Criminalizing Political Speech

CATCHING UP
Today I played a game of catch-up with myself, plowing through a few newspapers that I had permitted to ferment too long on my coffee table.  It was in the Saturday/Sunday, October 11/12, 2014 edition of the Wall Street Journal - the best thing I read each day - that I found on the Opinion page a commentary by David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Andrew Grossman titled, "Criminalizing Political Speech In Wisconsin".  Those of you who subscribe to the Journal can just click on that title and log in.  The rest of you will just have to be satisfied with my observations.  And, you can read a summary of the case HERE, if you wish.

ATTORNEYS
Both authors are attorneys with the firm of Baker Hostetler LLP.  Rivkin served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel's Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

HELLO!  WHAT'S THIS?
I cannot quote much verbatim from the article without violating their copyright, but it begins with this paragraph:

"The criminalization of politics is bad enough - just ask Texas Gov. Rick Perry - but a new turn to target citizens as well threatens to permanently warp our political discourse.  Like it or not, federal courts will have to intervene to uphold Americans' First Amendment rights against win-at-any-cost politics"

Well, the title plus that paragraph got my attention, as you might imagine.

SCOTT WALKER'S SUPPORTERS

The article primarily covers a recent  attempt aimed at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and his supporters, including baseless criminal charges and extraordinary investigations apparently aimed at suppressing their constitutionally-guaranteed right of free political speech.

Apparently, in May a district court in Wisconsin blocked investigations of some of Walker's supporters that were "viewpoint-based retaliation for the advocacy in support of Gov. Walker's agenda in blatant violation of their First Amendment rights".

However, in September an appeals court reversed that decision on the view that federal courts have no business interfering in state criminal investigations.

UH-OH...
The article ends with the following statements:

"After Wisconsin, the temptation to use the law as a political weapon may prove irresistible.

The casualty is citizens' ability  to speak out on matters of public importance and interact with their elected representatives, rights which are at the very core of the First Amendment's protections.  Federal courts exist to enforce federal rights, particularly when they are under siege by state officials.  If the federal judges shirk that duty, it will only embolden those bent on misusing criminal law to silence their opponents."

STIFLES CRITICISM...
My thoughts turned to our current situation in Costa Mesa, where our mayor, Jim Righeimer, has systematically attempted to quash criticism by bifurcating public comments at council meetings, forcing many of those who wish to address their elected leaders on items they feel are important to themselves and the community to cool their heels until the very end of the meetings.  That means that a person might be expected to arrive at 6:00 p.m., dutifully fill out a comment card, then learn that the random luck of the draw has placed him at the end of the pack - that they were not one of the lucky 10 speakers permitted to address the council while the audience is relatively full and the folks watching at home are still attentive.  No, they will have to wait until very end of the meeting - many times that means past midnight - to speak their piece.  More than a few have chosen to leave rather than stick around, which accomplished Righeimer's goal of quashing criticism.

...AND INTERRUPTS
Additionally, the mayor has frequently chosen to interrupt speakers, taking big chunks of their valuable 3 minutes to ask questions or just throw them off their pace.  Yes, he frequently says he will add time for them, but the deed is done.  Folks not experienced with public speaking get rattled, lose their train of thought and their message is garbled and lost.

I KNOW FIRST HAND...
Beyond that, and more in tune with the Wall Street Journal article, I have been on the receiving end of warnings from the mayor's lawyer in the past, telling me I couldn't speak about three items in his background - even though I had NOT done so and had NO plan to do so.  I was threatened with a lawsuit if I did address those three issues.  This is known as a SLAPP lawsuit - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.  It was a chilling experience and caused me to pause.

CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS...
However, shortly thereafter Righeimer himself began to speak out on the issues, so I contacted that attorney and told him he couldn't have it both ways - that I can't address the issues but his client can.  I then began to address those issues as I felt appropriate and heard not another word from the lawyer.

BULLYING
This was my first personal experience with the bully that is Jim Righeimer, but it certainly was not my last.  Since then I've watched him on the dais bully, chide, berate, interrupt, vilify and threaten more than one speaker.  I've seen him complain about how long public comments took, then go on 30 minute rants of his own, sucking up valuable council time.

NOT SUITED FOR THE JOB
With each passing meeting it is more and more clear that Righeimer is not suited for public office.  He uses his position of power exactly as a dictator uses it.  He knows he has three votes, so doesn't even bother with the formality of presenting issues for discussion - he just decides what he wants to do, then does it.

IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE
It's time for the voters of this city to return control of their government to mature, thoughtful leadership.  It's time to return control to elected leaders who will listen to their constituents - all of them, not just a select few.  It's time to show Righeimer the door and elect two mature, experienced leaders.  It's time to end the oppressive, dictatorial reign of Jim Righeimer and elect Jay Humphrey and Katrina Foley to the Costa Mesa City Council.

Lawsuit Threatened For Rehab Home Comments

LOCAL WOMEN THREATENED WITH LAWSUITS
According to several sources on Wednesday, a group of Costa Mesa women who have been actively opposing the proliferation of rehabilitation homes in their Eastside neighborhoods have been served with notices from high-powered law firm, Rutan and Tucker, demanding that they cease making comments about their clients - a local real estate agent, his firm and another company and individual -  on Internet comment threads.

LOCAL SOCIAL MEDIA COMMENTS
Apparently this springs from a recent posting of addresses and ownership details of presumed rehab homes gleaned from public records searches that list the real estate agent and associates as owners of the properties and the subsequent comment thread on that issue, PLUS a semi-related recent comment thread on a Daily Pilot story about Rehab homes.

DO IT!... OR ELSE!
The law firm demands that the women, among other things, write a formal apology to their clients and post corrective language on the threads involved or they will be sued for defamation, libel and slander.  Several of the recipients have told me they will be consulting with attorneys today on this issue.

CITY APPOINTEE INVOLVED
Even more disturbing is the fact that a high-ranking city appointee has apparently been involved in this issue - posting his own comments on at least one of the threads and recently taking personal, aggressive action with some of the women involved.  One curious element of this story is that one of the women who received the papers is not a participant on either of the comment threads in question - but she has had differences of opinion on a variety of issues with the appointed official I mentioned.  It makes one wonder what is actually behind this legal action, at least in her case.

IS THIS A "SLAPP" SUIT?
We presume that the law firm is quite serious about this situation and that it is not just a SLAPP suit. In either case, it will certainly put a chill on community activism and may be another attempt to silence critics in this city.  I have no idea what kind of advice these women will get from their own law firms, but I suppose we may hear about it eventually.


YES, AND NO...
Yes, I say "women" because no men have been reported as receiving the letters.  Yes, I know the names of some of them.  Yes, I know the name of the appointed official.  No, I'm not going to share that information right now.

Righeimer Freaks Out!

FIRST THINGS FIRST...
OK, let's get this out of the way first.  I'll write about the remainder of Tuesday night's council meeting separately because there is much to discuss and this will distract from that information.


 RIGHEIMER BLOWS HIS STACK!
Tuesday night, during his turn at bat in the Council Members Comments segment of the meeting at just about 7:00 (In case you want to look it up on the streaming video or the recorded replay on CMTV) Mayor Jim Righeimer absolutely flipped out and used the power and authority of his bully pulpit - a perfect term, by the way - to criticize ME, specifically and by name, for something I wrote about him as a comment on a thread on Facebook about his "Preserve Our Neighborhoods Task Force" last week.  The person who generated the original comment, paraphrasing,  postulated that residents who wanted to know about the task force couldn't because it was not subject to the Brown Act and the meetings are not announced - held in secret was the phrase used.  No reports, no minutes, etc.  Mine was the first comment.  Here's that comment:

This is how they roll. Create a"task force" - no open meeting law compliance required-then meet in secret and hatch(pun intended) plans to focus "enforcement" on specific types of groups. 75 years ago this is what another strutting dictator did in Germany. "transparency" seems to be a one-way mirror fro these guys!

I subsequently corrected the typo at the end to "for".

THE MAYOR FLIPS OUT

Last night Righeimer took offense to being compared to Adolf Hitler - You'll note I never used the name - and went on to describe him as someone who killed six million people.  He ranted about having a family and on and on, getting madder by the second.  He was stunned that I had been considered #19 on the Daily Pilot list of the most influential people in our community!

DEMANDS APOLOGIES
Righeimer demanded an immediate apology from me - in person - and apologies from the four people who had the audacity to "like" the comment - and read their names, too! 

HE CAN'T READ ME ON FACEBOOK, SO...
It's interesting that, since he's blocked me on Facebook, he cannot actually see what I write.  Someone else did a "screen shot" and sent it to him.  He read it almost verbatim.  He DID NOT read the last sentence about transparency, which really was the punch line.

HE ATTACKS LEECE...
Immediately after that, during her segment, Councilwoman Wendy Leece began to mention that I had the right of free speech when Righeimer came unglued again, interrupting her and demanding to know if she thought it was OK for him to be compared to someone who killed 6 million people.  To her credit - I'm sure it took all the composure she could muster and that she relied on years of teaching petulant children - she did not get into an argument with him.  She just calmly sat there, bit her tongue until he finished his rant, then completed her thoughts.

...AND ANNA VRSKA
At the very end of the meeting he almost ignored the final speaker of the evening, Anna Vrska, who had filled out a card and had waited patiently for her turn to address the council.  Right off the bat she criticized Righeimer for his rant about me and said she agreed with me.  Immediately he tried to bully her, demanding to know if she thought it was OK that he was being compared to someone who killed 6 million people.  Vrska, however, was not going to be bullied - again!  She told Righeimer not to interrupt her and they actually got into a shouting match before he relented and shut his yap.  It was a joy to watch. 

HE EARNED IT, AND DEMONSTRATED IT
If Righeimer took offense at being compared to a 20th Century dictator, so be it.  I used that reference because, since he took office, he's conducted himself EXACTLY like a dictator.  His behavior has been chronicled here at length.  Last night he demonstrated, one more time, just how capricious he is with rules - even those he instituted unilaterally.  At the end of the meeting, during the discussion of the proposed "resident only parking" on Center Street, he permitted several residents to step up to speak.  In fact, he invited them to speak AFTER the public comments segment for that issue had been closed, even though none had filled out speaker cards and had, apparently, not intended to participate!  He did NOT require them to fill out speakers cards.  Councilman Gary Monahan chided him for it at the time, but Righeimer just shrugged it off.  He only follows rules that please him, when it pleases him.

A BETTER CHOICE
Maybe I should not have compared Righeimer to Adolf Hitler.  In fact, the more I think about it, a better comparison might have been Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator of the same era.  Here's a phrase from the Wikipedia page about him: 
 "After destroying all political opposition through his secret police and outlawing labor strikes, Mussolini and his fascist followers consolidated their power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one party dictatorship."

NO?
What do you think?  "secret police" - maybe that fifth floor Code Enforcement group that does his personal bidding?  "outlawing labor strikes" - sounds like the kind of relationship Righeimer has established with our labor organizations, doesn't it?  "series of laws" - Well, where do we begin with that one?  The Nuisance Ordinance; the Excessive Use of Resources Ordinance; his unilateral stifling of speech at council meetings by bifurcating Public Comments, and on and on.  Righeimer's behavior has been dictatorial from the get-go and is only getting more so as the weeks pass.  He demonstrated that last night when he interrupted Leece and tried to interrupt Vrska.

HYPOCRITICAL DOUBLE STANDARD
And, by the way, back on September 29, 2013, Dennis Popp - you know, that "kinder, gentler" blogger as described in the Daily Pilot profile of him last year - wrote an entry on his pathetic, pandering blog, HERE in which he describes the by-partisan grass-roots organization Costa Mesans For Responsible Government (CM4RG) as behaving like Nazis!  Where was the outrage then, Mr. Mayor?  Popp - that pontificating pile of partisan puffery so roundly praised by you and your sycophants - is much more overt in his comparison and yet you apparently support him and his role as campaign manager for your hand-picked campaign companion, Lee Ramos.

TO THE MAYOR...
Since I know Mayor Righeimer reads this blog I will now address him directly.  Mr. Mayor, here's the deal.  I AM NOT going to apologize to you for my characterization of you on that Facebook snippet.  In fact, I have affirmed that characterization here.  If you don't like criticism you're in the wrong business.  You CHOSE to be a politician and with that choice comes criticism.  What's that old phrase?  "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen!"  

IT AIN'T WORKING...
Your reaction is just one more classic example of your attempts to intimidate and stifle folks who disagree with you.  Be advised, Mr. Mayor, it's not working.  All you're doing is demonstrating to EVERYONE just what a shallow, vindictive person you are - one who is certainly not worthy of the public trust granted to you as a member of our City Council.  

YOU APOLOGIZE!
In fact, Mr. Mayor, I demand an apology FROM YOU to me and to the others you called out last night, for abusing the power of your position to chide members of the public - your constituents - and for trying to deny me rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Your behavior was unacceptable for a public official.

DON'T BOTHER
And, by the way, Mr. Mayor, don't bother unleashing your ex-brother-in-law/lawyer on me again.  As you and your sidekick, Steve Mensinger, know, that didn't work the other times you tried it and it won't work this time, either.  I understand the SLAPP laws, as you know. 

STOP DOING STUPID STUFF!
There's only one way for you to avoid criticism, Mr. Mayor... stop doing stupid stuff.  Of course, it may be too late for that.  Stop trying to run this city like it's your own little fiefdom.  Follow the rules established to protect the rights of the residents of this city.  Stop your attempt to take over absolute control of my city with yet another bogus attempt at a Charter - the residents already resoundingly told you they don't want a Charter less than two years ago.  If you don't want people to compare you to a dictator, just stop acting like one... it's really that simple.

WILL HE LISTEN?

OK, back to you, my loyal readers.  Do you think he'll pay attention?  Nah, I don't either, but I guess we'll see.  One of his sycophants, Jim Fitzpatrick, recently posted on a NextDoor thread that "we don't need listeners", so I guess that answers the question.  Thanks to all of you who have communicated your support on this issue.  It's very interesting to sit in the back of the auditorium and have the mayor of your city criticize and vilify you in front of more than 100 people and who-knows-how-many watching on television at home.  I hope Righeimer's behavior won't discourage any of you from continuing to participate in the process.  As I've said many times before, this is going to be a very contentious campaign season and it appears that Mr. Righeimer is already feeling the pressure.  Maybe he'll decide to NOT run again - he has until August 8th to make that decision.  We should be so lucky...