Home > Uncategorized > A Conversation about the Courthouse

A Conversation about the Courthouse

Talk Bubbles
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will consider an urgency ordinance “to Address Health and Safety Issues at the Humboldt County Courthouse” at its meeting on Tuesday.

The ordinance would make it a violation of the law to be on the grounds of the Courthouse from 9:30 PM to 6 AM.  It would also make it illegal to affix signs to County property or to run string across County property.  Being in response to an “urgency,” the ordinance would take effect immediately if passed by four of the five Supervisors.

Perhaps a mini-dramatization can help explore the issues…

(Scene: A federal courthouse.  Time: perhaps sometime soon.)

Explain again why you made it illegal to stand outside the Courthouse at night?

Your honor, this group had been at the site for nearly six months.  They were making a complete mess of the area, frightening people going in and out of the Courthouse, making it difficult for people to do their jobs, posing a threat to the security of the jail, urinating in public, defecating in public, the list goes on and on.

OK, let’s start with the urination and defecation.  Isn’t that already illegal?

Yes, your honor, but we can’t have a personal attendant watching each demonstrator at all times to make sure they don’t do it.

I see.  Well, what percentage of the demonstrators use the portapotties?

There are no portapotties.

Huh?  The demonstrators didn’t bring portapotties?!  Why?

Well, your honor, we wouldn’t allow them.

You wouldn’t allow them?  Why?  I’d have thought if public defecation and urination were serious problems, you wouldn’t just allow them, you’d provide them yourselves!

But, your honor, if we did that, we’d be making it easier for them to stay right where they are, in front of the Courthouse, where they are causing terrible problems.

I see.  But you’re saying one of the serious problems is public urination and defecation?

Yes, your honor.

OK, let’s move on.  You say they are frightening people trying to work at the Courthouse?  How?

Well, just the other day, one of them shouted curses at a small woman trying to enter the Courthouse and blocked her path.

That’s terrible.  Was the woman opposed to their position?  Did she support Wall Street?

No sir, not as far as we know.

Then why was he angry with her?

We’re not sure.  We’re not sure he was angry with her.

Well then why was he cursing her?  That doesn’t make much sense.  What did he shout?

I believe he shouted, “Bitch, tie your shoes.”

That sounds like he might be mentally ill, doesn’t it?

Yes, sir, he probably is.

Then what does he have to do with the protest.

He’s part of it.

Really?  How do you know?

He wouldn’t be there if the protest weren’t ongoing.

Again, how do you know?

He wasn’t there before the protest started.

O… K….  How did the Sheriff’s office respond?  Were they anywhere nearby?

They have offices in the Courthouse.  I don’t believe they considered the issue was one to which they could respond.


They didn’t think they could arrest the man, because he hadn’t made physical contact with the woman.

So they just spoke with the man cursing and blocking people outside their offices?

Well, your honor, they never spoke with the man. They are at a loss, as we are.  The District Attorney was unwilling to prosecute the man.

Excuse me?  How could you know that if you never spoke with the cursing man?

The DA hadn’t been willing to prosecute similar cases.

That’s surprising.  What similar cases?

A week or so before this incident, a Sheriff’s deputy was assaulted in front of the Courthouse, but the District Attorney wouldn’t prosecute.

I’ve never heard of such a thing.  That’s a disgrace.  Describe the incident.

The Sheriff’s deputy was taking a sign from the person…

Stop right there, please.  Why?

I don’t know.

Was the sign a hazard?

No, your honor.

Were there witnesses to the assault?

I believe so, your honor, but I’m not sure they’d support the deputy.  They would have been protesters.

Oh, that begins to be a little more understandable.  A Sheriff’s deputy was trying to yank a legal sign away from an American citizen, and the American citizen may have held on too tight?

Possibly, your honor.

And that’s why the Sheriff’s office wouldn’t respond to a mentally ill person harassing people entering a building housing their offices?

I can’t speculate, your honor.

But I have this email in front of me from the Sheriff to the District Attorney, saying he won’t try to do anything at the Courthouse any more, because the District Attorney has given the protesters immunity.  Is the incident with the sign what the Sheriff is referring to?

I believe so, your honor, you’d have to ask the Sheriff.

I think I’ll do that.  Let’s move on.  So far, I’d suggest the sensible responses would be allowing a portapotty and telling the Sheriff to do his job.  Wouldn’t that be simpler than declaring that existing laws won’t deal with the situation?  Never mind, that’s a rhetorical question.

What about the part about affixing things to County property?  How does that resolve the health and safety issue?

Your honor, none of these things are direct health and safety hazards.  The purpose of the ordinance is to address the larger health and safety issue, which is that we have had a group of bums loitering outside our Courthouse twenty four hours a day for nearly six months.

What laws are they breaking?

Your honor, we’ve made that clear.  They are urinating and defecating in public, shouting at people entering and leaving the Courthouse, generally making a mess…

Then why are you not enforcing the existing laws?  Isn’t it illegal to defecate in public?  Isn’t littering illegal?  I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a Sheriff just refusing to protect an area.  Would you like me to order the Sheriff to take action?

No sir, we believe this ordinance will resolve the problem.

By making up a set of rules that will break up the protest you don’t like?  Isn’t that throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Sir, you’d need to see for yourself.  It’s just been awful at the Courthouse.

Gentlemen, you have come before me with a law you claimed was so vital, so urgent, that it had to be implemented without the normal thirty day period in which a legal challenge could take place.  You’ve told me that you’ve refused to allow a straightforward way to address the issue of public defecation and urination.  You’ve told me that your Sheriff won’t intervene when a mentally ill person frightens people outside their offices.  You’ve told me that you want to restrict signs because you’re hoping a bunch of American citizens will end their protest if you make it impossible for them to tape signs anywhere.

This is America, and the American constitution rules.  It’s extremely inconvenient sometimes, that’s why we have crazy little bands of neo-Nazis marching in public sometimes, when they’d be thrown in jail in most countries.

If you hadn’t had the audacity and arrogance to pass this as an urgency ordinance, demonstrating your lack of good faith with the court system, I’d try to work with you to resolve your problem legally.  But, as things stand, I’m going to need to take some time to figure out an appropriate response.

For the moment, the law is stayed, as of now.  You are not to enforce any bit of it.  Do you understand?

Yes, your honor.

And tell that Sheriff to do his job.  And your mental health department, too.

  1. 69er
    March 26, 2012 at 9:12 am

    The sooner, the better…….

  2. March 26, 2012 at 9:57 am
  3. Anonymous
    March 26, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Brilliant, Heraldo! Truly brilliant!

  4. fashionable fascist
    March 26, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Burn the Constitution. Spit in the faces of veterans who risked all for our freedom to assemble and speak. Make free speech a crime.

    The sooner the better…

  5. Mrs Tinkle
    March 26, 2012 at 10:59 am

    Whatever, they’re all living in the parking lot across the street now, anyway.

  6. March 26, 2012 at 11:48 am

    That’s about the size of it.

  7. Harold Knight
    March 26, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    How are the supervisors supposed to get back to work minimizing building regulations for the speculators and shoveling public wealth to airline corporations with all these distractions?

  8. Anonymous
    March 26, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Nowhere in the proposed ordinance is protest specifically banned because the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this constitutional right.

    One local judge might wonder the point of protest at midnight, while another will side with the U.S. Constitution, period.

    It appears the county has plenty of funds for frivolous ordinances and the public costs of lawsuits.

    Meanwhile, the real blight continues for 15 years at the “Lamp Lighter Hotel” behind the historic Eureka Inn.

    Reich-Winger’s S**T never stinks.

  9. March 26, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    …while another will side with the U.S. Constitution, period.

    Too many of you keep forgetting the Supreme Court has already ruled the right to free speech is NOT unlimited.

  10. High Finance
    March 26, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Fred, you should make that statement constantly to remind people here.


  11. jr
    March 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Note to 12:32pm, the inn behind the Eureka Inn was the Downtowner Motel. The Lamplighter is on south Broadway near K-Mart.

  12. tra
    March 26, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    “…the right to free speech is NOT unlimited”

    Actually, I think virtually everyone realizes that already. Just as virtually everyone realizes that freedom of assembly is not unlimited either. But that doesn’t mean that the government is allowed to place whatever limits it wants on speech and assembly, just because it’s deemed convenient to do so.

    According to the relevant Supreme Court decisions, any limits on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly must meet a “strict scrutiny” test: The government is allowed to place “reasonable restrictions” on the “time, place and manner” of the speech and assembly ONLY when there is a “compelling governmental interest” at stake, ONLY when there is no other alternative solution, and ONLY when the restrictions are as “narrowly tailored” as possbile (in other words the restrictions aren’t so broad as to restrict other types of speech and assembly that aren’t counter to the “compelling governmental interest” that has been cited as a justification).

    So far, from what I’ve read about what they’re considering passing, ome of it looks pretty sketchy in terms of the liklihood that it would withstand scrutiny under these conditions. In particular, I think the county would have a hard time claiming that they had no other alternatives, especially since it seems like the majority of the problems they are citing are things that are already against existing laws. And clearly they’d have trouble with the “as narrowly tailored as possible” part, because clearly a ban on any protests or demonstrations after 9:30 pm would criminalize candlelight vigils, a venerable and not uncommon form of assembly and speech.

    If they pass this rule as it was described in today’s Times-Standard article, it seems likely that as soon as it goes into effect, someone will announce a 10:00 pm candlelight vigil for that very day — and if arrests are made, or there is any attempt by the police to interfere with the vigil participants, we’ll probably see a lawsuit. And based on the strict standards applied to governmental restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, it seems like the protesters might have a very solid case.

  13. Harold Knight
    March 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    “…the right to free speech is NOT unlimited”

    This constant, childish reliance on sophistry is irrelevant and tiresome!

    You two traitors know damn-well the Supreme Court holds very high standards required to restrict the right to protest.

    The court has repeatedly upheld that any abridgment of American
    citizen’s right to protest on public property must be the result of “unreasonable interference with nearby activities and individuals” (Cox v. Louisiana, 1965), ie, pedestrian and vehicle traffic, not just the obscenities shouted by a guy who should be in a hospital.

    There must be a “significant government interest”, (Grace v. U.S. 1983). Not just the prejudicial sensibilities of bigots.

    “Necessary for the maintenance of public order and safety”, (also Cox v. Louisiana, 1965). Not just a few protesters at an information table, and the, God forbid, human feces around the corner.

    Any idiot believing that the current OE protest merits an “emergency ordinance” better get a curfew on this entire city.

  14. March 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    It’s an “emergency” ordinance because the district attorney, wrongly imo, thinks the OE folks should be able to do just about anything they want as long as it’s labeled free speech.

    The “emergency” ordinance is the result of probably 100s of complaints by people that want their courthouse back.

    Tra wrote, …and if arrests are made, or there is any attempt by the police to interfere with the vigil participants, we’ll probably see a lawsuit..

    And I’m tired of law enforcement being stuck in the position of being the bad guy here. The best way to clean this mess up is for the townsfolk to clear out the rabble on their own, assuming the DA and other law enforcement agreed to look the other way. I doubt that will happen, though.

  15. q
    March 26, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons assembled in a group of at least three people. Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. According to 18 USCS § 2102 “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.”

  16. Anonymous
    March 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Has anyone been camping at the Courthouse in the last couple of weeks? Although I’m opposed to everything else in the ordinance, I’m confused that an ordinance is considered necessary to make camping in the middle of a city’s downtown illegal. Isn’t camping at the courthouse or on the sidewalk already illegal?

  17. RefFan
    March 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Anon, it is but too many ppl are thinking that they can camp as long as they are protesting something. The protestors and their supporters will twist any law, ordinance or policy around to fit their agenda.

  18. q
    March 26, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Fred, you have crossed the line from village idiot to criminality when you start inciting violence.

    I hope our DA Paul Gallegos prosecutes you for it, if he is not sleeping.

    You are a phony libertarian as well. One of the basic tenets of libertarianism is the non-agression principle that I quote here from Wikipedia:

    The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property, including that person’s body, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficiary or neutral to the owner, are considered violent when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination, as based on the libertarian principle of self-ownership. Supporters of NAP use it to demonstrate the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.[1]

    Many supporters argue that NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation, and military drafts. NAP is the foundation of most present day libertarian philosophies.[2][3][4]

  19. tra
    March 26, 2012 at 5:05 pm


    The D.A. did not say that the OE protesters or anyone else down there can “do just about anything they want.” He said that the statute that the police were using to justify citing people for hanging signs on the fence did not apply to non-commercial political speech. He may be right about that, or he may not, I don’t know for sure, but he certainly didn’t “immunize” the protesters against prosecution for any actual crimes.

    It was Sherriff Downey who responded to the DA’s opinion about the signs by saying that he was “suspending all efforts at anything” related to “assualts on the public and the courthouse.” In other words he didn’t get his way, so he threw a little temper tantrum and said “Fine, then if I can’t have my way, I’m taking my bat and ball and going home.” Not one of Sherriff Downey’s prouder moments. Unfortunately for him, he forgot that any time a public official e-mails a rant like that to another public official, it may come to light eventually, either by being leaked by someone on the receiving end of the rant, or through a Freedom of Information request by a member of the public.

    At any rate, in the very same article in the Times-Standard where Downey’s dispeptic missive was revealed, Gallegos said that they should be concentrating on actual problems and actual crimes, rather than a non-problem like protest signs on a (presumably) temporary fence.

    Finally, this may come as surprising news to you, but it turns out that the Constitution isn’t trumped by complaints of inconvenience, even when the number of those complaints reach 3 digits.

    And your urging of both police-state and vigilante (brownshirt) actions against people who are gathered at the courthouse is, of course, despicable. I have to agree with the previous commenter that for a self-styled “libertarian” you do seem to have a surprising fondness for authoritarian actions.

  20. March 26, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Not authoritarian at all. Not asking the government to do anything. The most effective way to deal with it is if the townsfolk could take care of the issue themselves, but that’s not gonna happen.

  21. Mitch
    March 26, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Fred Mangels echoes Eureka history when he says:

    The best way to clean this mess up is for the townsfolk to clear out the rabble on their own, assuming the DA and other law enforcement agreed to look the other way.

    In 1860, white settlers massacred Wiyot women and children while “law enforcement agreed to look the other way.” Search “indian island massacre” for details.

    In 1885, white Eurekan thugs expelled an entire Chinese community while “law enforcement agreed to look the other way.” Check out Keith Easthouse’s article from 2003 in the North Coast Journal.


    Fred’s approach has a long, if not particularly noble, history in this area. I don’t doubt there are other events where the townsfolk acted in the Mangels spirit.

  22. Lest We Forget
    March 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Let’s not forget the Timber strike of 1935 where 3 strikers were murdered by paramilitaries and 150 were arrested. That happened right here in Eureka too.

    Not one attorney in Eureka could be found to defend the arrested strikers. Everyone looked the other way.

  23. Mitch
    March 26, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Thanks, Lest We Forget. Look where you can find out about it:


  24. High Finance
    March 26, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    The rabble in front of the Courthouse are NOT legitimate “protestors”.

    They are bums loitering and having a good time. No matter how you people try to protray them you cannot change that fact even if they hold a sign in their hands.

    Either you fail to understand the difference or you just love joining them to make our town filthy & dirty.

  25. tra
    March 26, 2012 at 7:04 pm


    Authoritarianism isn’t only about government actions, though in your proposal you are demanding that the government facilitate your little mob/vigilante/brownshirt actions, by having law enforcement “look the other way.” In effect, you want the authorities to suspend equal protection for certain people who you disapprove of, while maintaining those rights for people like yourself. In other words you want government to play favorites to benefit you and penalize those you don’t approve of, which is about as un-Libertarian as it gets.

    I’m no fan of some of the behavior that has been reported down there, but to suggest that the best solution would be for law enforcement to “look the other way” while a mob of vigilantes/brownshirt take out the “undesirables,” yup, that’s definitely consistent with many events in the long and sorry history of authoritarianism.

  26. tra
    March 26, 2012 at 7:15 pm


    Unfortunately (for you) the Constitution did not include any provision for a Protester Czar position from which you or anyone else gets to decide which people qualify as a “legitimate protester” and which are “rabble” or “bums” who do not qualify for the same rights. You might be more comfortable in a more authoritarian society where these matters are handled more along the lines that you seem to envision, like say China. You could always move there if you like their system better.

  27. March 26, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Listen to the lefties accuse others of authoritarianism.

  28. tra
    March 26, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Ironically, those pushing for a sweeping new ordinance, one that would restrict traditional and well-recognized forms of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech (such as a candlelight vigil), appear to be playing right into the hands of those who are looking for a cause to rally around to justify their continued “occupation” of that site.

    It seems to me that the protest there had gradually dwindled down to just a handful of “occupiers” at any given time — but if the County makes the mistake of over-reacting with an over-reaching ordinance that will not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny, this will probably increase their numbers again. And any attempts to enforce such an over-reaching ordinance will certainly increase the costs and impacts to the County, both in the short term, and probably in the long term, too (if, as seems likely, the result is another long, drawn out lawsuit, like the Pepper Spray case, where the County spends millions to defend it’s unnecessary and illegal actions and then ends up losing the case at the end of the day).

    As others have noted, we already have laws against public urination and defecation, drug use, camping in non-designated areas, and the like — and if there isn’t already a law against blocking access to a courthouse, there certainly could be and I have no doubt that such a law would easily withstand Constitutional scrutiny. There is no need to place restrictions on protesting itself, because the protesting itself isn’t causing the problems that have resulted in complaints and demands for action.

    I am not aware of any cases where a city or county has succeeded in restricting protests on the basis that protests may “attract” undesirable people who sometimes behave in undesirable ways and on the basis that it’s just more convenient to restrict the protests than it is to enforce existing laws against the undesirable behaviors.

    It may seem more convenient to lump the act of protesting together with the criminal acts that individuals may engage in the vincinity of the protest, and just restrict the protesting in the hopes of eliminating (or at least dispersing to other locations) those who commit criminal acts — but I don’t think it will turn out to be a successful approach, nor do I think it will even turn out to be cost-effective or “convenient” in the long term. Of course, who knows, maybe Humboldt could be the first place to succeed in making that argument to the courts, but I wouldn’t count on it…and I don’t approve of potentially spending huge sums of money for the slim chance that Humboldt will succeed in that misguided effort.

  29. fashionable fascist
    March 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm



  30. SmokeMonster
    March 26, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    After seeing them overtake the parking lot across the street im done hearing excuses for Jack S. And his group of scumbags abusing the “operation” movement.

    Enough is enough.

    news flash everyone in Humboldt and America is aware of the homeless,so what is there point?
    What do they want?
    In the real world,not their delusional fantasy utopia there are people that succeed and people that fail. No one appreciates things given to them as much as things earned.
    Everyone has rough times in our lives,its how you handle them that makes or breaks you. Obviously the weak are gathering in front of the courthouse.

    I’m growing tired of hearing the excuses for failure,especially from a group of predominantly white people in Humboldt county. Just be honest,you’d rather take the easy route and get free money from our government than get off drugs,accept responsibilities and contribute to ALL of society together. Work a steady job,there’s an idea.

    Don’t give me a word about there is no work because that’s a tired excuse,I just had three jobs to pick from while I was employeed looking for a different job,without a college degree.I see entry level on up help wanted signs daily,YOU have to apply yourself,they choose not to

    Part of the problem is too many people think they are too good for certain jobs,or its easier to live off of the government and other people. Or THEY CHOSE/CHOOSE to be drug/alcohol addicts.

    Maybe Fred’s right.

    What Mitch and a few others are missing in their dramatic comparisons to the gunther island massacre or Chinese exodus of Humboldt is those were racially motivated.
    This is about community pride. I personally have talked to people of every race in humboldt county that are tired of this BS.

  31. tra
    March 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm


    The shoe is fitting, though you are understandably uncomfortable wearing it. Too bad for you, but you shoved it on your foot the moment you advocated for mob/vigilante/brownshirt actions, backed by the cooperation of law enforcement “looking the other way.” Yup, that’s a classic form of authoritarianism, practiced by both Left-wing and Right-wing Authoritarians. If it makes you feel better to count yourself among the Right-wing Authoritarians rather than the Left-wing ones, fine. One thing you clearly aren’t, is a true, prinicipled Libertarian, who would have no part of that kind of rubbish. But, like most self-styled Libertarians, your understanding of the principles seems to extend only to whether a particular government action is desirable to you or not. If the government action in question is desirable enough to you, whether it’s an unnecessary and overreaching ordinance to restrict freedom of speech and assembly, or having law enforcement “look the other way” so that your fantasy of mob/vigilante/brownshirt actions can take place, you are apparently willing to throw any Libertarian principles right out the window, and embrace the Authoritarian measures that you believe would bring about the result you want.

    In the end, you’re coming off as just another faux Libertarian like so many others. If it makes you feel any better, even Libertarian hero Ron Paul turns out to be quite comfortable with “statist” tactics when they suit his purposes — most notably in his opinion that it’s fine for state governments to ban abortion.

  32. Gail Lindemenn
    March 26, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    “I’m growing tired of hearing the excuses for failure”.

    You thought it was only corporations that deserve subsidies, guaranteed incomes, child labor, tax shelters and bailouts?

    A nation can pay up-front to provide for fundamental human needs, or, it can pay dearly later on, this a conservative principle that many nations learned long ago.

    If this nation still provided subsidized shelter, free “public” universities, job training, job placement, and jobs, as it used to before these programs began disappearing a generation ago, than I would be first to condemn 48 million Americans living in poverty.

  33. SmokeMonster
    March 27, 2012 at 12:22 am

    Gail- I have no problem with the REAL OWS movement.

    The people gathered outside the Humboldt County Courthouse do not represent the real OWS one bit

  34. Anonymous
    March 27, 2012 at 1:20 am

    There is a difference between traditional, local, honest, hard-working poverty and the kind we now see among the homeless in Eureka who refuse to accept a helping hand if it requires any form of personal responsibility.

  35. High Finance
    March 27, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Perfectly put, Anonymous 1.20am.

    Putting a sign in the hands of a loitering bum does not make him any more a protestor than putting a baseball in Tra’s hands makes him a San Francisco Giant.

  36. March 27, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Posting bullshit with a cowardly anonymous ID onto one of the few serious political debates in Humboldt County doesn’t make it any less odorous than using a stupid moniker like “High Finance” will you any more than a poser.

    have a peaceful day,

  37. High Finance
    March 27, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Go smoke some “medical” cannabis Bill.

  38. fashionable fascist
    March 27, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Time to pour yourself a stiff one and listen to Rush, Hi Fi.

  39. Amy Breighton
    March 27, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    If I decide that today’s “Tea Baggers” poorly represent the Boston Tea Party patriots, can I abridge some of their Constitutional rights too??



  40. High Finance
    March 27, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    How sad for you to not be able to see the difference between the one day protest by the Tea Party and the rabble of mentally ill people that have camped out these last five months.

  41. March 27, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    I disagree with everything you say–but I will defend to the death

    your right to say it— that’s Free Speech!!!

  42. High Finance
    March 28, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Easy for you to say but your tune would change if I grabbed a tent, pitched it on your front lawn, defecated in your bushes and claimed it was my right because I have 10 protest signs in the vicinity.

  43. March 28, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    If someone camps on your front lawn, simply call the police, HiFi.

  44. tra
    March 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm


    HiFi apparently doesn’t grasp the difference between private property, where there has never been a right to access for protests, and the courthouse grounds, which is not private property, and futhermore is a logical and traditional venue for public protests in Humboldt County.

  45. High Finance
    March 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Apparently Joel & Tra fail to understand that the courthouse lawn and steps are not the private property of the people that have taken it over and trashed it these last five months.

    It is supposed to belong to all of us.

    This is a very basic concept and yet you people cannot understand it. I can damn well gaurantee you that if it was a bunch of crazy John Birchers or White militia that had taken it over since October you all would be screaming your heads off.

  46. Anonymous
    March 28, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    High Finance says:
    March 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    “if it was a bunch of crazy John Birchers or White militia”

    Sorry to hear you’re at odds with your “homies”, ‘Fried.

  47. Jim White
    March 28, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    High Finance says:
    March 27, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    “How sad for you to not be able to see the difference between the one day protest by the Tea Party and the rabble of mentally ill people that have camped out these last five months.”

    It’s much sadder that you persist in willful ignorance of the US. Constitution and childish dependence on lies to make your case.

    Abridging ANYONE’S Constitutional right to protest MUST be based upon the inability of others to engage in their lawful activities.

    Elected officials have been the property of this area’s largest land owners forever, (if candidate’s contribution reports and voting history are any indication).

    Public property is just a logical extension of their hubris.

  48. norbert
    June 30, 2015 at 12:51 am

    I wish everyone had a home. Kids shouldn’t have to grow up in such a close-minded, hateful, shameful country. Ohio, and AZ have actually resolved homeless situations. Look it up. Besides I’ve been searching for about an hour to see if it is illegal to sleep on the courthouse lawn. Haven’t found one thing!

  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s