8/3/2019 THE TUCSON CITY ATTORNEY DOES NOT RESPECT THE COURT
1/3
TUCSON CITY ATTORNEYSHOWS CONTEMPT FOR
THE COURT
Warden Files Final Brief in HisChallenge to Tucsons Civility
Accord
The Tucson City Attorney Has Been Caught Trying to Pull aFast
One on the Court, says Warden
February 21, 2012Tucson Arizona
At the end of his closing brief in Warden v Walkup, Tucson City
ActivistRoy Warden directly challenged the integrity of Tucson City
Governmentby issuing the following words:
Since the Mayor and Council are educated folk, guided
anddirected by the Tucson City Attorney, they cannot now
claimignorance of the law or the meaning of plain English to
justifytheir abject failure to properly amend the former Rules
ofDecorum. Hence; the reason behind their failure to follow the
lawmust lieelsewhere.
In a footnote to the Court, Warden said:
The reason to silence Petitioner clearly lies within the
meaningof Petitioners words to the Mayor and Council: they object
toimplied criticism of their hiring of Richard Miranda as
AssistantCity Manager, three weeks subsequent to paying 1.7
milliondollars in damages, (not counting lawyer fees and court
costs), tosatisfy a 2006 federal jury verdict for 2.9 million
dollars,including 2 million dollars in punitive damages, finding
RichardMiranda responsible for acts of conspiracy and first
amendmentretaliation against Dr. Kevin Gilmartin.
Warden says the City of Tucson may seek to justify the former
Rules ofDecorum, adopted in 1982, because the law regarding speech
before theMayor and Council in effect then was later clarified in
1990, limiting theauthority of the Mayor and Council to stop speech
they claim isimpertinent, slanderous or profane to occasions when
uttering the
http://c/Documents%20and%20Settings/Larry/Application%20Data/FLAG%20BURNING%20PRESS%20RELEASES/POST%20TPD%20POLICY%20CHANGE/RUMBLE%20IN%20KENNEDY%20PARK.doc#ZAPATA#ZAPATA
8/3/2019 THE TUCSON CITY ATTORNEY DOES NOT RESPECT THE COURT
2/3
proscribed words actually causes public disturbance which
interferes withthe orderly conduct of the meeting.
However; when the Tucson City Council adopted new rules on
January 24,2012, they were fully aware of the law clarification as
set forth by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in two cases, White vs. City of Norwalk
(1990)and Norse vs. City of Santa Cruz, (2010).
Regarding Rules of Decorum regulating speech before the Mayor
andCouncil, the City of Tucson knew at the time they adopted the
new Rulesof Decorum exactly what the First Amendment and the law
requires,Warden said.
The Tucson City Council just doesnt give a damn.
They dont want to follow the law, because frankly when it comes
to thecourts and court decisions adverse to their personal
interests, they holdthemselves above the law.
They showed exactly this same kind of contempt for the court,
and theorder of U.S. District Court Judge Frank Zapata in 2006,
when they hiredformer Tucson Police Chief Richard Miranda as
Assistant City Manager,immediately subsequent to paying over two
million dollars in damages,fines and legal fees consequent to
Mirandas shocking conduct towards Dr.Gilmartin in 1998.
Warden says hes hopeful Tucsons new mayor, Jonathon Rothschild,
willreview the entire matter, and issue an apology to the citizens
of Tucson.
Rothschild wasnt responsible for hiring Richard Miranda or for
formerMayor Bob Walkup arresting me when I spoke out against Tucson
Citycorruption, said Warden.
But now that Rothschild is the man in charge, its up to him to
clean upthe mess Walkup created, and to restore public confidence
in the integrityof the Tucson City government.
We the People are forced to abide by the Rule of Law, whether we
like itor not. We certainly expect our elected and hired public
officials to do the
same.
Roy [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]
