2012 at 10:11 am

    I never inferred that Zimmerman was a saint, was only speaking of the now known facts about Martin. Tood riddance and I hope zimmerman gets his too.

  42. High Finance
    April 7, 2012 at 10:24 am

    PJ is a perfect example of unthinking people’s rush to judgement.

    Then, when confronted with new facts, digs in and refuses to even consider backing off much less changing her mind.

  43. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 10:39 am

    Which relevant facts have come to light? That Martin wasn’t an angelic choir boy? What did Zimmerman know about Martin that could justify killing him? Zimmerman saw a black male stranger walking in the rain and this caused him to be so suspicious as to call 911. Martin was returning to his father’s house, unarmed, who noticed he was being followed, “walked fast” away (his words to his girlfriend) or “took off running,” (Zimmerman’s words to 911 dispatch) and Martin’s call to his girlfriend abruptly ended when the altercation occurred. It’s clear to anyone without bias who instigated the altercation. Even if Martin was a gangster felon out on parole, Zimmerman (who couldn’t possibly know anything about a stranger walking down the street) wouldn’t have the right to stalk or accost him, much less shoot him dead.

    The outrage isn’t just because an innocent was killed by a wannabee cop vigilante. It’s mostly about the behavior of the authorities after the fact AND it’s because of people like you and fckface (69er) who try to justify an unjustifiable murder. Most of us don’t want to live in a new wild west where everyone’s packing and people aren’t prosecuted for murder.

  44. Anonymous
    April 7, 2012 at 10:43 am

    Remember that last year it was PJ said that it did not matter what the facts were regarding the AZ congresswoman’s shooting, that it was the fault of conservatives, even though the shooter was a lunatic who happened to not be a conservative.

  45. Just Watchin
    April 7, 2012 at 10:43 am

    There are several witnesses interviewed by the police that were screaming from their nearby windows during the altercation, and that information hasn’t been released. There is a lot to still come out, but public figures, such as congressman, coming out and saying that he was “hunted down like a dog”, have one singular purpose…….to inflame racial rage. And I still haven’t seen Tawana Brawley check in with her insight.

    Anf HF…..I’d be careful stirrin up Plain Jane. Sounds like she’s packin a screwdriver in her purse!

  46. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 10:44 am

    And, of course, there is Zimmerman’s and his witnesses’ lies about who was screaming for help. You and Fckface don’t want to talk about that?

  47. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 10:46 am

    The screwdriver I carry could put out your eye or pick a lock, but it’s intended to tighten eyeglass screws.

  48. Just Watchin
    April 7, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Anyone remember the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Another fine Al Sharpton moment !

  49. Just Watchin
    April 7, 2012 at 10:49 am

    The one in Martin’s backpack was 14 inches long. I wonder who’s glasses he was fixing.

  50. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 10:51 am

    This isn’t about Al Sharpton or Obama or Jackson or any other politician or crimes. It’s about an unarmed boy being murdered by a vigilante and the cops doing nothing about it. That it was a black boy killed by a man who targeted him because he was black and walking is where the racial aspect enters the picture, which we know was a factor before the altercation and shooting from Zimmerman’s statement to police dispatch. And the “punk” was getting away….

  51. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 10:57 am

    It may have been a weapon, JW. Maybe he was planning on burgling someone, maybe he was going to tighten some big screws for his granny after school. I don’t know and neither do you. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that he wasn’t carrying a 14″ screwdriver when he was killed and Zimmerman knew nothing about him, the screwdriver, the school suspensions, the theft suspicions. In fact, Zimmerman knew nothing at all other than he was a black man walking in his neighborhood and people like you and Fckface who think that is justification for shooting are why I’m glad California doesn’t (and never will) have “stand your ground” laws to legalize murder.

  52. HUUFC
    April 7, 2012 at 11:01 am

    All of you that know the fact of the case please move to Florida and present your evidence to the special prosecuter. Stay there to testify at the trial. If it’s anything like California you should be gone for a few years.

    Let it go and let Florida do it’s job. Jeeezze.

  53. Just Watchin
    April 7, 2012 at 11:14 am

    I live in Orlando……

  54. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Don’t lose track of the FACT that without all the outrage there wouldn’t be an investigation, a special prosecutor or trial, HUUFC.

  55. Just Watchin
    April 7, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Sorry PJ, but there’s not going to be a trial, or an arrest for that matter. Self defense was around long before “stand your ground” laws. You may not want to accept it, but at the instant the shot was fired, Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him.

  56. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Wanna bet, JW?

  57. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    When you attack someone who fights back, shooting them if they start to win is not self defense.

  58. High Finance
    April 7, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    PJ I thought I was over being amazed by you, but your closed mind surprises even me !

  59. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    LOL HiFi. I’m not the one ignoring the fact that Zimmerman and his “witnesses” lied to the police about who was screaming for help. I’m not the one cheering the murder of an innocent kid like Fckface or pretending that the authorities were going to investigate this murder absent the nationwide outrage. You are so closed minded and biased that you can’t even muster a little compassion for the family of this kid who was stalked, attacked and killed for no reason other than he was black and walking in a gated community. Blaming the victim is about as closed minded as it’s possible to be.

  60. 713
    April 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    PJ you really should read from some other sources. “stalked attacked and killed for no other reason than he was black”.

    This is quite a stretch. I don’t know who is right or wrong, but that statement is not supported by anything I have read. The zimmerman guy was taken into custody, there was an investigation and it was determined they did not hav the evidence to prosecute for murder or manslaughter. They also gave him a voice stress test, so apparently they don’t think he was lying.

    Who knows? Certainly not you or I.

    it is alarming the media doctored up the 911 audio tape.

  61. High Finance
    April 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    “Two experts”, unnamed made the claim it wasn’t Zimmerman screaming.

    But who are those experts ? What is their expertise ? What are their biases ?

    You are so bitter & twisted you’re not even listening to what I am saying. I don’t know all the facts yet & I am reserving judgement until they come out. You however have already arrested, tried, condemned and executed Zimmerman in your mind.

    What a tool.

  62. Smart 5th Grader
    April 7, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Florida huh? Land of free and fair elections and other strange oddities.

    Just Watchin says: April 7, 2012 at 11:14 am
    ¨I live in Orlando……¨

    Wackos – Jacksonville, Florida

    https://www.tuscl.net/stripclub.php?DID=3390

    Details of Wackos, a Strip Club in Jacksonville, Florida.

  63. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Here’s what seems to me to be a really good summation of the Trayvon Martin situation:

    http://www.freep.com/article/20120407/NEWS07/120407020/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-news

    How anyone reacts to this case is going to be based on their previous experience and beliefs. My own opinion is almost certainly more aligned with PJ’s than with 713’s, but I agree with 713 that NBC’s doctored tape is alarming.

    I don’t think for a moment that people of color get equal justice in this country, and I never cease to be amazed at the victimization so many whites seem to feel at the slightest move towards equality.

    But wasn’t this thread about Humboldt County and tonight’s vigil?

  64. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    The first time I heard the 911 tapes wasn’t on MSNBC and included the dispatcher’s question, but that is really just a distraction. Zimmerman did, in fact, think this was a black man walking in his neighborhood and that was the reason he was suspicious enough to call 911. He was following the Martin and accosted him while he was talking to his girlfriend. While it is quite possible that Martin struck him, knocked him down, whatever, at that point, Zimmerman was undeniably the aggressor in this encounter. You can’t pick a fight with someone, shoot them and then claim self defense and it’s crazy to try to justify it by smearing a boy who was murdered.

  65. Amy Breighton
    April 7, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    “You are so bitter & twisted you’re not even listening to what I am saying.” (High Finance”).

    For the umpteenth time, “Highly-Twisted, Bitter, and Challenged” reminds us that he must always SOUND OUT his words when he types and reads.

    Another hilarious credit to Reich-Wingers everywhere!

    “You still have the right to assemble at the courthouse. Just not all the time”.

    Repeating this lie doesn’t change the reality that the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Constitutional right of citizens to protest without arbitrary curfews.

    713 must be confusing some commie-manifesto with the U.S. Constitution. Abridging American’s Constitutional right to protest is only legal if the protests interfere with others legal activities.

    I’ve had zero problem accessing sidewalks or the courthouse for routine business.

    Good luck getting a police-response anywhere else for the “violations” filed against OE, violations that are common throughout this city.

  66. 713
    April 7, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Mitch,
    Zimmerman is Hispanic, these are two people of color.

    PJ – that is one version, the other was that Zimmerman quit following him and was attacked. He followed him because he is the neighborhood watch captain and thought it was odd he was wandering around in the rain “looking about”, at least that is what he said on the phone call before the shooting.

    We don’t know.

    I admit when I first heard this I thought he was some racist or nazi vigilante. Then when I heard the 911 tape was doctored I got curious and read a bunch of different stories, discovered he was hispanic, and also the picture of Martin you see is quite outdated. When I first saw the story it looked like this zimmerman character shot a little kid, based on the pictures.

    Alarming.

  67. 713
    April 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Amy,
    You are saying you are not allowed to protest at the courthouse?

  68. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    713,

    Substitute “black” for people of color. Better?

  69. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    You should be aware, 713, that being brown is not an inoculation against racism. There is a lot of racism in Latin America based on how dark your skin is and purely European ancestry is favored.

  70. 713
    April 7, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Yes pj, I know that. I was referencing the fact that he was first reported as white. Now he is white-Hispanic. I have never heard that before, despite hanging out with people of many races.

    More a comment on the media than anything else. I don’t see evidence it was racially motivated. One of the articles I read said Zimmerman has some African American friends and relatives, so that makes me skeptical.

    OK Mitch, agreed. Do you think the media tried to railroad zimmerman because he was Hispanic?

  71. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    713,

    There’s a pecking order. Hispanics are only railroaded by the media in conflicts with pure lily-white Europeans; in conflicts with blacks, they are deemed honorary whites, as long as they don’t speak.

    Ever hear Tom Lehrer’s “National Brotherhood Week”?

  72. Fact Checker
    April 7, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Syllabus

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    ——————————————————————————–

    379 U.S. 559

    Cox v. Louisiana
    APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

    ——————————————————————————–

    No. 49 Argued: October 21-22, 1964 — Decided: January 18, 1965

    ——————————————————————————–

    Appellant was convicted of violating a Louisiana statute prohibiting picketing “near” a courthouse with the intent to obstruct justice, the charge being based on the facts set forth in No. 24, ante at 536, and the conviction was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

    Held:

    1. The statute is narrowly drawn, furthers the State’s legitimate interest of protecting its judicial system from pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create, is a valid regulation of conduct, as distinguished from pure speech, and does not infringe rights of free speech and assembly. Pp. 562-564.

    2. Even assuming the applicability of a “clear and present danger” test, there is no constitutional objection to applying the statute to conduct of the sort engaged in by the demonstrators. Pp. 565-566.

    3. The evidence of intent to obstruct justice or influence any judicial official required by the statute was constitutionally sufficient. Pp. 566-567.

    4. Appellant was, in effect, advised by the city’s highest police officials that a demonstration at the place where it was held was not “near” the courthouse, and to permit him to be convicted for exercising the privilege they told him was available would be to allow a type of entrapment violative of the Due Process Clause. Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, followed. Pp. 569-571.

    5. The dispersal order did not limit the time or place of the demonstration and remove the protection accorded appellant by the original grant of permission, but was based on the officials’ erroneous conclusion that appellant’s remarks constituted a breach of the peace. Pp. 572-573.

  73. Fact Checker
    April 7, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Syllabus

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    ——————————————————————————–

    372 U.S. 229

    Edwards v. South Carolina
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

    ——————————————————————————–

    No. 86 Argued: December 13, 1962 — Decided: February 25, 1963

    ——————————————————————————–

    Feeling aggrieved by laws of South Carolina which allegedly “prohibited Negro privileges,” petitioners, 187 Negro high school and college students, peacefully assembled at the site of the State Government and there peacefully expressed their grievances “to the citizens of South Carolina, along with the Legislative Bodies of South Carolina.” When told by police officials that they must disperse within 15 minutes on pain of arrest, they failed to do so, and sang patriotic and religious songs after one of their leaders had delivered a “religious harangue.” There was no violence or threat of violence on their part or on the part of any member of the crowd watching them, but petitioners were arrested and convicted of the common law crime of breach of the peace, which the State Supreme Court said “is not susceptible of exact definition.”

    Held: In arresting, convicting and punishing petitioners under the circumstances disclosed by this record, South Carolina infringed their rights of free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances — rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States. Pp. 229-238.

  74. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    To summarize Fact Checker’s two comments, Cox’s conviction on charges of “disturbing the peace” was OVERTURNED by the Supreme Court. The court has turned nasty since then, but IMO even the current court would recognize the County ordinance as overbroad.

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_24

  75. Smart 5th Grader
    April 7, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    City and County legal counsel will be paid handsomely to defend a law which in all likelyhood will be overturned. The taxpayers of Eureka and Humboldt county will foot the bill. And the ¨lawmakers¨ of Humboldt County will have given another blackeye to the Bill of Rights. Remember, the Bill of Rights exists solely to protect the people FROM the government.

  76. Anonymous
    April 7, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    No one knows the facts, yet everyone rushes to judgment. No need for investigation, no need for a trial. Just let the MSM make up our minds (the People’s minds) and we itch to get a rope and find a tree for Zimmerman. That is vigilante justice in 2012. We’re doing it for you, Treyvon, because we love you. The rule of law be damned.

  77. Smart 5th Grader
    April 7, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Is the vigil for Freedom of Assembly in our community or for Treyvon and Zimmerman? (sorry, trying to keep up)

  78. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Here is the standard set forth in United States v. O’Brien:

    Whatever imprecision inheres in these terms, we think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

    I’ve put in bold the part that is clearly violated by the Humboldt ordinance.

    The importance that restrictions not be overbroad was reemphasized in Ward v Rock against Racism:

    The requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied so long as the regulation promotes a substantial governmental interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation, and the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve that interest.

    Again, I would challenge anyone to explain how the Humboldt ordinance, which completely removes people from the Courthouse grounds at night, and which has already been used to arrest a peaceful person hanging a sign on a fence, is not substantially broader than necessary to accomplish any legitimate interest.

    The county has restricted freedom of speech far more than is essential to the furtherance of any indicated substantial government interest. The government’s interests could have been accommodated by the Sheriff enforcing existing law, and there is no need to start arresting people for hanging signs on fences.

  79. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Smart 5th Grader,

    Read the post and all will be revealed.

  80. Smart 5th Grader
    April 7, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    Sorry, I re-read it right after asking an obvious question. Thought I may have been missing something.

  81. Anonymous
    April 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Neighborhood watch captain sees unfamiliar black kid walking through neighborhood and launches into captain mode, approaching and accosting kid. Kid talking to his girlfriend on phone at the time, girlfriend hears him nervously ask somebody “why are you following me?” Further confrontation ensues on the front lawn of a neighboring house, during which through the 911 call made from within the house, a young sounding person can be heard screaming for help for a long time right outside the windows of the caller. Caller identifies two people fighting in her yard. Gun shot is heard, screaming stops. Voice analysis rules out the voice was that of the captain, despite his initial claim that it was he who had been attacked and calling for help.

    Seems pretty straight forward. The captain wanted to get to the bottom of who the kid was and became physical in the process. Put yourself in the kid’s shoes: you’re walking trhough town at night and some dude in a car is following you. Then the guy gets out of the car and approaches you with enough aggression that a scuffle ensues. Kid sees that this complete stranger who had been stalking him has a gun. Who wouldn’t freak out at that point? Kid obvoiusly starts screaming for help in the confrontation.

    Very sad to say the least. Not that i would ever be in the captain’s position, but I would compulsively collapse into appology, regret, remorse, grief, etc. Probably what the captain is experiencing now, after his instincual reaction was to defend himself by fudging the story, but no doubt his lawyers are strongly advising him to keep quiet and let them do all the talking. sad sad sad all around.

  82. High Finance
    April 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    That story is possible Anonymous. But nobody knows for sure yet.

    But too late, PJ already hanged him from the nearest tree. How bad she will feel if the facts later show Zimmerman was innocent of murder.

  83. Smart 5th Grader
    April 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    High Hater 408 ¨…hanged him from the nearest tree…¨

    Way to find a racist euphemism for a racially charged topic.

  84. Anonymous
    April 7, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    It’s actually more a meteaphor than a euphemism, if you stop to think about it.

  85. Smart 5th Grader
    April 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Either way, leave it to High Hater to inject racism into a racially charged issue.

  86. Smart 5th Grader
    April 7, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    But it seems too literal to be a metaphor. I did try to find a better word than ¨euphemism¨. Sometimes language can be so limiting.

  87. 69er
    April 7, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    Well PJ, since we are calling people childish names how does cntface suit you??? Sounds like it fits you.

  88. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    69er,

    Would you say that if your name were attached?

  89. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    The day I change my ID to a sexual position and cheer the murder of a kid, you are welcome to.call me any vile name you want, Fckface.

  90. Mitch
    April 7, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    PJ,

    Would you say that if your name were attached?

  91. 69er
    April 7, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    Yes I would in reply to PJ, she seems to think it is her priviledge only to get nasty with others. I once thought I would like to have a sit down discussion with her.

  92. Plain Jane
    April 8, 2012 at 12:05 am

    To his face!

  93. Plain Jane
    April 8, 2012 at 12:07 am

    Would he cheer the death of an innocent kid if his name were attached?

  94. 69er
    April 8, 2012 at 12:20 am

    I am not convinced he is innocent and did not cheer his death. I only believe he got what he deserved and that the shooter should also receive a punishment as well.

  95. What Now
    April 8, 2012 at 12:44 am

    High Finance says:
    April 7, 2012 at 9:24 am

    “What is interesting about all this was the number of people wanting to lynch Zimmerman before they ever got half the facts about the incident. Yet Zimmerman is a Democrat, a hispanic and voted for Obama in the last election.”

    You pathological asshat.
    You’re pathetically simple-minded and and deranged.
    Only a shitstain like YOU can’t conceive that other people don’t share you’re trogloditic “we/them” monochromatic worldview.

    IF ANY son-of-a-bitchin’ rat bastard THUG of ANY ethnic persuasion, political registration, or votind record decides to play Dirty Harry AFTER being told by 911 police dispatchers NOT to continue pursuit UNDER FAKSE CLOR OF AUTHORUTY damn well DESERVES to have a shit storm brought down on his head.
    Fuckin’ nazi jackass.

  96. Smart 5th Grader
    April 8, 2012 at 3:51 am

    Spiralling dow, down, down.

  97. Just Watchin
    April 8, 2012 at 5:26 am

    To “What Now”…… It appears that you must have heard another of the media’s “doctored” audio clips. After the dispatcher told him not to follow Martin, he replied “O.K.”. Most of the media did not play his response. He was in the process of returning to his truck when Martin approached him and said “do you have a problem?” Zimmerman replied “no”, and Martin said “well, you do now” and proceeded to punch Zimmerman and take him to the ground.

  98. High Finance
    April 8, 2012 at 6:02 am

    What Now needs a lot of mental counseling.

  99. Smart 5th Grader
    April 8, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Pot – Kettle – Black

  100. Amy Breighton
    April 8, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    713 says:
    April 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    “Amy,
    You are saying you are not allowed to protest at the courthouse?”.

    This is the identical kind of sophistry “High Finance” uses. Hmmm.

    Please cite the Supreme Court ruling that allows municipalities to enforce curfews against protesters who are not interfering with the legal activities of others.

    We’ve had dozens of Supreme Court rulings cited here, NONE defending the abridgment of courthouse protester’s rights.

  101. 713
  102. Mitch
    April 8, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    713,

    Check out my April 7 3:37. Clark v CCNV establishes that you can’t create a right to camp just because your camping is supposedly related to free speech and/or peaceable assembly. But the various rulings, Clark and the ones I cite, all insist that the infringement on free speech must not be overbroad and must be responsive to a real problem.

    In Eureka, the problem was not due to the free speech or the peaceable assembly — it was due to law enforcement’s refusal to enforce existing law against a few hangers on.

    The only parts of the urgency ordinance that are not overbroad are those that are redundant. Simple enforcement of nuisance laws would have eliminated the nuisances — the signs and protesters were not the nuisance that can legally be eliminated.

    A simple test for whether the ordinance is overbroad would be to see if people are being arrested who actually pose no problem. The 70 year old veterans arrested last night for sitting in lawn chairs on the courthouse grounds, bothering no one, will be poster boys for the inevitable lawsuit against the county. The county will have to explain what health and safety danger they posed. The only possible answer is none whatsoever. Then why was it possible for them to be arrested for violation of an ordinance based on protecting health and safety?

  103. What Now
    April 8, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Mitch says:
    April 8, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    “In Eureka, the problem was not due to the free speech or the peaceable assembly — it was due to law enforcement’s refusal to enforce existing law against a few hangers on.”

    “A simple test for whether the ordinance is overbroad would be to see if people are being arrested who actually pose no problem. The 70 year old veterans arrested last night for sitting in lawn chairs on the courthouse grounds, bothering no one, will be poster boys for the inevitable lawsuit against the county. The county will have to explain what health and safety danger they posed. The only possible answer is none whatsoever.”

    Excellent points, Mitch.
    I know both of those veterans and they are fine, honorable people who’ve sacrificed far more than most.

    I’d be absolutely ecstatic to see the county official responsible for perpetrating this abominable ordinance.

    I hope there are some qualified attorneys stepping up to work on that already.

  104. Fact Checker
    April 9, 2012 at 5:50 am

    Thank you Mitch. Excellent job defending freedom and your point of view without the hyperbole and hate which (unfortunately) permeates too much of our society.

  105. Mitch
    April 9, 2012 at 7:04 am

    Thanks, Fact Checker. But mainly, thank you to those who have been willing to step forward and be arrested in defense of our liberty. I stand in awe of them.

    It begins to look as if the Board of Supervisors has been very ill advised by County Counsel.

  106. Fact Checker
    April 9, 2012 at 7:13 am

    Paul tried to help the BOS understand but they´d rather listen to the lawyers who were creating ¨job security¨ for themselves.

  107. High Finance
    April 9, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Still waiting to hear where you got your law degree from Mitch.

  108. Mitch
    April 9, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Insults aren’t relevant, Hi Fi, they’re just an example of whistling past the graveyard. I’m right or I’m wrong. That will be determined by the courts. You might want to check out the citations yourself, those on this thread and those on the others. Anyone who can read can determine their plain meaning. Yes, it’s possible to selectively quote from them to make it sound as if they support the county, but when they are read in full, their meaning is quite clear.

  109. High Finance
    April 9, 2012 at 8:52 am

    When you make these pronouncements with such certainty Mitch, you make yourself appear to be an expert in such matters.

    You might be right, I sure as hell hope not. But you don’t know for sure anymore than I or anyone else posting on this blog.

  110. Mitch
    April 9, 2012 at 8:58 am

    Hi Fi, I don’t know more than anyone else who has read the decisions I cited, and the one cited by 713. They are the controlling precedents, according to lawyers. How many people do you think have read the precedents, paying close attention, prior to posting here? Reading not the Wikipedia summations, but the complete text of the decisions?

    I wonder which Supervisors, if any, read the decisions themselves? I also wonder if County Counsel read the decisions carefully, with a goal to understanding them. That’s different from reading them to fish for support for a predetermined position.

    I am aware that lawyers disagree. I am aware that approximately half the lawyers in any lawsuit lose.

    This seems to me to be a slam-dunk violation of the Constitution, but the supreme court interpretations of the Constitution vary over time, and anything is possible. I wouldn’t think that would need saying.

    Thank you for acknowledging that I may be right.

  111. 713
    April 9, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    Mitch,
    What is the message the occupies are prevented from getting out? Oh, I remember, “bitch, tie your shoes!”

  112. Mitch
    April 9, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Whatever message Occupy Eureka thinks it is delivering — and I haven’t got any better idea of what it might be than you do — it’s not any particular concern of mine.

    My concerns are, first, that the Board of Supervisors has encroached upon our right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly at the traditional location for protest in Humboldt County; and, second, that several good citizens have been arrested by law enforcement for acting as good citizens. That should concern everyone.

    Given what is happening throughout the nation, I think that’s worth fighting about.

    If you want to know what message Occupy Eureka wishes to get out, you could start by asking them, rather than by implying that the group should best be known by some mentally ill person’s random utterance. You might learn something.

  113. Amy Breighton
    April 9, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    Hilarious to read anonymous posters demanding anyone’s academic credentials!

    Especially from the usual idiots anxious to excuse the murder of another unarmed teen in Florida while demanding high legal standards for public protests at the Eureka coutrthouse.

  114. 713
    April 10, 2012 at 7:44 am

    Mitch,
    The last time I went by the courthouse it was just a mess. I have no desire to get into a confrontation about my political beliefs while I am trying to do business at the courthouse – that is what blogs are for.

    I didn’t see any intelligible message being delivered, it looked like the south jetty. If the OE looked like it was carrying a political message, they would probably have more support. I agree with you the stagnate wages of the middle class and the concentration of wealth is damaging our country. I don’t see how hanging out at the courthouse will change it. Now you guys are fighting for the right to hang out rather than deliver your message. If I was a cynic I would say the government played you guys for fools, while you are fighting about how to deliver your message, the message sits.

    And if you really want to know how an oppressive government limits free speech, take a look at what Iran is doing with the internet.

  115. AMERICA: Y UR PEEPS B SO DUM?
    April 10, 2012 at 7:52 am

    So if a protest is perceived by some people as ¨a mess¨, then the Bill of Rights does not apply?

  116. Mitch
    April 10, 2012 at 7:54 am

    713,

    As I think I’ve pointed out here many times (4/6 12:52 4/6 1:46 for starters), I feel Occupy Eureka has been counterproductive. I agree with you that it has not succeeded in getting out the Occupy message; I don’t think many people could have done a much better job of alienating people from that message than the combination of Occupy Eureka, the Sheriff’s Department, and the EPD.

    Do you get it? I’m not a fan. Neither is the ACLU a fan of the American Nazi Party.

    Occupy Eureka is not my concern. My concern is that we must continue to acknowledge and respect the constitutional rights so many have died for, rights which seem to be under attack in many American jurisdictions. I don’t want them to slip away here, at least not without my having spoken up and done what I can to prevent it.

    I’m sure Iran is doing terrible things with the internet. I’d prefer that America not go down that path.

  117. Mitch
    April 10, 2012 at 8:06 am

    And let’s put the focus back where it belongs. The ordinance that is (let’s be honest) designed specifically to get rid of Occupy Eureka, while being tailored to make that purpose, supposedly, not 100% obvious, is unconstitutional.

    To deal with the nuisance conditions at the courthouse, all the County needed or needs to do is tell the Sheriff to do his job. If he needs more resources, the County could provide them.

    That would have done the sane members of Occupy Eureka a huge favor, because they would not be saddled with the reputation they’ve achieved.

    It would have done the workers at the courthouse, and those who visit it, a huge favor by eliminating the chance that they’d step in human waste or be harassed as they enter or leave.

    But mostly, it would have done the Constitution a huge favor, by enabling people to clearly see the distinction between protest and illegal behavior.

  118. Amy Breighton
    April 10, 2012 at 11:40 am

    It’s no use.

    Opponents believe that their ability to discredit an organization cancels OE’s Constitutional right to protest! Just like opponents of every social movement have been doing, forever!

    “The OE protesters aren’t holding their signs the right way”.

    Are you kidding?

    That we engage in such buffoonery is pointless. Apply their “logic” to the deadly mess resulting from their “right” to drive, or carry firearms, and they still don’t get it.

    Wait until Jimmy “This Isn’t Working” Smith loses a lawsuit challenging his illegal protest curfew, and the OE critics will simply argue that the judge is “wrong” all the way to the Supreme Court again, and again, and again.

    With national “leaders” like our supervisors, it’s a miracle their children aren’t still working in textile mills, that banks aren’t looting the U.S. Treasury, that tens of millions of jobs aren’t being outsourced, that most corporations pay zero taxes, and that the victims of U.S. divestment in its people doesn’t force millions more onto “public places” everywhere!

  119. 713
    April 10, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Amy,
    The organization has already discredited itself, at least here in Eureka. I am under the impression that in order to protest, the government has the right to limit the protest in certain ways. I believe they can require you to get a permit, limit the hours and place, etc. This is OK with me, otherwise freedom of speech and association simply means anybody can do anything they want anywhere, at any time. The question to me is whether they are limiting the occupy because of the message occupy is trying to deliver, or generally make it safer for the public, employees, and protect the property. It does not appear to me the supervisors are against the general message of occupy, but people are tired of the mess, intimidation, drugs, feces, etc.

    Mitch, every ordinance and law is in place as a reaction to something somebody has done, many are redundant. This is just another one of them. I don’t think that makes it illegal.

  120. Amy Breighton
    April 10, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    “….otherwise freedom of speech and association simply means anybody can do anything they want anywhere, at any time.”

    What’s clear from Supreme Court precedence is the necessity that political protest cannot interfere with the legal activities of others….thus, the purpose of permits for large scale demonstrations, often abused by authorities to wrongful deny permits.

    OE is not interfering with others legal activities, nor is it a health and safety threat.

    Raising issues over any organization’s “credibility” is irrelevant sophistry.

    But, you knew that.

  121. 713
    April 10, 2012 at 9:39 pm
  122. Mitch
    April 10, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    713,

    The material at your link is pathetic, as would be expected from its source. It’s doubly pathetic, no, make that infinitely more pathetic, in that it comes from someone who pretends to be a journalist.

    Just one question. If the only thing the ordinance does is make people move a few feet over to the sidewalk from 9:30 pm to 6 am, what is the point of the ordinance and what is it supposed to accomplish?

  123. Anonymous
    April 10, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    The point of the ordinance is to allow the supervisors to pretend they’ve done something useful. If they have to trample a few First Amendment rights in order to promote that illusion, well, they can live with that.

  124. Amy Breighton
    April 10, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    What these fools don’t remember, never read about, and have no imagination for, and never had a good teacher in 20 years of schooling to inform them…is that the worst of the Banana Republics, Nazi Germany, and all the rest, didn’t began with kidnappings, torture, silent executions, and mass murder.

    They began decades earlier with the loss of “insignificant” civil liberties, bit by bit, drop by drop, defended by the same tired excuses used today to explain why certain segments of the population aka “those people” became an “emergency” that “have to be dealt with”.

    As “those people”, become increasingly stigmatized and demoralized by having their rights ignored, their belongings trashed, rousted at night, and heckled by day, eventually behave even less “respectably”, becoming even more disliked, requiring even more “emergency” repression.

    Every era has its defenders of the social order who are eager to look the other way while those who chose to exercise long-established, fundamental human rights, are having them diminished bit by bit.

    Fools have forever been packaging tyranny in the guise of freedom and all that is neat, clean, right and good.

    Humboldt County’s idiotic emergency ordinance is an undeniable throwback to a very old tyranny.

  125. Smart 5th Grader
    April 11, 2012 at 4:48 am

    ¨I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.¨ -Thomas Jefferson

  126. 713
    April 11, 2012 at 6:18 am

    Mitch,
    I think the point of the ordinance was to give the DA something to prosecute for if things get out of hand again on the lawn.

    You are wrong about Jack D. in my opinion. He is a very good editor/reporter and is not afraid to call out the establishment, whoever that may be at the time and however unpopular the story may be with certain people.

    Amy, you need to read a book yourself. Ever heard of the Reichstag Fire Decree the the enabling act of 1933? Nazi Germany was not decades of little infringements by any means. It was fairly quick.

  127. AMERICA: Y UR PEEPS B SO DUM?
    April 11, 2012 at 6:57 am

    Sure 713, that´s some seriously flawed logic (or none at all). The police (state) claimed Paul wouldn´t enforse existing laws which, presumably, were fair laws which had been upheld by court rulings. But somehow now you all think th DA is going to prosecute a law which is dubious? That train of illogic won´t pass the test of a 5th Grade debating club. And this whole re-writing of Nazi Germany´s history, again won´t pass the test of a 5th Grade debating club. ¨fairly quick¨ geologically speaking, but not when one thinks of the 30´s and the bit by bit errosions of liberty until Kristallnacht, then¨it was fairly quick¨. It´s called ¨tipping point¨.

  128. Mitch
    April 11, 2012 at 7:07 am

    713,

    You mention three things, and I believe you are wrong about each.

    First, the DA was already willing to prosecute the existing laws. Rolling up a collection that includes existing constitutional components and then adds new, unconstitutional components is not the path to successful prosecution. It’s still broccoli, no matter how many potatoes you mix it with.

    Second, Jack Durham?! Better move on. I’ve already made clear what I think of him, and I’m trying to be polite.

    Third, I’m not a scholar of the holocaust, but I know that there was a decade of tinder laid at the feet of the Jews of Germany before the Nazis began implementing their Final Solution. And, of course, there were centuries of unchallenged anti-semitism and hatred, if you give the Church its proper share of the blame. Sure, there may have been one particular spark that brought the Nazis to power, but the holocaust only happened due to the tinder.

  129. Mitch
    April 11, 2012 at 7:20 am

    713,

    I’ve got to continue, because I’m appalled. The actual Nazi rise to power may have been relatively fast, but the way in which the party went about eating away the civil rights of Jews was spread over time. It was the acceptance of early restrictions by a disbelieving Jewish population and a “not my problem” non-Jewish world that emboldened the Nazis to move on to the Final Solution. Amy B at 11:40 pm has it precisely correct.

    Incidentally, the Nazis initially made exceptions (back in 1933) to some of the anti-Jewish laws for Jewish WWI veterans. They didn’t want the bad publicity of mistreating veterans. But 90% of the vets ended up murdered, just like the rest of the Jewish population.

  130. jackdurham
    April 11, 2012 at 7:38 am

    Mitch wrote: Second, Jack Durham?! Better move on. I’ve already made clear what I think of him, and I’m trying to be polite.

    Jack responds: As community members we should get to know each other. Let’s base our opinions of each other on actual facts. How about we get together over a cup of coffee, or lunch? You can email or call me and we’ll make this thing happen. I think it would be fruitful. Remember, we’re both part of the community. We’re in this thing together.

  131. Enjoy Lunch
    April 11, 2012 at 7:44 am

    ¨The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.¨
    Abraham Lincoln

  132. Mitch
    April 11, 2012 at 8:02 am

    Jack,

    If I believed what you say about “not knowing” some things, I’d be happy to meet with you. Honestly, based on what I’ve heard in private, I don’t believe it for a minute. But yes, I’ll meet you for coffee. I’m curious how you can explain yourself. I’ll stick my email at your blog.

  133. 713
    April 11, 2012 at 8:08 am

    10 – 15 years is pretty quick in my book. And it wasn’t just Jews. Regardless, the county doesn’t appear to be against what the occupy stands for and is not trying to keep that message from being delivered. Most people, i believe are wary of the stagnated economy and constant budget issues, as well as the plight of the poor. The comparison to nazi Germany is ridiculous.

    Incidentally, the nazi’s were rallying people against the Jews because they were wealthy, not poor as Amy suggests. They were using the bad post WWI economy to rally the downtrodden Germans against the perceived unfair wealth of the Jews.

  134. jackdurham
    April 11, 2012 at 8:09 am

    Mitch,
    Being that we’ve never met, we’ve never talked, you don’t read my newspaper, you don’t know my job duties, you don’t know who I talk to or which organizations I belong to, it’s probably a good idea to at least meet and talk before that conspiracy gets further cemented in your mind. I’ll go check my email. Thank you. – Jack

  135. Try the humble pie, it´s good
    April 11, 2012 at 8:24 am

    My, aren´t we presumptuous! I´m gonna have to re-consider all that ¨Jack is arrogant¨ stuff I´ve been hearing

  136. Mitch
    April 11, 2012 at 8:41 am

    713,

    I agree that any comparisons with Nazi Germany are ridiculous. But given that it’s been brought up… the Nazi’s used the perceived wealth of the Jews to gain public support against them, but there was already more than enough anti-semitism in Germany that the perceived wealth was probably a superfluous claim. After all, we’d killed God and looked like vermin.

    The Nazis also went after gypsies, gays, and (other) mental “defectives.” I’m sure they would have been happy to pick up the occasional homeless Aryan and gas them too. They had a master race to create, and homeless people (as we see proven here on the Herald comments, so often) are worthless to the self-thought masters of the universe, because they lose out in the Darwinian race to breed the perfect Aryan ideal.

    As a gay Jew, I don’t want this country moving one inch towards the slippery slope. Many Jews I know ALWAYS keep a passport and plane fare handy. Germany was the most “civilized” country of the Western world. Now that honor falls to America. It can’t happen here? Just listen to the left talk about Israel.

  137. back in the saddle
    April 11, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Apparently some peope don’t know Jack . . . .

  138. Try the humble pie, it´s good
    April 11, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Don´t worry about it (bits), Jack speaks for himself perfectly.

  139. TimH
    April 11, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Jack,
    Don’t forget about the Good Old Boys meeting, much to discuss.

  140. jackdurham
    April 11, 2012 at 10:23 am

    McKinleyville Mafia!

  141. TimH
    April 11, 2012 at 11:16 am

    You know I got in a little trouble for that.

  142. April 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    DON’T THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE WASH WATER

    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: WE MUST ALL HANG TOGETHER OR\

    WE WILL ALL HANG SEPARATELY –RAGING GRANNY

  143. Anonymous
    April 11, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    jackdurham says:
    April 11, 2012 at 8:09 am

    “Mitch,
    Being that we’ve never met, we’ve never talked, you don’t read my newspaper, you don’t know my job duties, you don’t know who I talk to or which organizations I belong to, it’s probably a good idea to at least meet and talk before that conspiracy gets further cemented in your mind. I’ll go check my email. Thank you. – Jack”

    Hilarious!

    Jack indulged himself in a bitter 4-day tantrum over Richard Salzman’s refusal to respond to an accusation…made by Jack….on an unrelated editorial by Sylvia DeRooy.

    (http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2012/03/29/dont-anoint-susan/).

    Clearly, it’s Jack’s “job duties” that keep him from actually doing any investigating and reporting.

    What an ego.

  144. Amy Breighton
    April 12, 2012 at 12:20 am

    “The comparison to nazi Germany is ridiculous.”

    It’s always a challenge to “debate” individuals desperately seeking historic precedence to minimize, if not justify, capricious and illegal abridgements to American citizen’s Constitutional right to protest, free from arbitrary curfews.

    Tyrants, the world over, have sought to diminish others rights with similar justifications forever.

    Violent, right-wing groups in both Germany and the U.S. were rapidly growing against Jews, gays, unions, immigrants, and leftists in 1900-1930. They gradually infiltrated numerous levels of government and their bigotry and repression became institutionalized….while most people looked the other way. Henry Ford was one of the few to be awarded Hitler’s Grand Cross. Ford bankrolled one of America’s right-wing anti-Semite, anti-union, anti-immigrant, anti-leftist magazines for many years.

    Millions of U.S. citizens once welcomed Hitler, it would be extremely ignorant to assume right-wing values have changed much today. (If the right-wing blogs are any indication).

    Humboldt County’s idiotic emergency ordinance is illegal, regardless of the “limited degree” it infringes on citizen’s Constitutional right to protest. It falls under one of my favorite definitions of Fascist:

    “To destroy a perceived opponent”.

    It is an undeniable throwback to a very old tyranny.

  145. AMERICA: Y UR PEEPS B SO DUM?
    April 12, 2012 at 6:03 am

    “The comparison to nazi Germany is ridiculous.”
    Asolutely! How could anyone possibly compare Nazi Germany with a country which has a history of genocide of the Indigenous people, slavery and mass murder of the African race, the KKK, etc?

  146. Publius
    April 12, 2012 at 6:19 am

    RE Anon 1137 and NCJ thread.
    I know McNally and Hoover personally. These guys are egomaniacal people who do not adhere to the Journalistic Code of Ethics. I wish I could post my name, but I don´t want Haters with a barrel of ink stalking me. And Jack? What a self-absorbed blowhard!

  147. 713
    April 12, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Amy, I have a news flash for you: the whole world was pretty bigoted in those days. Bigots did not infiltrate anything, they were already there. Tolerance was the exception, not the rule.

    But you knew that.

  148. AMERICA: Y UR PEEPS B SO DUM?
    April 12, 2012 at 7:00 am

    Yeah, the whole world was genociding a continent. The world had a civil war and murdered hundreds of thousands of their cousins and brothers so the could continue to enslave an entire race.
    But you already knew that, didn´t you Amy? (because 713 doesn´t seem to ¨know¨ anything)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers