7/29/2019 TUCSON CITY COURT ASSERTS AUTHORITY OF PRIOR
RESTRAINT
1/2
ARIZONA COMMON SENSE
An Exercise in Aggressive, Non-Partisan Political Activism
January 22, 2013 Volume 3, Number 02
TUCSON CITY COURT ARROGANTLY ASSERTSTHE POWER OF PRIOR
RESTRAINT
AS A MATTER OF FACT, the Tucson City Court is a limited
jurisdictioncourt of non record, directed by the Tucson City
Council, partisanpolitical and economic interests and local Good
Old Boys.
In other words it is one of the smallest courts in the land,
where,speaking very frankly, most of the significant
constitutionalviolations begin.
Yet arrogantly and unlawfully, the Tucson City Court asserts
anauthority surpassing that of the U.S. Supreme Court, the
highestcourt in the land: the power to issue a non-appealable order
of priorrestraint to silence a political speaker who challenges the
rectitudeof local political authority.
The issue of prior restraint is addressed in several U.S.
SupremeCourt cases, notably New York Times vs United States
(1967)which says they should never be issued, and Walker v
Birmingham (1971) which says injunctions which temporarilyrestrict
expressive conduct must be obeyed until they are appealed.
The Arizona Supreme Court, in State v Chavez , (involving
theDirector of the Farm workers Union, activist Cesar
Chavez),affirmed the holding in Walker v Birmingham.
And the 9 th Circuit, in accordance with Walker and Chavez,
hasprecisely set forth the conditions which must be met regarding
anyprior restraint restrictions on free speech:
Prior restraints on free speech will be upheld only if
they...provide for a prompt decision during which the status quo
ismaintained and there is the opportunity for a prompt
judicialdecision Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d
990,998 (9 th Cir 2004)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=713http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=307http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=307http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1979661123Ariz538_1519.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985http://c/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Parent/Application%20Data/FLAG%20BURNING%20PRESS%20RELEASES/POST%20TPD%20POLICY%20CHANGE/RUMBLE%20IN%20KENNEDY%20PARK.doc#ZAPATA#ZAPATAhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=713http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=307http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=307http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1979661123Ariz538_1519.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985
7/29/2019 TUCSON CITY COURT ASSERTS AUTHORITY OF PRIOR
RESTRAINT
2/2
Significantly; none of the rulings in any of the courts cited
aboveconflict. All are in accordance with each other regarding
orders of prior restraint.
And it is abundantly clear: NONE of the above courts would
condonethe policy of the Tucson City Court, to wit: Use Non
AppealableConditions of Release Orders of Prior Restraint to
Silence the Voiceof Those Who Challenge Local Open Border
Policy.
Some may ask: Then, why is there no case precisely on
pointspecifically outlawing the issuance of Non-Appealable Orders
of Prior Restraint?
For two reasons: (1) no local attorney has ever had the guts
toframe the issue correctly and thus anger local courts, or (2) no
court
(other than Tucson City Court, has ever been stupid enough to
issueone.
Because of my experience with local attorneys, like Paul
Gattoneand Eric Manch, Im betting the answer is #1.
In any event the issue of local courts suspending
constitutionalrights, now that it has been properly framed in
Warden v Tucson City Court , is going to Pima County Superior
Court, and fromthere up the Judicial Food Chain towards the Arizona
SupremeCourt.
Roy [email protected]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120000629/TRANSPARENT-INVALIDITY-DOES-ARIZONA-LAW-PERMIT-A-COURT-TO-SUSPEND-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENThttp://www.scribd.com/doc/120000629/TRANSPARENT-INVALIDITY-DOES-ARIZONA-LAW-PERMIT-A-COURT-TO-SUSPEND-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENTmailto:[email protected]://www.scribd.com/doc/120000629/TRANSPARENT-INVALIDITY-DOES-ARIZONA-LAW-PERMIT-A-COURT-TO-SUSPEND-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENThttp://www.scribd.com/doc/120000629/TRANSPARENT-INVALIDITY-DOES-ARIZONA-LAW-PERMIT-A-COURT-TO-SUSPEND-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENTmailto:[email protected]
