Comments for FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION

Comment on Threat Watch: Budget will cut services, spike costs for access to public records by Hailey Ortiz

Hailey Ortiz — Fri, 10 May 2013 20:09:04 +0000

As a California voter and concerned citizen, I am writing to urge you, in the strongest terms, to remove provisions in your proposed 2013-14 state budget that would authorize imposition of steep new fees for access to the court files of all cases in California’s courts.
Access to court records, like access to judicial hearings and trials, is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment. Its exercise may not be conditioned on the payment of a heavy fee (any more than the right to vote can be conditioned on payment of a poll tax). While the courts have experienced substantial budget cuts in recent years, charging citizens to view court files is the wrong way to raise money for the judicial branch.

Comment on New 1st amendment case poses existential threat to public employee unions by eatingdogfood

eatingdogfood — Tue, 07 May 2013 01:51:25 +0000

If The Democrats Didn’t Give ” Sweetheart Deals ” To Your Public Service Union.
Goon Employees To Get Reelected; You Would Have Plenty Of Money and The.
Taxpayer would have Some Spare Change in His Pockets! Democratic Hustler
Politicians + Corrupt Union Goons = BANKRUPTCY BABY! Time To Bring.
RICO Conspiracy Charges Against The Hustler Corrupt Democrats and the.
Criminal Unions!

Comment on New 1st amendment case poses existential threat to public employee unions by Al Moncrief

Al Moncrief — Mon, 06 May 2013 17:25:01 +0000

US GOVERNMENTS ARE NOW BEGINNING TO BREAK THEIR CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN LOW TAXES ON THE WEALTHY AND CORRPORATIONS.

PUBLIC WORKER CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN DEEMED INFERIOR TO CORPORATE CONTRACTS.

In 2010, the Colorado Legislature enacted a bill, SB10-001, to take accrued, contracted public pension (Colorado PERA) benefits from elderly pensioners in our state. These contracted pension benefits were earned over 30 years. The pension benefits average about $28,000.

The Colorado Legislature underfunded the PERA pension system for a decade, putting financial pressure on the system and lowering its “funded ratio.” Next, the Legislature claimed that this lowered funded ratio justified the breach of the State of Colorado’s contracts with its pensioners. Their average age is 70 years.

Colorado has the 15th highest per capita income in the nation. There are sixty-four counties in Colorado. Ten of these counties are among the 100 richest counties in the nation. Yet, apparently we cannot afford to honor the State of Colorado’s contracts. This theft from the elderly in Colorado is supported by most of the Colorado media, 27 Colorado lobbyists who forced the bill through the legislative process, and public employers affiliated with the PERA pension system that want to easily slash their public pension debt. The retirees have no lobbyists and little voice.

Governor John Hickenlooper is seeking to “rebrand” Colorado. I suggest “Colorado: The Welcher State.”

Visit saveperacola.com for the whole ugly story.

Comment on New 1st amendment case poses existential threat to public employee unions by Tough Love

Tough Love — Mon, 06 May 2013 01:17:04 +0000

I agree that the Citizens United decision was VERY poor indeed. Society would be FAR better off with publicly funded elections with ZERO campaign contributions allowed … given or accepted under severe criminal penalty.

An even better Supreme Court decision … and perhaps NECESSARY to save America from it’s spiral down the drain of greed and political ineptitude and self-dealing, is ending Public Sector Union dues collection and collective bargaining (for ANYTHING other than genuine safety issues). Public Sector Unions are a CANCER on Society.

Comment on New 1st amendment case poses existential threat to public employee unions by Mike S

Mike S — Sat, 04 May 2013 14:13:29 +0000

This also brings up another problem and that’s the Citizens United case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.

Thus allowing unlimited donations to super PACS. I have yet to see a corporation or union show up and vote at the ballot box. So then, how could they possibly have the same rights as individuals?

Maybe it’s time for the Supreme Court to just read the Constitution and quit trying to interpret it to the current fad of the day!

Comment on Government officials beware: the “private” emails you write today will be public tomorrow by Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Joey Senat, Ph.D. — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:07:23 +0000

The city’s argument has been rejected in other states. Courts and attorneys general, as did the trial judge in this case, say the content of the message, not ownership of the device/email account/etc., determines if the message is a public document.

This topic will be discussed at the NFOIC 2013 FOI Summit in New Orleans, May 17-18.

Comment on A&A: When can a public Board claim attorney-client privilege? by Proud Brown Act Follower

Proud Brown Act Follower — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:13:06 +0000

Excellent advice, but one thing that they did not mention was that if you are a city councilmember or member of a city committee like planning commission, etc, you are not truly considered an employee, hence, cornering you in closed session would be improper. The fact that they had an attorney there, who serves at the pleasure of the city manager/city council, does not make it any more legal. My personal observation has been that city attornies and district counsel’s support whatever decision/direction the person writing the checks wants.

Comment on About Us by Cody A. Fitch

Cody A. Fitch — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:48:41 +0000

Zhang et al v. Baidu.com

My website is blocked and I would like to take a shot at the Communist Chinese search engine Baidu legally. I need representation so I can dominate for the western Chinese people:

Zhang et al v. Baidu.com. Desire to try it again this time properly with my weight behind it.

I think this case was done improperly.I would like to hit china gain on this case in California. I will stand trial for it.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCABRE92O12S20130325?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Have an attorney contact me in California and I will sue them again. This time in California and they will accept and respond or it will be full out war on the grid. And I will tell them that. And they will. respect it. The first amendment is something the US has gone to war for in its own nation. Why not internationally. I will light up the grid properly on this. I think it was mishandled.

The USA will stand trial with me on this one. The US has had multiple civil wars over the freedom of speech rights. It is unfair to Chinese citizens of the West that use Baidu that can’t find our political Democracy dissent. As in our lands it is illegal to block Democracy freedom of speech. They allow in gang music, racial hate cites etc. But Democracy is banned in western nations. It is a simple program of a button press in servers in the West that the servers are where the violations are. So they can press the button here. As they allow porn in the USA but do not allow Porn in China.

I am the grand Illuminati I take over companies, go to war legally using the people of the world for Democracy. And the Chinese will listen to me as I will powerhouse the opening of all Democracy symbols on the search engine and paying me money to further my battle against Communist fascism. Or else I will do like I did to apple legally with proper corporate law and hostile take over legalities. I already have proper places in play.

Lets go to war legally again.

Comment on Judge plugs ‘private email’ loophole in CA public records law by Lou

Lou — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:36:30 +0000

I guess my question lies in the details. Who gets to search a private email account to determine anything responsive to a request? Also, in the agency I am in, representatives keep a “folder” for govt related emails, but they are ones who control what goes into that folder. Can’t they just hide or delete any emails they want? Thank you.

Comment on Judge plugs ‘private email’ loophole in CA public records law by Peter Scheer

Peter Scheer — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:19:08 +0000

That is basically right. However, San Diego public officials, who today exchange emails on their personal accounts, should realize that those emails very likely could be deemed public records in a future court decision relying on the San JOse decision. In other words, certainty in the secrecy of such communications has just evaporated throughout CA.