http://www.theportlandalliance.org/josephwalsh/ 1/1/2016
Joe Walsh, a local activist who frequently attends Portland City Council meetings, took the City of Portland and Mayor Charlie Hales to federal court, alleging that the city's practice of excluding him from City Hall and council sessions for 30- to 60-days at a time violated his First Amendment rights. A judge ruled in his favor Thursday. Here, he's being removed from a 2012 City Council session where they say he interrupted a vote on adding fluoride to the Portland water supply. (The Oregonian)
A federal judge Thursday ruled that Portland Mayor Charlie Hales violated a local activist's First Amendment rights by barring him from City Council meetings for months at a time and ordered the city to halt all prospective exclusions. [read more] http://www.theportlandalliance.org/josephwalsh/
"...no matter how many meetings of a city council a person disrupts, he or she does not forfeit or lose the future ability to exercise constitutional rights and may not be prospectively barred from attending future meetings,'' Simon ruled. "Our democratic republic is not so fragile, and our First Amendment is not so weak.''
The original full story / source can be found here: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/12/federal_judge_finds_portland_m.html
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
12/31/15
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
https://youtu.be/R1k9SISJ-NM
Joe Walsh speaks on Trimet and the police
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
WHERE IS THE MONEY CHARLIE?
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Stop the F-ing Sweeps
www.individualsforjustice.com/blog/index.blog/2354762/stop-the-fing-sweeps-email-repost
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
25.May.2015 10:48
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/05/429883.shtml
written by: lone vet
I am coming to the conclusion there is nothing to save in our politics and it needs to implode. We must start thinking about what to replace this corrupt system with, seems like we have a problem that any violent revolution has not created a better system, most of the time it is more repressive.
So, for me what I will do is non-participation wherever I can. I will not serve on any committees, because that is supporting the present government and I don't want to do that. I do not pay much in taxes because I am retired. I gave up my car over ten years ago so no money to the state or oil companies. I will not offer any solution to problems because the system is so corrupt they will not do anything that actually works, they just want more money for their friends. I will monitor but not participate in the discussions any more, you have to have some hope in order to present arguments to change things.
This system would implode if all people who volunteer would simply stop. Many people love volunteering but you make a corrupt system tolerable, so you are part of the problem. How many nonprofits could continue if all the volunteers stop coming to work? This will not happen overnight and lots of people will come up with good reasons to continue to contribute to this sick system. But, mark my words; you want change, this is the fastest way to get it.
I will begin my non-participation starting next week over the sweeps and the destruction of the reservoirs. What do you think?
----------------------------------------------
May 28th Thursday 2:00-6:00 PM Reservoirs Destruction Hearing
There will be a hearing to allow an appeal by the water department for the city of Portland, Oregon, to the city council concerning the destruction of the reservoirs. Make no mistake this city council is hell bent on destroying these magnificent wonders, and they will do it and many of the environmentalists will sit on the hands as they do it. Oh, to be wrong on this; activists love to be proven wrong because that would mean things are not as bad as we see them. The meeting is for 4 hours, the house should be packed; this may be the last time people can go on the record supporting or selling out concerning the reservoirs.
MORE INFO on the ACTIONS ! PAGE ---> here
Call to Action:
HIGH NOON - EVERY TUESDAY
5/11/15
The City of Portland has a majority of the City Council running for re-election in 2016, Char-lie the Hales, Amanda Fritz, and that jester Steve Novick. Individuals For Justice will not endorse any of them and as of next Tuesday will actively campaign against Char-lie the Hales and name the day "Anybody but Hales Day." We will kick off our campaign with a protest outside of city hall at 11:30 AM to about 12:30 PM May 12th, so we can catch the lunch crowd. We will move from time to time and show up at places like the City Club and other places where people gather. We will do this from the 12th of May until Char-lie the Hales has withdrawn from the mayor's race.
READ ORIGINAL POST HERE: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/05/429826.shtml
----------------------------------------------
------------------------- ACTIONS ------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
CALL TO ACTION
5/7/15.... The City of Portland has a majority of the City Council running for re-election in 2016, Char-lie the Hales, Amanda Fritz, and that jester Steve Novick. Individuals For Justice will not endorse any of them and as of next Tuesday will actively campaign against Char-lie the Hales and name the day "Anybody but Hales Day.
" We will kick off our campaign with a protest outside of city hall at 11:30 AM to about 12:30 PM May 12th, so we can catch the lunch crowd. We will move from time to time and show up at places like the City Club and other places where people gather. We will do this from the 12th of May until Char-lie the Hales has withdrawn from the mayor's race.
We would like to go after novick,( AKA Brutus,) but our resources are limited and we choose to go after just one for the time being, we will add novick sometime down the line, as he too is arrogant and thinks he knows more than the rest of us combined. What we need is to elect citizen representatives who will understand they represent us and not their own egos.
We have time on our hands and must use that now because we have little money so we will be annoying for six months and then go positive, (ex) what we want in our candidates. So come and join us for a while on next Tuesday and you can always join us in the Den of Sulfur on Wednesday when the 5 shits hold their circle jerk starting about 0930.
I will no longer attend the County Board meetings on Thursdays because I just don't have the stamina anymore. I like the 5 County Board members, don't trust them, but do like them and believe they are trying; that is all we ask/demand!
"Want to take a ride?"
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/05/429795.shtml
----------------------------------------------
------------------------- ACTIONS ------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appeal of Joe Walsh
12/5/14
Hearing Case No 3140345
Arguments to refute the City of Portland’s submission Exhibit #27.
City’s Motion to dismiss case and quash subpoenas.
The city bases its position that the case is now moot because the decision by the Hearing Officer “Will have no practical effect,” they site Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 405-406 (1991). In the sited case the court said, “If, because of changed circumstances, a “ ‘decision no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties,’ “ the case is moot and will be dismissed. Yancy, 337 Or at 349 (quoting Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 406, 848 P.2d 1194 (1993)).
We submit that this case is ongoing and continues to have a serious practical effect and point to Exhibit #6 or RE: Notice of Exclusion from City Property, Item # 9
“After the term of exclusion expires, you will once again be allowed to attend City Council sessions, and to give oral public testimony in accordance with the Rules of the Council, including such limitation as are imposed by the presiding. Should you engage in further disruption of the Council, you should be aware that any future exclusion is likely to be for a significantly longer period of time.”
The City has by their own words threatened future actions based on this 30 day exclusion so; the mootness question is answered not just by us, but by the city itself. When entering the City Council Chambers I am now under the gun and that has a chilling effect on any activist. The fact that acting as an activist attending most council meetings that there will be another confrontation is very real. For both reasons one cannot say, “Hearing on November 3, 2014 of the appeal to an expired exclusion will have no practical effect.”
A question the Hearing Officer must consider is this appeal timely? We followed the city instructions to appeal this case and now they say, “…the appeal to an expired exclusion will have no practical effect. The appeal should be dismissed.” If the Hearing Officer adopts that line of thinking he would have to admit that in my case and any case that the city is involved in would be moot. We consider Brumnett does not and cannot apply here. The mootness argument should be rejected.
The second question the city raised is one of Privilege. The city seems to be suggesting that the mayor and commissioners enjoy some blanket immunity from being questioned in a civil process. We disagree and do not read State v. Babson the way the city does. We offer the same case and point out that the case was sent back in part for the trial judge to allow the questioning of the elected officials:
State v. Babson
“….are not exempt from neutral laws that do not target assem-
bling, instructing representatives, or applying for redress of
grievances. The Oregon Constitution does not prohibit the
government—in this case, the Legislative Administration
Committee—from enacting laws in terms that do not target
speech or the rights protected under Article
I, section 26, even if those laws may have some incidental impact those
rights, as the guideline at issue here does.”
“For the reasons discussed above, on its face, the
guideline does not violate Article
I, section 8, or Article1, section 26, of the Oregon Constitution. The case must be
remanded, however, to permit defendants to question the
co-chairs of the LAC about their role, if any, in enforcing the
guideline against defendants. Based on that testimony and
the other testimony presented, the trial court must determine whether enforcement of the guideline was a reasonable restriction on the time, place, and manner of defendants’expression and assembly, or whether it targeted defendants because they were engaged in expression and assembly, and
therefore violated Article I, section 8, and Article
I, section 26, as applied to defendants. Because of our resolution of
that issue, we do not reach defendants’ First Amendment
argument.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and <%2
