Activism Discussion: (fwd) Santa Cruz Homeless Update - Norse Loses Free Speech Lawsuit In Federal District Court

(fwd) Santa Cruz Homeless Update - Norse Loses Free Speech Lawsuit In Federal District Court
Posts: 11

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

D*@yahoo.com
2007-04-04 21:56:14 EST
-----Forwarded Message-----

Article comments by Becky Johnson, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/huffsantacruz

from: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/April/04/local/stories/09local.htm
April 4, 2007
Judge rules Nazi salute too disruptive for public venue
By Shanna McCord
Sentinel staff writer
SANTA CRUZ - Free speech goes only so far inside City Hall.

A federal judge has ruled that city officials had the right to eject a
homeless-rights advocate from a council meeting in 2002 for giving a
Nazi salute.

The judge said the action was too disruptive for the venue.

BECKY: False. The Judge did not rule that the Nazi Salute is a
disruption. His ruling turned on the fact that Norse had been warned
previously against using a Nazi Salute in council chambers and that
the chair has "wide discretion." The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had
also examined the "Nazi Salute" previously, and saw no disruption. The
Judge ruled that Mayor Krohn had "qualified immunity" and therefore
could not be prosecuted.

"You don't have the same First Amendment rights in a meeting as you do
on the street," said attorney George Kovacevich, who represented the
city in the five-year, $100,000 legal fray. "You have the right to
attend, but you don't have the right to say whatever you want,
whenever you want"

BECKY: Note that this $100,000 which Barisone now bills the City for
is not covered in the $500,000 for Barisone's contract. This case
included writing a 70-page brief in response to an 8-page brief and
other tactics to bill the City the maximum amount his office could
possibly bill.

Robert Norse sued the city for alleged violations of his civil rights
under the First and Fourth amendments shortly after being arrested at
a council meeting in March 2002.

BECKY: For his one and a half-second raising of his arm silently from
the side of the room, Norse was handcuffed and carted off to jail.
The alleged "disruption" was never prosecuted as the DA determined
there was not enough evidence to press charges.

Then-Mayor Christopher Krohn had called an end to the public-comment
period of the meeting and instructed a woman to step away from the
microphone. After twice being told to leave the microphone, the woman
walked over to Norse, who raised his right arm toward council members
in a Nazi salute, the way Nazi supporters saluted German dictator
Adolph Hitler during World War II.

BECKY: Krohn had earlier asked how many wanted to speak at oral
communications. Activist, Susan Zeman was in the earlier group who had
raised her hand. She believed she had been granted permission to
speak and was shocked to walk up to the podium and have Krohn cut off
oral communications right in front of her. Nor would he listen to her
appeal to allow her to speak. When Krohn threatened to have her
arrested, Norse responded with the Nazi Salute.

Then-Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice interrupted Krohn to ask Norse to
leave the meeting, saying the salute was an insult to the "dignity of
the body"

BECKY: This was content-based. No one can say that if Norse had given
a "thumbs up" he would have been arrested. Offending the "dignity of
the body" can happen when citizens are redressing government
grievances. Norse contends that the "rules of decorum" forbid
citizens from criticizing their government.

Norse refused to leave and was subsequently arrested.

The problem with Norse raising his arm to the council was not the
meaning of the salute, but rather the disruption the salute caused,
according to U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, who issued the
decision last week.

A City Council policy states that people who "interrupt and refuse to
keep quiet or take a seat when ordered to do so by the presiding
officer or otherwise disrupt the proceedings of the council" may be
removed from a meeting.

BECKY: It's clear from the videotapes that it was Fitzmaurice who
interrupted the council meeting with his delicate sensitivities, no
doubt fueled by his dislike of Robert Norse (who he has walked out on
twice while speaking) and his desire to have him removed from the
meeting. Attorney Kate Wells, (who McCord declined to interview) said
"The Council has a practice of interrupting their own meetings and
then blaming individual citizens for the disruptions they themselves
caused."

Norse, a council gadfly who often launches bitter attacks on the
city's homeless policies, said the salute was meant as a protest to
the city's refusal to deal with homeless issues.

He plans to appeal Whyte's decision to the 9th District Court of
Appeals.

BECKY: No doubt this case will move forward as the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals did not see the same "disruption" that Whyte did.

"This is not about the Nazis and this is not about me," Norse said
Tuesday. "This is about mayoral actions that involve oppression. What
I'm fighting is not the Nazi salute. I'm fighting council oppression"

BECKY: Norse has been arrested four times at City Council and once on
the sidewalk in front of New Leaf Market. He was not prosecuted in
any of these arrests, and won a settlement from the City for the New
Leaf incident where he sued for false arrest. Unfortunately, The City
was able to exclude any evidence of these arrests or subsequent lack
of convictions from the trial.

Rules limiting speech at council meetings are absolutely necessary to
conduct city business, Kovacevich said.

BECKY: Norse doesn't dispute this. He contends his Nazi Salute was
non-interruptive, but protected by his first amendment rights.
Otherwise, it would be okay agree with what council is doing but not
to disagree.

Federal law also gives added protections to city officials in cases of
alleged civil rights violations. City officials can mistakenly violate
a person's rights and not be held liable.

"They have to make spontaneous calls and run a meeting and not be
afraid of getting sued every day," Kovacevich said.

BECKY: This was the actual ruling by Judge Ronald Whyte: that the
council are immune from liability. Despite a pattern of false
arrests. Despite rules that violate the 1st amendment and eliminate
the right of the citizen to disapprove of what the council is doing.

Former Mayor Scott Kennedy, serving on the council in 2002, said
Norse's salute was disruptive because he was standing in the front of
the room where the council and public audience could see him.

"In my view, it was not the content," Kennedy said. "It was the time
and place, and it did disrupt the meeting"

BECKY: Kennedy himself was named in another incident on Jan 13, 2004
where he arbitrarily established a system of tallies for warnings,
which included calling holding a sign a "disruption" or inaudible
whispering in the audience a "disruption" . His "system" , under which
he had Norse physically arrested, didn't even last to the next council
meeting. Norse was never prosecuted for this arrest.

Councilman Mike Rotkin, not on the council in March 2002, said Norse
has a long history of arguing with council members and straying from
the topic being discussed.

BECKY: Kovacevich did an exhaustive analysis of every time Norse has
spoken at City Council since 1999. Norse was ruled "off-topic" in
less than 5% of comments. Rotkin also had Norse arrested at a council
meeting in June of 2005 for violating the "5-minute rule" in which
Rotkin limited comments on all consent agenda items by members of the
public to a total of 5 minutes, which means that members of the public
have little or no time to speak on items on the agenda, despite the
Brown Act assurance that they do. Norse faced charges for 16-months
only to have all charges dropped a week before trial.

"The entire council meeting is not a free speech forum," Rotkin said.
"We go out of our way to make ourselves open and accessible to
everybody. Robert needs to follow the process like everyone else,
which is what the court told us"

BECKY: The court told the council they are immune from liability no
matter what they do. Read Judge Ronald Whyte's decision at: http://www.indybay.
org/newsitems/ 2007/03/27/ 18383947. php

Contact Shanna McCord at smccord@santacruzse ntinel.com.

-----End Forward-----


D*@yahoo.com
2007-04-04 22:45:44 EST
Forwarder's note: Be sure to read the Sentinel article from their
website. It looks like Becky Johnson edited out some of it in her
comments.


D*@yahoo.com
2007-04-05 20:06:19 EST
Forwarder's note: Here is a copy of the judge's opinion. More
comments by Norse can be found at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/27/18383947.php?show_comments=1#18384888

-----Forwarded Ruling-----

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT UPON FINDING OF QUALIFIED
IMMUNITY OF DEFENDANTS
C-02-01479 RMW E-filed on: 3/28/07
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
ROBERT NORSE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,
Defendants. No. C 02-01479 RMW

This matter came on regularly for trial on March 26, 2007. Pursuant to
the court's pretrial order dated March 22, 2007, the court set the
first day of trial to determine whether the issue of defendants'
entitlement to qualified immunity could be determined based upon
undisputed facts.

After considering the undisputed facts and hearing the arguments of
counsel, the court finds that the individual defendants are entitled
to qualified immunity and that there is no basis for independent
liability of the City. Therefore, the court will enter judgment in
favor of defendants.

I. UNDISPUTED FACTS
Plaintiff Robert Norse claims damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
alleged violations of his civil rights under the First and Fourth
Amendments of the Constitution based upon incidents occurring at Santa
Cruz City Council meetings on March 12, 2002 and January 13, 2004. The
parties agree that the council meetings were videotaped, that the
videotapes are admissible and depict what occurred at the meetings.
The parties also agree as to the content of the City's rules for
Decorum in Council Meetings and Norse's knowledge of them.

A. March 12, 2002 Incident

On March 12, 2002 Norse was ejected from the council meeting following
his Nazi salute protesting Mayor Christopher Krohn's refusal to allow
an individual to speak after the "oral communication" session, a
period of time when members of the public are allowed to address the
council, had ended. Immediately prior to Norse's Nazi salute, Mayor
Krohn had instructed a boisterous, somewhat threatening individual
objecting to the end of open communications to leave
and had instructed the individual who was insisting that she be
allowed to speak after the end of oral communications to step away
from the microphone and be seated. After being instructed twice to
step away from the microphone and warned that, if she did not, she
would have to leave, she stepped away and walked over to Norse who
then gave the Nazi salute. Before the salute, Mayor Krohn had
resumed reading some announcements and thus did not see the salute.
Council member Tim Fitzmaurice then interrupted Mayor Krohn, advised
him that the Nazi salute had been given, stated
that he felt the salute was against the "dignity of the body" and
requested that Krohn instruct Norse to leave the chambers. Norse
started to challenge Fitzmaurice's statements and Mayor Krohn
immediately instructed Norse to "please leave the chambers." Norse,
who was then standing by the entrance to the chambers, refused and
took a seat in the chambers. A recess was taken and Loran Baker, a
police officer acting as the sergeant-at-arms for the council, asked
Norse if he was going to voluntarily leave and Norse said he would
not. Baker then placed Norse under arrest without incident except for
Norse's calling attention to the fact he was being arrested.

The videotape of a June 26, 2001 council meeting shows that then Mayor
Fitzmaurice advised Norse that any future Nazi salute would be
considered "indecorous behavior." The videotape of a July 10, 2001
meeting reflects that council member Keith Sugar asked Norse not to
use Nazi gestures.

B. January 13, 2004 Incident

On January 13, 2004 Norse was ejected from the council meeting by
Mayor Scott Kennedy following certain conduct by Norse. The city
council was discussing a proposed housing seating area and the dias
where the council members were seated. Norse was one of those in the
parade but he was not carrying a sign.

Mayor Scott Kennedy interrupted the proceedings, asked that people not
block the view of the members of the audience by walking between the
public seating area and the dias and that this was a warning that
further disruption could lead to expulsion. Later, during comments by
council member Ed Porter, Mayor Kennedy interrupted Porter and asked
Norse, who, according to Norse, was whispering to another individual,
to "please take your conversation outside." Mayor Kennedy also advised
Norse that this was his second warning. Norse then asked what was his
first warning and Kennedy replied that this was his third warning and
asked him to leave the chamber.

Norse apparently walked outside and then Porter resumed his discussion
after pausing to regain his train of thought. After discussion on the
project concluded, Mayor Kennedy discussed the decorum rules and
listed Norse, who had returned to the chambers, as one of several that
had been warned and asked him again to leave as he had been asked one-
half hour earlier. Norse insisted to no avail that a council vote be
taken on his ouster.[See Footnote 1] Norse then refused to leave, a
recess was taken and Norse was arrested after he maintained his
refusal to leave.

C. Rules for Decorum in Council Meetings

The City of Santa Cruz has written procedural rules for Decorum in
Council Meetings. The rules provide that:

While the Council is in session, all persons shall preserve order and
decorum. Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous
remarks, or becoming boisterous shall be barred by the presiding
officer from further attendance at said meeting unless permission for
continued attendance is granted by a majority vote of the Council.

The rules also require all speakers to "avoid[] all indecorous
language and references to personalities and abid[e] by the following
rules of civil debate.
1. We may disagree, but we will be respectful of one another
2. All comments will be directed to the issue at hand
3. Personal attacks should be avoided"

Finally, the rules provide that the chief of police, or
representative, shall act as ex-officio sergeant-at-arms of the
Council and "shall carry out all orders and instructions of the
presiding officer for the
purpose of maintaining order and decorum in the Council Chambers."

Upon instructions of the presiding officer it shall be the duty of the
sergeant-at-arms or any police officer present to eject from the
Council Chambers any person in the audience who uses boisterous or
profane language, or language tending to bring the Council or any
Councilmember into contempt, or any person who interrupts and refuses
to keep quiet or take a seat when ordered to do so by the presiding
officer or otherwise disrupts the proceedings of the Council.

Norse, who frequently attends and speaks at council meetings, was
familiar with the decorum rules at the time of the incidents.

II. NATURE OF CLAIM AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to recover
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief based
upon the March 12, 2002 incident. Plaintiff originally challenged the
constitutionality of Santa Cruz's written rules regarding decorum
during city council meetings, both on their face and as applied.
However, the court of appeals, although agreeing with plaintiff that
the court should not have granted defendants' motion to dismiss on
the
pleadings, construed the decorum rules to proscribe only disruptive
conduct and thus held that the rules are facially valid. Norse v. City
of Santa Cruz, 118 Fed. Appx. 177, 178 (9th Cir. 2004).

Norse, therefore, limits his claim to one that his constitutional
rights were violated by the manner in which the decorum rules were
applied to him. After the appellate court decision, Norse amended his
complaint to assert that his constitutional rights were also violated
by the way the rules were applied to him at the council meeting on
January 13, 2004.

Defendants contend that the rules were appropriately applied to Norse
and, in any event, the individual defendants are immune from suit
because it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer in any of
the defendants' positions that the action taken was unlawful in light
of the situation that the defendant confronted. See Saucier v. Katz,
533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.
1996).


III. ANALYSIS

A. Qualified Immunity Should Be Resolved As Early As Possible

"[B]ecause [t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a
mere defense to liability," the Supreme Court has "repeatedly . . .
stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at
the earliest possible stage in litigation." Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S.
224, 227 (1991); see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200-01. Qualified immunity
is effectively lost if a case is allowed to go to trial where the
defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at
201.

B. Qualified Immunity Analysis

The determination of whether qualified immunity is applicable involves
a two step inquiry.

The first question is whether the undisputed facts show that the
action of the defendant violated a constitutional right. In the
present case, therefore, the issue is whether Krohn, Fitzmaurice,
Baker or Kennedy violated a constitutional right protecting Norse. Id.
at 201. If so, the next question is whether that right was clearly
established in the specific context of the case. Id. "The relevant,
dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly
established is whether it would have been clear to a reasonable
officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted."
Id. at 202.

The determination of qualified immunity on facts not genuinely at
issue is one of law for the court. See Thompson v. Mahre, 110 F.3d
716, 721 (9th Cir. 1997); Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988
F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1993).

1. The March 12, 2002 Meeting

a. Norse's Constitutional Rights Were Not Violated When He Was Removed
from the Council Meeting Following His Nazi Salute
The Ninth Circuit has upheld decorum rules similar to those adopted in
Santa Cruz against a facial constitutional challenge based upon an
interpretation of the rules that requires an individual who engages in
proscribed conduct be acting in a way that actually disturbs or
impedes the meeting.
White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1990); Kindt
v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 67 F.3d 266 (9th Cir. 1995).

As noted above, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Santa Cruz rules against
a facial challenge in this case. Norse, supra. Rules governing public
participation at council meetings will be upheld as long as the rules
are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Kindt, 67 F.3d at 270-71. Rules
such as those involved here seek to further the government's
legitimate interest in conducting orderly and efficient meetings of
the city council by prohibiting disruptive comments and behavior. See
White, 900 F.2d at 1421. The presiding officer's enforcement of the
rules "involves a great deal of discretion." Id. at 1426. Therefore,
with respect to the March 12, 2002 meeting, the first question in the
two step Saucier test for qualified immunity is whether the ejection
of Norse was objectively reasonable because his conduct was disruptive
(impeded the council from accomplishing its business in a reasonably
efficient manner) or was based upon the mere content of his speech.
The salute occurred after the oral communication portion of the
meeting had concluded.

After dealing with two individuals who were clearly disruptive, Mayor
Krohn resumed the council's business by reading some announcements.
Since he was reading, he did not notice Norse's gesture but within
seconds council member Fitzmaurice called his attention to the fact
that Norse had made a Nazi salute. Fitzmaurice's concern, at least as
expressed, seems to have been with the content of the expression
("below the dignity of the body") rather than with any interference
with the orderly conduct of the meeting. Krohn, however, as the
presiding officer in charge of running the meeting,
was suddenly faced with a meeting that had been interrupted by an
offended council member.

Krohn had just finished dealing with two disruptive members of the
public, at least one of whom Norse was supporting with his salute.
Krohn also knew that two council members in the previous months had
expressed to Norse their abhorrence of his Nazi gestures which
reasonably suggests that Norse intended his salute at the March 12,
2002 meeting to be disruptive. Further, Norse had begun to verbally
challenge Fitzmaurice's comments. Under these circumstances, the court
finds that Krohn's action in ejecting Norse from the chambers was a
reasonable means within his "great deal of discretion" controlling the
conduct of the meeting and was not merely action taken based upon the
content of Norse's speech. Therefore, Norse's First Amendment rights
were not violated.

b. A Reasonable Mayor Would Not Have Believed that the Ejection of
Norse Was Unlawful in the Situation He Confronted

Assuming arguendo that Norse's Nazi salute was not disruptive, the
next question is whether

Footnote 2: On one occasion Kindt was asked to move when he and others
were disturbing another member of the public addressing the board. On
that occasion, a board member stomped out because he thought Kindt and
others should have been ejected. On another occasion Kindt and a
cohort were ejected after a board member thought the cohort had made
an obscene gesture toward him. Kindt, 67 F.3d at 268-69.


the right to express oneself by a Nazi salute was clearly established
in the specific context of the case. Id. The dispositive inquiry in
determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it
would have been clear to a reasonable mayor in the situation he
confronted that his act of ejecting Norse for making a Nazi salute was
a violation of his First Amendment rights. Id. at 202. The law is
clearly established that an individual may be ejected from a council
meeting for disruptive behavior, in other words behavior that
interferes with a council's accomplishing its business.
However, the determination as to what constitutes disruptive behavior
in the situation confronted by Krohn is not so clear. The discussion
in White was limited to the question of whether the ordinance was
unconstitutional on its face. It did not deal with the particular
conduct that led to the plaintiffs' ejections. The court, however,
observed:

A more fundamental flaw in plaintiffs' position is that their first
amendment arguments do not take account of the nature of the process
that this ordinance is designed to govern. We are dealing not with
words uttered on the street to anyone who chooses or chances to
listen; we are dealing with speech that is addressed to that Council.
Principles that apply to random discourse may not be transferred
without adjustment to this more structured situation.
White, 900 F.2d at 1425.
In Kindt, the court affirmed the dismissal of a § 1983 action in which
plaintiff claimed that the rent control board violated his First
Amendment rights when it ejected him from public board meetings and by
discriminating between speakers who supported the board's views and
speakers who opposed them. The court gave guidance on the type of
limitation of speech allowed. "It seems to us that the highly
structured nature of city council and city board meetings makes them
fit more neatly into the nonpublic niche . . . . The fact remains that
limitations on speech at those meetings must be reasonable and
viewpoint neutral, but that is all they need to be." Kindt, 67 F.3d at
270-71.

However, the Kindt court provides little help on what conduct can be
considered disruptive and therefore justifies ejection. Kindt's
conduct was described as abandoning "all sense of decorum."
Id. at 273. 2

The court concludes based upon the undisputed facts that it would not
have been clear to a reasonable mayor in Mayor Krohn's position that
his ejection of Norse was unlawful in the situation he confronted.
Therefore, even if Norse's First Amendments rights were violated,
Krohn is entitled to qualified immunity.

c. Council Member Fitzmaurice Did Not Eject Norse

Although council member Fitzmaurice requested Mayor Krohn remove Norse
from the meeting, only Krohn had that power and, in fact, made the
order of ejection. Therefore, regardless of the validity of
Fitzmaurice's stated reason for his request, he cannot be held
responsible for Norse's removal. Further, even if Fitzmaurice were
responsible for Norse's removal and was improperly motivated, he would
nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity. Evidence concerning
the defendant's subjective intent is simply irrelevant to the question
of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244,
1260 (9th Cir. 1993).

d. Probable Cause for Arrest

Defendants contend that there was probable cause to arrest Norse. The
order ejecting him was a lawful order and his refusal to comply with
the lawful order established probable cause to arrest him. The
complaint alleges that Sergeant Baker, at the Mayor's instruction,
informed plaintiff that he would have to leave or he would be
arrested. Plaintiff refused to leave. Sergeant Baker then placed
plaintiff under arrest. Plaintiff contends that the ejection order was
unlawful because he had not disrupted the meeting. As discussed above,
however, the meeting was in fact disrupted. Thus, the order to remove
plaintiff was lawful. Plaintiff's refusal to leave the chambers
provided probable cause for his arrest. Thus, there was no
constitutional violation by Sergeant Baker.

In addition, Sergeant Baker has qualified immunity. The decorum rules
provide that the sergeant-at-arms of the Council "shall carry out all
orders and instructions of the presiding officer . . . ." There was no
clearly established law pursuant to which Sergeant Baker should have
known that the Mayor's order was unlawful. The City's decorum rules
and their application were not so obviously unconstitutional that a
reasonable police officer would have refused to enforce Mayor
Krohn's direction to remove Norse from the council meeting. See
Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1209-10 (9th Cir. 1994).
A reasonable officer in Sergeant Baker's position would not have
believed that arresting plaintiff for refusing to comply with an
apparently lawful order to depart from the council meeting violated
any clearly established right. Sergeant Baker has qualified immunity
for his actions in arresting plaintiff.

2. The January 13, 2004 Meeting

a. Norse's Constitutional Rights Were Not Violated When He Was Removed
from the Council Meeting For His Disruptive Behavior Plaintiff argues
that there is a question of fact as to whether Norse's conduct at the
January 13, 2004 meeting was disruptive and that individuals who were
at the meeting would testify that Norse was not disruptive and that
his conversations were no louder than those engaged in by others.

The court accepts for the purposes of its analysis that plaintiff
could offer such testimony-a qualified immunity analysis must be based
upon undisputed facts or facts viewed in the light most favorable to
plaintiff. However, the videotape of the January 13, 2004 meeting
shows plaintiff participating in the parade of individuals walking
between the public seating area and the dias where the council members
were seated, talking into a handheld recorder as the picketers entered
the council chambers, initiating conversation with an individual
(possibly a city staff person) while another individual was making a
presentation to the council, demanding to know what his first
warning was when the mayor advised him of his second warning and
insisting that a council vote be taken concerning Mayor Kennedy's
decision to eject him. Even accepting the testimony that plaintiff
says he could offer, the undisputed evidence shown by the videotape
supports without legitimate dispute that Norse's ejection was within
the "great deal of discretion" a presiding officer has in enforcement
of decorum rules. Norse's participation in the parade of protesters
was clearly disruptive. The videotape shows that he was talking into a
recorder during the meeting, that he initiated conversation with
someone when another was making a presentation to the council and that
he engaged in verbal challenges to Mayor Kennedy's warnings to him.
The fact that some individuals who were at the meeting did not
consider him disruptive does not negate the fact that Mayor Kennedy
reasonably viewed his conduct as disruptive. The court finds that the
undisputed evidence, with consideration of the additional evidence
plaintiff says he could present, shows no violation of Norse's
constitutional rights. That finding ends the inquiry under Saucier and
Mayor Kennedy is entitled to qualified immunity from Norse's claim.

b. A Reasonable Mayor Would Not Have Believed that the Ejection of
Norse Was Unlawful in the Situation He Confronted

Since the evidence establishes without question that Norse's
constitutional rights were not violated by his ejection from the
January 13, 2004 meeting, a reasonable presiding officer in Mayor
Kennedy's position would not have believed that ejecting Norse from
the meeting was unlawful. Kennedy is entitled to qualified immunity.

C. No Independent Basis for Liability of the City

Since the undisputed facts show no violation of Norse's constitutional
rights, there is no basis for liability of the City.

IV. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Since the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and
there is no basis for independent liability of the City since no
constitutional violation occurred, judgment shall be entered in favor
of all defendants and plaintiff is entitled to no relief by way of his
complaint.

DATED: 3/28/07 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

Footnote 1 The Decorum Rules do allow a majority of the council to
give permission for continued attendance despite the decision of the
presiding officer to bar an individual. However, the rules do not
provide for the individual to call for a vote.
development in an industrial area of the city. Certain individuals
were parading between the public

-----End Forward-----



D*@yahoo.com
2007-04-05 20:15:28 EST
More public comments by Norse on the ruling and the Sentinel article

-----Forwarded Message-----

From: "Robert Norse" <rnorse3@hotmail.com> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/huffsantacruz
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:37:45 -0700
Subject: [huffsantacruz] Norse and Johnson commentary on the Santa
Cruz Sentinel "Nazi Salute" story (BJ)


Becky Johnson, who was scheduled to appear as a witness in the trial
of the
three mayors, took the video that documented the Council's false
arrests.

Sentinel writer Shanna McCord wrote a story that was both biased and
superficial. She has shown zero interest in recent incidents of City
Council repression. Her friendly and congenial manner seems to be more
a
public posture to "open up" folks. She then presents her own view of
the
situation which usually involves extensive quotes from the police
department, Councilmember Rotkin, and/or other authority figures. She
has
not, as far as I can remember, ever done any in-depth investigation of
a
local civil rights issue. Her indifference to the daily violation of
homeless civil rights is pervasive, and she has never done any
investigation
of that issue.

When interviewing, she pretends to be interested and to take notes,
but
rarely do the points she expresses interest in actually make their way
into
the stories. She routinely gives one side of the story (as in the
story
that follows where she quoted the City Attorney, but made no attempt
to
reach attorneys Kate Wells and David Beauvais, our attorneys).

Likewise in stories involving the expansion of police powers she acts
as a
transmission belt for the police and city staff, rubberstamping and
uncritically passing on their fearmongering. -This happened repeatedly
last
year as the City gave Parks and Recration the power to ban smoking,
ban
homeless from parking garages, add new policing to the Pogonip to get
rid of
campers, expand P& R power to "close" any property they police, and
to
illegitimately seize the lion's share of the Measure H funding--again
for
anti-homeless patrolling. She has shown no interest in the downtown
crackdown on poor and homeless people.

One wonders if she's ever made a Public Records Act request in her
life.

In this story, she and photographer Dan Coyro spent five minutes
trying to
persuade me to make a Nazi salute for a photograph, then made a point
of
taking a photo of me doing a thumbs up. In the end, Coyro published a
photo
of me doing a partial Nazi salute which I was showing McCord to
illustrate
how brief it was. The point was the Coyro was deceptive in his
approach,
suggesting he was taking a photo of me doing something else, but then
using
the partial salute.

McCord, though I like her personally, is an irresponsible, sloppy,
and
terminally-biased reporter. My suggestion to anyone approached by her
is to
request she ask her questions by e-mail or phone, and then get back to
her
with a written statement. That way, something of what you say, will
have to
be quoted one way or another. Or...maybe not.

Here's her spin on City Council's history of repression lawsuit, and
Judge
Whyte's prejudicial ruling. More information can be found at
http://www.indybay. org/newsitems/ 2007/03/27/ 18383947. php .

Robert Norse

>Judge rules Nazi salute too disruptive for public venue
>By Shanna McCord
>Sentinel staff writer
>SANTA CRUZ - Free speech goes only so far inside City Hall.
>
>A federal judge has ruled that city officials had the right to eject a
>homeless-rights advocate from a council meeting in 2002 for giving a Nazi
>salute.
>
>The judge said the action was too disruptive for the venue.
>
>BECKY: False. The Judge did not rule that the Nazi Salute is a disruption.
> His ruling turned on the fact that Norse had been warned previously
>against using a Nazi Salute in council chambers and that the chair has
>"wide discretion." The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had also examined the
>"Nazi Salute" previously, and saw no disruption. The Judge ruled that Mayor
>Krohn had "qualified immunity" and therefore could not be prosecuted.

NORSE: The 9th said that the rules of decorum were constitutional as
written (a bad decision since the rules are ill-defined, subjective,
and
overbroad). But that they were valid as applied (that is, in my
specific
case) only if an actual disruption was created by a member of the
public.
(It would be novel and refreshing if these laws were also applied to
Councilmembers when they disrupt a meeting themselves.) But that is a
matter of fact for a trial--or at least that's how I remember
attorneys
Beauvais and Wells describing the decision. If you find it, I'd love
to see
it posted.

>
>"You don't have the same First Amendment rights in a meeting as you do on
>the street," said attorney George Kovacevich, who represented the city in
>the five-year, $100,000 legal fray. "You have the right to attend, but you
>don't have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want"
>
>BECKY: Note that this $100,000 which Barisone now bills the City for is not
>covered in the $500,000 for Barisone's contract. This case included writing
>a 70-page brief in response to an 8-page brief and other tactics to bill
>the City the maximum amount his office could possibly bill.

NORSE: Nothing was audible on the Council tape in the second incident
and
the Nazi salute was silent. I did speak up appealing to the Council on
the
issue as Fitzmaurice made his point of order. And I did assert my
right to
be present. In the Kennedy false arrest, I was asking Kennedy what I'd
done
that required a warning, and my question itself was ruled to be
"disruptive" .

>
>Robert Norse sued the city for alleged violations of his civil rights under
>the First and Fourth amendments shortly after being arrested at a council
>meeting in March 2002.
>
>BECKY: For his one and a half-second raising of his arm silently from the
>side of the room, Norse was handcuffed and carted off to jail. The alleged
>"disruption" was never prosecuted as the DA determined there was not enough
>evidence to press charges.

NORSE: These incidents were just two of many. There was a pattern of
harassment. Past incidents included (1) instructing police to arrest
by
prearrangement (the Golden Toilet Seat Award-1999, Nay and Silva
arrests-2000, (2) hostile and prejudicial interruptions (Sugar's
midnight
kidnapping of the Safe Sleeping Zones-2000), (3) a spurious
restraining
order by the City-dissolved at trial--that banned us from legitimate
lobbying activity at the Mayor's office, (4) interrupting public
testimony
with a walkout of Councilmembers (Fitzmaurice in 2000 and 2005), (5)
selective harassment of the media at City Council (threats for
changing a
tape, restricting media movement), (6) intimidation for legitimate
peaceful
silent 1st Amendment protected audience response to Council blabathons
(a
silent "yak yak" gesture, the sign held up from the side "it's a
lie") ,
(7) differential time cuts that limited my time specifically but not
that of
others (Fitzmaurice' s 30 seconds per item, Krohn and Rotkin's ad hoc
and
then institutionalized 5-minute rule), and (8) most recently,
censoring
public comment on an agenda item where the Mayor knew the comment
would be
critical and I was the critic (Officer Howes hero award).
>
>Then-Mayor Christopher Krohn had called an end to the public-comment period
>of the meeting and instructed a woman to step away from the microphone.
>After twice being told to leave the microphone, the woman walked over to
>Norse, who raised his right arm toward council members in a Nazi salute,
>the way Nazi supporters saluted German dictator Adolph Hitler during World
>War II.
>
>BECKY: Krohn had earlier asked how many wanted to speak at oral
>communications. Activist, Susan Zeman was in the earlier group who had
>raised her hand. She believed she had been granted permission to speak and
>was shocked to walk up to the podium and have Krohn cut off oral
>communications right in front of her. Nor would he listen to her appeal to
>allow her to speak. When Krohn threatened to have her arrested, Norse
>responded with the Nazi Salute.

NORSE: Omitted from the Sentinel story is the fact that the gesture
was
silent and brief. And that Mayor Krohn didn't even notice it.

>
>Then-Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice interrupted Krohn to ask Norse to leave the
>meeting, saying the salute was an insult to the "dignity of the body"
>
>BECKY: This was content-based. No one can say that if Norse had given a
>"thumbs up" he would have been arrested. Offending the "dignity of the
>body" can happen when citizens are redressing government grievances. Norse
>contends that the "rules of decorum" forbid citizens from criticizing their
>government.

NORSE: Or that if I'd held up a a sign "You're Acting Like Nazis
Here",
that would have been "disruptive" .
The Sentinel missed one of Whyte's "stronger" points (actually
insufficient,
but pertinent in future situations, perhaps): that I was supposedly
part of
a larger disruption and so was legitimately arrested by a mayor who
made a
reasonable decision. Not supported by the videotape or by any
cross-examination (e.g. "Mr. Fitzmaurice, do you actually claim that
the
meeting would have been delayed or disrupted or that business would
not
have gone on as usual if you hadn't made your Point of Order?" I'd
have to
check the depositions to see if that question was ever asked.

>
>Norse refused to leave and was subsequently arrested.

NORSE: Krohn, at Fitzmaurice' s demand and on Kennedy's advice, then
disrupted his own meeting by recessing the meeting. This recessing
action
significantly delayed (i.e. disrupted) the meeting and initiated a
personal
confrontation with me which involved arresting him for refusing to
obey a
bogus demand from a City Councilmember. The police officer involved
didn't
consider my behavior arrest-worthy when he personally witnessed it
himself,
but acted only on citizen's arrest from Krohn. The officer, Sgt.
Loran
Baker, who had a history of prejudicial arrests of Norse himself,
refused to
take my counter-complaint against Mayor Krohn for a "false police
report"
(i.e. the claim that I "disrupted" the meeting with a silent
gesture).
Baker also insisted on taking me to jail rather than citing and
release me
in a clearly punitive move.

>
>The problem with Norse raising his arm to the council was not the meaning
>of the salute, but rather the disruption the salute caused, according to
>U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, who issued the decision last week.

NORSE: Whether the salute or the City Council's determination to
suppress
was "the disruption" was an issue for the jury, which Whyte didn't
allow to
form.
>
>A City Council policy states that people who "interrupt and refuse to keep
>quiet or take a seat when ordered to do so by the presiding officer or
>otherwise disrupt the proceedings of the council" may be removed from a
>meeting.

NORSE: After being told that Krohn regarded me as disruptive and
ordered me
to leave I did in fact sit down. I suppose it can be argued that I did
not
immediately sit down (at least, not for the pendancy of Fitzmaurice' s
point
of order), and that I did briefly approach the microphone to appeal
to
justify myself before sitting down.

>
>BECKY: It's clear from the videotapes that it was Fitzmaurice who
>interrupted the council meeting with his delicate sensitivities, no doubt
>fueled by his dislike of Robert Norse (who he has walked out on twice while
>speaking) and his desire to have him removed from the meeting. Attorney
>Kate Wells, (who McCord declined to interview) said "The Council has a
>practice of interrupting their own meetings and then blaming individual
>citizens for the disruptions they themselves caused."

>
>Norse, a council gadfly who often launches bitter attacks on the city's
>homeless policies, said the salute was meant as a protest to the city's
>refusal to deal with homeless issues.

NORSE: Actually it was a response to Krohn's violation of his own
Oral
Communications rules and his treatment of the last three speakers at
Oral
Communications, particularly Susan Zeeman's.

>He plans to appeal Whyte's decision to the 9th District Court of Appeals.
>
>BECKY: No doubt this case will move forward as the 9th Circuit Court of
>Appeals did not see the same "disruption" that Whyte did.

NORSE: Previously Whyte was overruled when he dismissed the case 4
years
ago. Here Whyte showed rather blatant prejudice by not letting the
case go
to trial for a jury to decide whether actual disruption occurred and
who
caused it. He did not allow my side to present its witnesses and
evidence, but made his own (faulty) interpretations of what went on
(such as
that whispering and tape recording were "disruptive" ) without any
hearing of
the evidence.

>"This is not about the Nazis and this is not about me," Norse said Tuesday.
>"This is about mayoral actions that involve oppression. What I'm fighting
>is not the Nazi salute. I'm fighting council oppression"

NORSE: This is a garbled inaccurate quote. I'll be playing the whole
interview on Free Radio tonight (I taped it).

>BECKY: Norse has been arrested four times at City Council and once on the
>sidewalk in front of New Leaf Market. He was not prosecuted in any of
>these arrests, and won a settlement from the City for the New Leaf incident
>where he sued for false arrest. Unfortunately, The City was able to exclude
>any evidence of these arrests or subsequent lack of convictions from the
>trial.

NORSE: Not to mention the Porter arrest, the Rotkin arrest at the
civic
auditorium, and some earlier arrests at Council in the late 80's. We
actually wanted to exclude prior and subequent arrests. They wanted
to
exclude lack of convictions.
>
>Rules limiting speech at council meetings are absolutely necessary to
>conduct city business, Kovacevich said.
>
>BECKY: Norse doesn't dispute this. He contends his Nazi Salute was
>non-interruptive, but protected by his first amendment rights. Otherwise,
>it would be okay agree with what council is doing but not to disagree.

NORSE: The broader context is Mayoral overreaching, the selective use
of
rules to repress critics, and a cavalier attitude towards the Brown
Act.
>
>Federal law also gives added protections to city officials in cases of
>alleged civil rights violations. City officials can mistakenly violate a
>person's rights and not be held liable.

NORSE: A jury should decide if their "mistake" was intentional and
knowledgable and based on the false expectation that they could do
whatever
they wanted without being held accountable.
>
>"They have to make spontaneous calls and run a meeting and not be afraid of
>getting sued every day," Kovacevich said.
>
>BECKY: This was the actual ruling by Judge Ronald Whyte: that the council
>are immune from liability. Despite a pattern of false arrests. Despite
>rules that violate the 1st amendment and eliminate the right of the citizen
>to disapprove of what the council is doing.

NORSE: Or even to show silent disapproval, communicate with audience
members, or ask clarification from the chair when challenged.

>
>Former Mayor Scott Kennedy, serving on the council in 2002, said Norse's
>salute was disruptive because he was standing in the front of the room
>where the council and public audience could see him.
>
>"In my view, it was not the content," Kennedy said. "It was the time and
>place, and it did disrupt the meeting"
>

NORSE: Kennedy has erred on this analysis before. In 2004, he was
forced
to publicly retract a statement that I'd been convicted of the crime
of
disrupting a meeting under threat of a lawsuit. In fact, it's only
the
threat or reality of a lawsuit that forces councilmembers to
backpeddle and
understand they are not untouchable.

>BECKY: Kennedy himself was named in another incident on Jan 13, 2004 where
>he arbitrarily established a system of tallies for warnings, which included
>calling holding a sign a "disruption" or inaudible whispering in the
>audience a "disruption" . His "system" , under which he had Norse physically
>arrested, didn't even last to the next council meeting. Norse was never
>prosecuted for this arrest.
>
>Councilman Mike Rotkin, not on the council in March 2002, said Norse has a
>long history of arguing with council members and straying from the topic
>being discussed.
>
>BECKY: Kovacevich did an exhaustive analysis of every time Norse has spoken
>at City Council since 1999. Norse was ruled "off-topic" in less than 5% of
>comments. Rotkin also had Norse arrested at a council meeting in June of
>2005 for violating the "5-minute rule" in which Rotkin limited comments on
>all consent agenda items by members of the public to a total of 5 minutes,
>which means that members of the public have little or no time to speak on
>items on the agenda, despite the Brown Act assurance that they do. Norse
>faced charges for 16-months only to have all charges dropped a week before
>trial.

NORSE: Rotkin's use of the word "arguing" hides the fact that
interchanges
I've had with Councilmembers have almost always happened when they
interrupt
my public testimony, given at the appropriate time and place. It
involves
defending myself from "disruption" by City Councilmembers because they
don't
like what they are hearing.

>
>"The entire council meeting is not a free speech forum," Rotkin said. "We
>go out of our way to make ourselves open and accessible to everybody.
>Robert needs to follow the process like everyone else, which is what the
>court told us"
>
>BECKY: The court told the council they are immune from liability no matter
>what they do. Read Judge Ronald Whyte's decision at:
>http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/27/18383947.php

NORSE: Actually Council process has become repeatedly closed over the
years. E.g.: Less accessible afternoon meetings, oral communications
periods at an uncertain time, a severelyi constricted consent agenda
comment
time, refusal to follow the more open process of the Board of
Supervisors
(allowing full oral communications for every speaker), and the
suppression
of public comment on agenda-ized public presentations.
Rotkin as an individual Councilmember has retained
accessibility, been willing to go on Free Radio, responded to requests
for
interviews and discussions. However he has refused to disclose his
appointment calendar and public schedule when Mayor as required by
the
Sunshine Act. And he has displayed a continued tendency to interrupt,
threaten, and bully at City Council. Recently he demanded that I
subside or
be "dragged out".
>
>Contact Shanna McCord at smccord@santacruzse ntinel.com.
>
>

-----End Forward-----




\Stop The Pledge Of Allegiance\
2007-04-06 19:24:54 EST
The Judge probably didn't know it, nor anyone else involved, but that salute
was actually the early American salute and originated with the Pledge of
Allegiance. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Judge or the Media spun the
story as "Judge bans early American salute to Pledge of Allegiance"?

Pledge of Allegiance pictures
http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg expose shocking
secrets about American history.

The "Nazi salute" is more accurately called the "American salute" as it was
created and popularized by national socialists in the USA. It was the early
salute of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge was written by Francis
Bellamy. http://rexcurry.net/pledgetragedy.html Francis Bellamy was cousin
and cohort of Edward Bellamy. http://rexcurry.net/pledgebackward.html Edward
Bellamy and Francis Bellamy were self-proclaimed socialists in the
Nationalism movement and they promoted military socialism.

They wanted the government to take over education and use it to spread their
worship of government. When the government granted their wish, the
government's schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as
official policy. The official racism and segregation was a bad example three
decades before the National Socialist German Workers Party, and decades
afterward.

The Pledge was mandated by law in government schools for three decades
before, and through, the creation of the National Socialist German Workers'
Party. http://rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-karl-marx.html

see photo of Pledge of Allegiance
http://rexcurry.net/USA-pledge-of-allegiance-rexcurrydotnet.jpg Pledge of
Allegiance.

Many people do not know that the term "Nazi" means "National Socialist
German Workers' Party." Members of the horrid group did not call themselves
Nazis. In that sense, there was no Nazi Party. They also did not call
themselves Fascists. They called themselves socialists, just as their name
indicates.

The historian Dr. Rex Curry showed that the early Pledge Of Allegiance did
not use an ancient Roman salute, and that the 'ancient Roman salute' myth
came from the Pledge Of Allegiance." The discoveries have been reviewed and
verified on wikipedia
http://rexcurry.net/roman-salute-metropolitan-museum-of-art.html

The original pledge was anti libertarian and began with a military salute
that then stretched out toward the flag. In actual use, the second part of
the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by children
casually performing the forced ritual chanting. Due to the way that both
gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the military salute led to
the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute via the
USA's Pledge Of Allegiance.

Media coverage about the discoveries continues to grow
http://rexcurry.net/audio-rex-curry-podcast-radio.html

Fan mail for work exposing the Pledge's poisonous pedigree is at
http://rexcurry.net/pledge_heart.html

And listen at http://odeo.com/audio/1747108/view

Socialists in the USA originated the Nazi salute, robotic group-chanting to
flags, Nazism, flag fetishism, and the modern swastika as "S" symbolism for
"Socialism." http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html

Much of that history is the history of the Pledge Of Allegiance.
http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg Pledge Of
Allegiance photographs expose America's terrifying past.

Those historical facts explain the enormous size and scope of government
today, and the USA's growing police state. They are reasons for massive
reductions in government, taxation, spending and socialism.

The Pledge's early salute caused quite a Fuhrer/furor. The dogma behind the
Pledge was the same dogma that led to the socialist Wholecost (of which the
Holocaust was a part): 62 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics; 49 million under the Peoples' Republic of China; 21
million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was the worst
slaughter of humanity ever.

People were persecuted (beatings, lynchings, etc) for refusing to perform
robotic chanting to the national flag at the same time in government schools
in the USA and Germany (to the American flag, and to the German swastika
flag).

American socialists (Edward Bellamy teamed with the Theosophical Society)
also bear some blame for the modern swastika
http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg Swastikas became overlapping
S-letters for "socialism," all shown in the research of the noted
symbologist Dr. Rex Curry. Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, its
use was altered to alphabetic symbolism in modern times.
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html As German socialism's
notorious flag symbol, the swastika was deliberately turned 45 degrees to
the horizontal and always oriented in the S-direction. Similar alphabetic
symbolism is still visible as Volkswagen logos.
http://rexcurry.net/swastika-audi-logo.JPG

The bizarre acts in the USA began as early as 1875 and continued through the
creation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German Nazis or
NSGWP). American soldiers used the swastika symbol in WWI (against Germany)
and the symbol was used by the American military during WWII.
http://rexcurry.net/45th-infantry-division-swastika-sooner-soldiers.html

The NSGWP had clear roots in National Socialism promoted by socialists in
the USA. Amazing graphic images that prove the point are at
http://rexcurry.net/theosophy-madame-blavatsky-theosophical-society.html

The USA is still the worst example in the world of bizarre laws that require
robotic chanting to a national flag in government schools (socialist
schools) every day for 12 years. It has changed generations of Americans
from libertarians to authoritarians. The government bamboozled individuals
into believing that collective robotic chanting in government schools daily
is a beautiful expression of freedom. Frightening photographs are at
http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html



Never@million
2007-04-06 19:49:08 EST
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:24:54 GMT, "\"Stop the Pledge of Allegiance\""
<pledge-of-allegiance@earthlink.net> wrote:

>The Judge probably didn't know it, nor anyone else involved, but that salute
>was actually the early American salute and originated with the Pledge of
>Allegiance. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Judge or the Media spun the
>story as "Judge bans early American salute to Pledge of Allegiance"?
>
The pledge with the arm extended and palm up at the moment the words
after "I pledge allegiance to" - arm extended and palm up - "the flag
of the United States of america . . ." was in vogue until the WWII. At
that time that motion during the pledge resembled the Nazi salute,
whose motion was with the palm down.

DCI

D*@yahoo.com
2007-04-06 22:30:22 EST
(fwd) Norse's letter to Santa Cruz Sentinel

-----Begin Forward-----

April 6, 2007

Editor, Santa Cruz Sentinel

Dear Editor,


City Council interrupts speakers and threatens them with arrest when
they
ask why. Sound fascist to you? Did to me. Hence a "fascist" salute.

The power to punish is so precious to them. We offered to negotiate
reasonable Council rules five years ago. The City Attorney pocketed
$100,000 in legal fees instead.

In the fascist salute case, we'll appeal and probably win--once we
reach a
jury. The Council disrupted its own meeting to exclude a critic--
more
than
once. Their rule: "Clap, but don't boo! It's not polite"

An anti-homeless Council still flouts the Court's 2006 ruling that
stopped
Los Angeles, San Diego, and Richmond from giving homeless nighttime
"sleepcrime" tickets. There's no shelter for 95% of our 1500-2000
homeless.
Tickets start at $90 and quickly reach $800+. Mayor Reilly and
Vice-Mayor
Coonerty would rather fight lawsuits and empower thuggish cop
activity
than
acknowledge their mistakes. That ain't polite either.

Sincerely,

Robert Norse
(831-423-4833)

-----End Forward-----


\Stop The Pledge Of Allegiance\
2007-04-07 02:06:54 EST
Thanks for the support DCI, however, the original pledge began with a
military salute that was held for the phrase "I pledge allegiance" and
thereafter the arm stretched out toward the flag for the rest of the robotic
chanting. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a
straight arm and palm down by children performing the forced ritual
chanting. That part of the Pledge was exactly like the salute of the
National Socialist German Workers' Party and pre-dated it by 3 decades. A
photograph is at
http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg

Pages of photos begin at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html

Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the
military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended
military salute via the USA's Pledge Of Allegiance. Which is all the more
ominous because the Bellamys advocated Military Socialism.

All of that was established in the research of the historian Dr. Rex Curry
(author of "Pledge Of Allegiance Secrets").

Socialists in the USA originated the Nazi salute, robotic group-chanting to
flags, Nazism, flag fetishism, and the modern swastika as "S" symbolism for
"Socialism" later used by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html





Never@million
2007-04-07 02:47:36 EST
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:06:54 GMT, "\"Stop the Pledge of Allegiance\""
<pledge-of-allegiance@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Thanks for the support DCI, however, the original pledge began with a
>military salute that was held for the phrase "I pledge allegiance" and
>thereafter the arm stretched out toward the flag for the rest of the robotic
>chanting. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a
>straight arm and palm down by children performing the forced ritual
>chanting. That part of the Pledge was exactly like the salute of the
>National Socialist German Workers' Party and pre-dated it by 3 decades. A
>photograph is at
>http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg
>
>Pages of photos begin at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
>
>Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the
>military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended
>military salute via the USA's Pledge Of Allegiance. Which is all the more
>ominous because the Bellamys advocated Military Socialism.
>
>All of that was established in the research of the historian Dr. Rex Curry
>(author of "Pledge Of Allegiance Secrets").
>
>Socialists in the USA originated the Nazi salute, robotic group-chanting to
>flags, Nazism, flag fetishism, and the modern swastika as "S" symbolism for
>"Socialism" later used by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
>http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
>

My experience was in the schools during the years from 1939 until the
change that eliminated the outstretched arm and with palm up.

DCI

\Stop The Pledge Of Allegiance\
2007-04-07 04:33:35 EST

<*r@million> wrote in message
news:mffe13d6ptvgh6ek3kpd6fdg24bq9ic5vg@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:06:54 GMT, "\"Stop the Pledge of Allegiance\""
> <pledge-of-allegiance@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the support DCI, however, the original pledge began with a
>>military salute that was held for the phrase "I pledge allegiance" and
>>thereafter the arm stretched out toward the flag for the rest of the
>>robotic
>>chanting. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with
>>a
>>straight arm and palm down by children performing the forced ritual
>>chanting. That part of the Pledge was exactly like the salute of the
>>National Socialist German Workers' Party and pre-dated it by 3 decades. A
>>photograph is at
>>http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg
>>
>>Pages of photos begin at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
>>
>>Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge,
>>the
>>military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended
>>military salute via the USA's Pledge Of Allegiance. Which is all the more
>>ominous because the Bellamys advocated Military Socialism.
>>
>>All of that was established in the research of the historian Dr. Rex Curry
>>(author of "Pledge Of Allegiance Secrets").
>>
>>Socialists in the USA originated the Nazi salute, robotic group-chanting
>>to
>>flags, Nazism, flag fetishism, and the modern swastika as "S" symbolism
>>for
>>"Socialism" later used by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
>>http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
>>
>
> My experience was in the schools during the years from 1939 until the
> change that eliminated the outstretched arm and with palm up.
>
> DCI

There was definitely some variation that occurred. Also, the Pledge began in
1892. From 1939 onward people were becoming aware of what the Pledge was all
about, and very disturbed, due to the National Socialist German Workers'
Party, and some people started to realize that the American salute (stiff
arm palm down) was not exactly the way it had been originally described. So
some people began to make an effort to distinguish it from the German
Socialist salute at that time by trying to do it with the palm down. Can you
state how many different schools you attended and where and can you provide
more detail, such as did you include the military salute at the start of the
Pledge?
Thanks.


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron