Posted on 07/21/2011 2:13:04 PM PDT by worst-case scenario
What's *really* interesting is that their political party affiliation isn't even listed. I wonder what it might be ...hmmmmm?
I smell a smack down coming and the unemployment line getting a little bit bigger.
People like that used to get tarred and feathered. Or at least flaming paper bags of dog poop appeared on their doorsteps.
Stating the obvious:
1. They have to be Democrats.
2. They are probably paying themselves Bell, CA, level salaries.
It’s in the Arkansas Delta; ‘nuff said.
What’s *really* interesting is that their political party affiliation isn’t even listed. I wonder what it might be ...hmmmmm?
To paraphrase President Nixon;
“It’s not against the law if the city council says it’s not.”
I’ve looked all over and haven’t been able to find party affiliation for these guys *anywhere*. It reminds me of what’s happening in Quartzsite, AZ.
They probably run the municipal elections as “non-partisian” but are all RAT otherwise. Real dumb ones too.
Governments will ALWAYS act to restrict your rights. It is the nature of governments.
Thanks for posting - I would never have seen this otherwise.
This attitude is quite typical in my experience (I am a council person in a small town).
At least Gould’s town attorney sees the free speech violation for what it is. In my little village, the town attorney is as bad as the arrogant council members.
This was manifested in a ludicrous court case that our taxpayers had to waste their money on. Our town already had an ordinance that was a similarly blatant violation of the First Amendment.
When a citizen challenged the stupid ordinance, our town attorney urged the council to show this uppity citizen who was boss.
Our sheep-like council voted to support the town atty, and we went to court to defend the idiotic UNconstitutional ordinance. Only to lose, as was entirely predictable.
Well sue somebody’s azz.
Yeah, and from the look of it; there’s PLENTY of azz there to sue.
“I can’t believe the town council would actually pass a ordinance so obviously unconstitutional.”
It’s incredible. Their ordinance is common practice in many City Councils at least here in California. It’s not uncommon to find council meetings in which the public is not allowed to participate, but only to listen to the Council members bloviate, and dictate how things are going to be. I’ve seen people raise their hands to ask questions being tossed out of the Council meeting by Security at the nod of a Council Member more than once.
Same tactics were recently observed at a Water District meeting in which the attendees, the public were dictated a new billing procedure we were allegedly to have been able to participate with input. In this case security was used only to threaten several people that had questions.
Surprising, but not unbelievable. Sounds like they have been hanging around with Eric “the bigot” Holder. You know, special rules for “his people”.
What’s *really* interesting is that their political party affiliation isn’t even listed. I wonder what it might be
####
In lots of places municipal elections are nonpartisan.
Is anybody sueing? Where’s the “American Civil Liberties Union”? These are certainly *American Civil Liberties* that are being taken away!
On what grounds did you lose? This seems like a blatant infringement of the First Amendment right to assembly. Did you appeal?
Oh, sorry. When you said “you” lost, I thought you meant the people who were sueing that Council, not the Council itself. What was the Council’s reaction when the law was overturned?
And what was going on that they didn’t want the public to know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.