Posted on 09/08/2003 5:16:11 PM PDT by Libloather
Second federal suit filed over protests near Bush ranch
Associated Press
Sept. 8, 2003, 5:02PM
AUSTIN -- Three activists sued the city of Crawford today, claiming a city ordinance illegally barred them from protesting the war in Iraq when President Bush was visiting his ranch in May.
The federal lawsuit filed by Marie Pugh of Caddo Mills, Victoria Rectenwald of Waco and Martin Wallace of Denton claims they were threatened with arrest if they violated the city's protest ordinance during Bush's May 3 visit to the ranch.
They said the ordinance violated their First Amendment rights and the Texas Bill of Rights.
The ordinance requires would-be demonstrators to apply for a permit 15 days in advance. They also must state the purpose of the march and the number of people and kinds of material that will be involved, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Austin.
The three had not filed for a permit, which would have been issued by the Crawford police chief. They said they were unaware of the ordinance.
The suit names the Texas Department of Public Safety, the city of Crawford, Crawford Police Chief Donnie Tidmore, McLennan County Sheriff Larry Lynch, and McLennan County Chief Deputy Sheriff Randy Plemons as defendants.
A spokesman with the DPS would not comment on the suit, citing pending litigation. Crawford police and the McClennan County Sheriff's Department did not immediately return calls seeking comment to The Associated Press.
Pugh, Rectenwald and Wallace said they were on their way to demonstrate against the war in Iraq at the Bush ranch and were threatened with arrest by Tidmore as they drove through Crawford.
About 20 DPS officers and a number of sheriff's deputies barricaded the road to prevent them from passing, according to the lawsuit.
Rather than being arrested, the three left. Five other protesters who were arrested in the incident and spent the night in jail filed a separate lawsuit in June. The status of that lawsuit is pending the resolution of criminal charges against the five.
Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, called the ordinance "un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional."
"The Crawford ordinance illegally curbs constitutionally protected expression of political views," Harrington said. "The ordinance gives unfettered discretion to the police chief to decide who can and cannot protest and impermissibly discriminates on the basis of the content of the speech."
Maybe they should've followed the big Texas RATS and protested in New Mexico...
Then that would be a shame. How many Freepers protested Clinton at close range? What is good for the goose...
If memory serves me correctly, all permits were applied for and approved...
Actually, in the early days (think late '98, early '99) I didn't apply for permits. You don't need a permit to protest in Washington, DC, if your group is less than 24 people. Sadly, most (all?) of our protests didn't meet that requirement so strictly speaking we didn't need a permit. However, once we protested the White House Correspondent's Dinner in May 1999 we estimated were going to have about 40 people there and I went ahead and got a permit. Once we learned the procedure for obtaining a permit (and how simple it was) we started more or less doing it every time for the remainder of 1999. Kristinn and Angelwood have been obtaining permits for every event ever since.
About 20 DPS officers and a number of sheriff's deputies barricaded the road to prevent them from passing, according to the lawsuit.
Okay, my previous reply was written before I had read the article associated with this thread. I'm not sure we're getting the full story because if memory serves the Houston Chronicle is somewhat biased to the left. Based on the above two statements it appears the protestors posed a security threat, which is most likely why they were turned way. I'm sure the Bush ranch has some sort of "perimeter" around it that citizens aren't allowed to cross. Just a guess. In times of heightened security in DC, the DC Chapter couldn't get within ten feet of the White House. However, your point is well taken, Glenn, and they were told the reason they were being turned away was due to their lack of a permit. But if the law requires a permit...but it stills seem a tad extreme to me. I agree with you.
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.