PDA

View Full Version : I need help now...issue with my yard sign




BLS
10-11-2007, 10:46 AM
Well, the city attorney called me.
they said they believe the code is within the US Consitution and they demand I take it down.

I told them to SHOVE IT.

I told them I would send them cases where they cannot violate common neutrality without censorship.

I need help sending him an email filled with articles and US Supreme Court rulings on this.

If you're not familiar with my case, please read this.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23369

BLS
10-11-2007, 10:54 AM
Oh...c'mon guys!!!

xerxesdarius
10-11-2007, 10:58 AM
How can I help? I am an attorney in San Diego, perhaps I can contact the ACLU, etc. on your behalf and get some professionals swinging for you.

Tin_Foil_Hat
10-11-2007, 11:01 AM
Well, the city attorney called me.
they said they believe the code is within the US Consitution and they demand I take it down.

I told them to SHOVE IT.

I told them I would send them cases where they cannot violate common neutrality without censorship.

I need help sending him an email filled with articles and US Supreme Court rulings on this.

If you're not familiar with my case, please read this.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23369


I wouldn't email them law rulings. They don't care. You need an attorney that will talk to them.

In the mean time...what will they do if you don't take it down? Probably a fine which you can fight later. I say keep it up.

BW4Paul
10-11-2007, 11:03 AM
Well, the city attorney called me.
they said they believe the code is within the US Consitution and they demand I take it down.

I would start by asking them to read you the part in the Constitution that excludes yard signs from freedom of speech. :D

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:07 AM
First things first: STOP TALKING TO THEM. This is no longer an honest misunderstanding. They are now your legal enemy. Don't give them anything to work with. Get the ACLU involved.

Edit: Of course, nothing stops us from calling them. Should we? Could be fantastic...

UtahApocalypse
10-11-2007, 11:07 AM
Get a lawyer, call the ACLU. Your city just done barked up the wrong tree.

jonahtrainer
10-11-2007, 11:09 AM
Oh...c'mon guys!!!

Waaa waaa waaa. Here is a letter (http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=2946) that should scare them off.

McDermit
10-11-2007, 11:09 AM
Get the ACLU involved. No reason to play nice, they obviously don't want to hear it.

And start contacting ALL local news sources ASAP. Stay positive, get yourself (and RP) on the news!

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:11 AM
How can I help? I am an attorney in San Diego, perhaps I can contact the ACLU, etc. on your behalf and get some professionals swinging for you.

Thanks Xerxes.

My city's code says that political signs can't be posted unless within 100 days of an election, and must be removed within 10 after.

But the code also says that real estate signs, for example can be posted without the same restrictions.

My argument is that is a form of censorship, and thus a violation of my free speech.

I will attach my cities code, if you can find anything that would help.

http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/InsideCityHall/Ordinances/CodeTitle15/CodeTitle15.155.pdf

http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/PlanningDev/BuildingSafety/BDGCodeEnforcement.html

pennycat
10-11-2007, 11:11 AM
This must be the day for Code Enforcement activity. Conspiracy?;-)

Seriously, check the thread I just started today! Someone copied their lawyer's letter.

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=24353

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:11 AM
Get the ACLU involved. No reason to play nice, they obviously don't want to hear it.

And start contacting ALL local news sources ASAP. Stay positive, get yourself (and RP) on the news!

When he contacted the news, they called the city attorney for him. Heh, thanks guys, NOT what we wanted!

Ninja Homer
10-11-2007, 11:11 AM
Have you contacted the ACLU yet?

I've read the other thread, but what exactly are they fighting you on? From the original message you posted, it looked like they wanted you to take them down because they were banners. Later in the thread, it sounds like they want you to take them down because they are campaign signs for an election that is more than 100 days away.

If they are only asking you to take them down because they are banners, you can turn them into signs by mounting them to some cheap fiberboard with double sided tape. Then they might come back and tell you that you have to take them down because of the election ordinance, but by then you will have had enough time to put together enough evidence to back up your case.

RTsquared
10-11-2007, 11:12 AM
I would think this would be the time to alert the ACLU (if you have not already).

Are you a blogger? You might think about posting this stuff to your blog and seeing if you can get some attention that way.

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:12 AM
Waaa waaa waaa. Here is a letter (http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=2946) that should scare them off.

Thanks. I already have that.

oh, and real cool to call me a whiner.
Jerk.

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:14 AM
This would be funny:

Dear Sir or Madam,
My Constitution does not permit you to post a law that prohibits banners on my private property. Please take down your law immediately so that I don't have to pursue legal action.

Cordially,
BLS

CC: ACLU

Danny Molina
10-11-2007, 11:14 AM
Threaten them with them with the ACLU. That'll get them to leave you alone.

You might like this case though.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15575

wgadget
10-11-2007, 11:16 AM
When's the primary in MN? If you can hold out for a few weeks, you'll be within the 100 days.

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:17 AM
It's not because it's a banner...it's because it's before 100 days of an election.

pennycat
10-11-2007, 11:17 AM
When he contacted the news, they called the city attorney for him. Heh, thanks guys, NOT what we wanted!

No, you want the media's attention. It does no good for us to constantly fight individual battles. We want to stand up to this tyrants and not play the game of 'I'm too scared to say anything, please don't hurt me.'

Try standing up for your rights for a change!

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:18 AM
When's the primary in MN? If you can hold out for a few weeks, you'll be within the 100 days.

True...but not the point.

I'm not taking my fucking sign down.

Cindy
10-11-2007, 11:18 AM
Along with contacting the ACLU and or a local attorney, definetely call all of your local media stations about this. They love reporting this kind of stuff.

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:21 AM
No, you want the media's attention. It does no good for us to constantly fight individual battles. We want to stand up to this tyrants and not play the game of 'I'm too scared to say anything, please don't hurt me.'

Try standing up for your rights for a change!

I've already done an interview with my local paper regarding this.


This the letter I've got written so far.

Hello John.

Thank you for getting back to me today.
I realize that the City Attorney believes the code is within US Constitutional guidelines, but it is my belief, based on my research, that it is indeed a violation of free speech.
I will provide you links where this sort of censorship is not allowed under the 1st Amendment, including a ruling from the United State Supreme Court on a case from Missouri where the city told a woman she could not place a sign in her yard because it was anti-war, yet signs such as “garage sale” or “yard sale” were allowed, without censorship or restrictions.
While these cases may not be exactly the same as my situation, they all fall under the premise that you cannot censor a sign placed on PRIVATE property based on its content.

Requiring a time window for a political sign is a form of censorship when signs such as a real estate sign do not have the same restrictions.
Political Speech is the most protected speech in America.
If after reading over the materials I provided, the city still feels that the code is within my Constitutional rights, and will not change it accordingly, I will have no choice but to continue my proceedings with the ACLU.

I thank you for your time and patience.
What I’m suggesting is that the code needs to be modified to not censor based on its content.

http://www.dailycommercial.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=162&ArticleID=21176
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Ladue_v_Gilleo
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Ladue_v_Gilleo
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=gilleo&url=/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html
http://www.aclufl.org/about/newsletters/2007/ACLUsep2007_web.pdf

UtahApocalypse
10-11-2007, 11:21 AM
EVERY case like this I have seen the ACLU involved in has been struck down against the city. Most the time the cities have backed off immediately. I know that some dilike the ACLU, and BLS I don't know your stance, but seriously if you want to win this, or even end it in days not years call the ACLU.

UtahApocalypse
10-11-2007, 11:23 AM
I've already done an interview with my local paper regarding this.


This the letter I've got written so far.

Hello John.

Thank you for getting back to me today.
I realize that the City Attorney believes the code is within US Constitutional guidelines, but it is my belief, based on my research, that it is indeed a violation of free speech.
I will provide you links where this sort of censorship is not allowed under the 1st Amendment, including a ruling from the United State Supreme Court on a case from Missouri where the city told a woman she could not place a sign in her yard because it was anti-war, yet signs such as “garage sale” or “yard sale” were allowed, without censorship or restrictions.
While these cases may not be exactly the same as my situation, they all fall under the premise that you cannot censor a sign placed on PRIVATE property based on its content.

Requiring a time window for a political sign is a form of censorship when signs such as a real estate sign do not have the same restrictions.
Political Speech is the most protected speech in America.
If after reading over the materials I provided, the city still feels that the code is within my Constitutional rights, and will not change it accordingly, I will have no choice but to continue my proceedings with the ACLU.

I thank you for your time and patience.
What I’m suggesting is that the code needs to be modified to not censor based on its content.

http://www.dailycommercial.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=162&ArticleID=21176
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Ladue_v_Gilleo
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Ladue_v_Gilleo
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=gilleo&url=/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html
http://www.aclufl.org/about/newsletters/2007/ACLUsep2007_web.pdf

DO NOT TALK TO THE CITY WITHOUT LEGAL ADVICE!!

Anything you say can be used later, and if its incorrect then you will LOSE. Please call a lawyer, or the ACLU before doing anything else.

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:25 AM
I think its time to contact these people, Ron Paul fans.

John Hinzman, Planning Director jhinzman@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2378
Kari Barker, Associate Planner kbarker@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2377
Samantha Schmidtke, Planning Assistant sschmidtke@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2334

Paul Hicks, Mayor mayorhicks@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2365

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:27 AM
BLS, do not talk to the city. Do not say anything. They will use anything you say against you. I do think our supporter network should contact the above people, though, and advise them that their law violates the First Amendment.

G-khan
10-11-2007, 11:29 AM
I agree ACLU all the way ...............

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:31 AM
I think its time to contact these people, Ron Paul fans.

John Hinzman, Planning Director jhinzman@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2378
Kari Barker, Associate Planner kbarker@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2377
Samantha Schmidtke, Planning Assistant sschmidtke@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2334

Paul Hicks, Mayor mayorhicks@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2365

Boy, i don't know if that's such a good idea.
He and I are being very cordial with each other.

steph3n
10-11-2007, 11:33 AM
agreed, attacking it won't help, one mail from the ACLU or another law firm WILL.


Boy, i don't know if that's such a good idea.
He and I are being very cordial with each other.

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:34 AM
Boy, i don't know if that's such a good idea.
He and I are being very cordial with each other.
An attempt to violate your civil rights is anything but cordial. Even the most polite attempt to usurp someone's rights is highly offensive.

steph3n
10-11-2007, 11:34 AM
legal works better than attacking at times, it will only inflame not resolve.


An attempt to violate your civil rights is anything but cordial. Even the most polite attempt to usurp someone's rights is highly offensive.

CodeMonkey
10-11-2007, 11:35 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but how about this:

The code says "posted no sooner than 100 days before a city, school, county, state, or federal election".

It doesn't say which state. Wyoming's primary is only 86 days away. :p

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:36 AM
Dave Osberg, City Administrator dosberg@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2383
Melanie Mesko Lee, Asst. Administrator mmesko_lee@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2326
Shannon Rausch, Community Relations srausch@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2344
Dawn West, Code Enforcement dwest@ci.hastings.mn.us (651) 480-2376

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:36 AM
DO NOT TALK TO THE CITY WITHOUT LEGAL ADVICE!!

Anything you say can be used later, and if its incorrect then you will LOSE. Please call a lawyer, or the ACLU before doing anything else.

I haven't sent the email yet.

I don't see what's wrong with the email I have though.
I'm not arguing...just trying to understand.

all of these links are factual articles

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:37 AM
I haven't sent the email yet.

I don't see what's wrong with the email I have though.
I'm not arguing...just trying to understand.

all of these links are factual articles

They had an opportunity to re-consider their action. Everything they do from here on out will be an attempt to collect evidence against you. Provide them with nothing.

steph3n
10-11-2007, 11:38 AM
seriously this is against the request of the OP who is directly involved, what you are doing is NOT helping!


Dave Osberg.....

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:38 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but how about this:

The code says "posted no sooner than 100 days before a city, school, county, state, or federal election".

It doesn't say which state. Wyoming's primary is only 86 days away. :p

Ha HA!! I was thinking the same exact thing..but I didn't know of a state having an election within the 100 days.

steph3n
10-11-2007, 11:38 AM
Ha HA!! I was thinking the same exact thing..but I didn't know of a state having an election within the 100 days.

ronpaul2008.com map lists it ;)

jonahtrainer
10-11-2007, 11:40 AM
I haven't sent the email yet.

I don't see what's wrong with the email I have though.
I'm not arguing...just trying to understand.

all of these links are factual articles

Send them the ACLU letter (properly edited for your circumstances) I posted a link to. Don't make this harder than it needs to be. You ask for advice and you got it, are you going to follow it? If not then why do you ask?

You need to make potent legal arguments about your sign using applicable law. Sending them on a wild goose chase with a bunch of articles or web pages is not going to help your cause.

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:40 AM
seriously this is against the request of the OP who is directly involved, what you are doing is NOT helping!
Frankly I don't see how it could hurt. The OP intends to keep the signs up, and the city has made clear that they're going to enforce the ordinance on him. There's nothing wrong with letting them know that they're being watched. If anything, it will ensure that they do everything appropriately.

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:43 AM
Please Do Not Call My City Officials.

Ninja Homer
10-11-2007, 11:46 AM
It's not because it's a banner...it's because it's before 100 days of an election.

OK, since you are fighting it, I just wanted to make sure you're fighting the right battle.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's because it's before 100 days of an election then it's a freedom of speech issue, whereas if it's because it's a banner it's a property rights issue. Freedom of speech is a lot easier to defend than property rights. Property rights have been heavily trampled on.

For reference, here's the original letter you posted:


Letter from my City Hall today.

Dear Current Resident,

The City of Hastings (MN) recently noticed a banner was placed on the fence behind the home at (address). Please note, the City Of Hastings Sign Ordinance does not allow banners in the residential district.

Therefore, the banner must be removed by October 8th, 2007.

Please contact me with any questions at 651-480-2377.

Sincerely,

Kari Barker
Associate Planner

I agree with the others... contact the ACLU and let them deal with the city. Anything you send them now is possible ammo to shoot you with.

BLS
10-11-2007, 11:49 AM
OK, since you are fighting it, I just wanted to make sure you're fighting the right battle.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's because it's before 100 days of an election then it's a freedom of speech issue, whereas if it's because it's a banner it's a property rights issue. Freedom of speech is a lot easier to defend than property rights. Property rights have been heavily trampled on.

For reference, here's the original letter you posted:



I agree with the others... contact the ACLU and let them deal with the city. Anything you send them now is possible ammo to shoot you with.

Actually that was the original letter.
After I called, and asked for the law about banners, she explained she had the code confused, and yesterday I was sent an updated letter with the exact code in it (about the 100 days), and was again told to remove the sign...this time in bolded letters. :D

ARealConservative
10-11-2007, 11:51 AM
Please Do Not Call My City Officials.

I encourage everyone to respect BLS's wishes. He is the guy that will be forced to stand in checkout lines behind these government workers.

But please, please, if you ignore the OP's wishes, atleast be respecful!

kylejack
10-11-2007, 11:53 AM
All, please do not contact the city about BLS.

However, if you feel that the law violates the rights of the other citizens of Hastings, be sure to let them know. We citizens have to defend each other, and the other citizens of Hastings are deserving of our defense.

And please be polite and respectful if you call them.

Ninja Homer
10-11-2007, 11:54 AM
Actually that was the original letter.
After I called, and asked for the law about banners, she explained she had the code confused, and yesterday I was sent an updated letter with the exact code in it (about the 100 days), and was again told to remove the sign...this time in bolded letters. :D

Cool... that's a good thing. It's a lot easier to defend, and it has a better chance of getting some press. Not that I don't care about what happens to you, but Ron Paul getting some extra air time would be a bonus. :D

steph3n
10-11-2007, 11:55 AM
kyle,

The issue is still young, there is a time and a place, and it is not yet that time.


All, please do not contact the city about BLS.

However, if you feel that the law violates the rights of the other citizens of Hastings, be sure to let them know. We citizens have to defend each other, and the other citizens of Hastings are deserving of our defense.

And please be polite and respectful if you call them.

McDermit
10-11-2007, 11:56 AM
When he contacted the news, they called the city attorney for him. Heh, thanks guys, NOT what we wanted!

lol. that's kind of funny, in a sad sort of way.

tmg19103
10-11-2007, 11:57 AM
I am fighting this same thing. It is illegal and unconstituional under federal law. My lawyer's letter below. We are currently trying to see if the township will modify the ordinance or we will sue for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to Enforce the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Make sure you go to a lawyer and/or the ACLU if this happens to you. These laws are blatently unconsitutional, and lawyers will take them for free as the law allows them to collect attorney fees from the defendants in cases like this.


VIA EMAIL

To: Gilbert High, Solicitor - Lower Merion Township
cc: Each and every Lower Merion Township Commissioner

RE: Political Yard Signs

Dear Mr. High:

The Lower Merion Township Code provides the following:

§ 155-93.1. Exempt signs. [Amended 1-18-1995 by Ord. No. 3378]

The following signs shall be allowed without a sign permit and shall not be included in the determination of the type, number or area of permanent signs allowed within a zoning district. However, no exempt signs may project into the right-of-way of any public or private road, except for a governmental sign, and except for temporary signs authorized by Chapter 133 and this chapter.

C. Political signs, provided that no sign shall be displayed more than 45 calendar days prior to an election or for more than two days following the election for which it is erected.


I read this to mean that political signs may not be displayed more than 45 calendar days prior to an election. It is my client's intent to display a standard sized political yard sign many months before the election that pertains to the political yard sign.

The law is clear that the display of political signs constitutes pure speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that the "First Amendment has the fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office". Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989). Because Lower Merion Township Code specifically singles out political signs as a category, it is a content-based restriction that must be supported by a compelling government interest. Further, the means chosen to effect such interest must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. See Boos v. Barry 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988).

Lower Merion Township's restriction clearly cannot meet this heavy, strict scrutiny burden. I call your attention to several different circuit cases that have struck down various ordinances restricting the display of political signs: Curry v. Prince George's County, Maryland 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md.1999) (durational limit with respect to political lawn signs unconstitutional)(my emphasis added); Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County, Virginia 983 F.2d 587 (4th Cir. 1993) (two sign limit unconstitutional even when ordinance was content neutral); Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakating 87 F. Supp.2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (restriction of political lawn signs violated the First Amendment); Savago v. Village of New Paultz 214 F. Supp.2d 252 (N.D.N.Y. 2002) (Village's sign ordinance unconstitutional). See also Rappa v. New Castle County 18 F.3d 1043 (3rd Cir. 1994) (invalidating state statute regulating placement of signs).

Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals decision in Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster 454 F.3d 1219, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) is quite relevant. That case involved a city ordinance that imposed bureaucratic requirements on political signs that did not apply to other signs. Lower Merion Township Code provides for political signs only to be displayed 45 days prior and two days following an election, while other types of signs per Lower Merion Township Code do not have these strict requirements. Beaulieu provides that "because political signs are subject to more regulatory burden... the sign ordinance discriminates against political speech in favor of commercial speech".

Please advise by October 12th, 2007 (one week) as to Lower Merion Township's position on the constitutionality of the above referenced Township Code. It is my clients intent to place a political lawn sign in his lawn and on his property numerous months before the election referencing the political sign on October 13th, 2007, but client will not do so if he is under threat of receiving an unconstitutional fine - as he is per the Lower Merion Township Code.

It is only reasonable for Lower Merion Township follow the rule of law and do what is correct and proper. I remind the Lower Merion Township commissioners that each of you has sworn an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and that this issue involves the individual and constitutional rights of a citizen of Lower Merion Township.

Please feel free to contact me if you would further like to discuss this matter.

Sincerely,

McDermit
10-11-2007, 12:01 PM
Frankly I don't see how it could hurt. The OP intends to keep the signs up, and the city has made clear that they're going to enforce the ordinance on him. There's nothing wrong with letting them know that they're being watched. If anything, it will ensure that they do everything appropriately.

It will hurt US. Do you want the city officials telling the media that they're being harrassed by Ron Paul supporters? NO!

We need the media on OUR side. Do it the legal way. Get the ACLU or a private attorney involved.

tmg19103
10-11-2007, 12:06 PM
..... ........

Kregener
10-11-2007, 12:06 PM
Print and post these around your property:

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/No_Trespassing.jpg

BLS
10-11-2007, 12:14 PM
I am fighting this same thing. It is illegal and unconstituional under federal law. My lawyer's letter below. We are currently trying to see if the township will modify the ordinance or we will sue for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to Enforce the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Make sure you go to a lawyer and/or the ACLU if this happens to you. These laws are blatently unconsitutional, and lawyers will take them for free as the law allows them to collect attorney fees from the defendants in cases like this.


VIA EMAIL

To: Gilbert High, Solicitor - Lower Merion Township
cc: Each and every Lower Merion Township Commissioner

RE: Political Yard Signs

Dear Mr. High:

The Lower Merion Township Code provides the following:

§ 155-93.1. Exempt signs. [Amended 1-18-1995 by Ord. No. 3378]

The following signs shall be allowed without a sign permit and shall not be included in the determination of the type, number or area of permanent signs allowed within a zoning district. However, no exempt signs may project into the right-of-way of any public or private road, except for a governmental sign, and except for temporary signs authorized by Chapter 133 and this chapter.

C. Political signs, provided that no sign shall be displayed more than 45 calendar days prior to an election or for more than two days following the election for which it is erected.


I read this to mean that political signs may not be displayed more than 45 calendar days prior to an election. It is my client's intent to display a standard sized political yard sign many months before the election that pertains to the political yard sign.

The law is clear that the display of political signs constitutes pure speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that the "First Amendment has the fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office". Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989). Because Lower Merion Township Code specifically singles out political signs as a category, it is a content-based restriction that must be supported by a compelling government interest. Further, the means chosen to effect such interest must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. See Boos v. Barry 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988).

Lower Merion Township's restriction clearly cannot meet this heavy, strict scrutiny burden. I call your attention to several different circuit cases that have struck down various ordinances restricting the display of political signs: Curry v. Prince George's County, Maryland 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md.1999) (durational limit with respect to political lawn signs unconstitutional)(my emphasis added); Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County, Virginia 983 F.2d 587 (4th Cir. 1993) (two sign limit unconstitutional even when ordinance was content neutral); Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakating 87 F. Supp.2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (restriction of political lawn signs violated the First Amendment); Savago v. Village of New Paultz 214 F. Supp.2d 252 (N.D.N.Y. 2002) (Village's sign ordinance unconstitutional). See also Rappa v. New Castle County 18 F.3d 1043 (3rd Cir. 1994) (invalidating state statute regulating placement of signs).

Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals decision in Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster 454 F.3d 1219, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) is quite relevant. That case involved a city ordinance that imposed bureaucratic requirements on political signs that did not apply to other signs. Lower Merion Township Code provides for political signs only to be displayed 45 days prior and two days following an election, while other types of signs per Lower Merion Township Code do not have these strict requirements. Beaulieu provides that "because political signs are subject to more regulatory burden... the sign ordinance discriminates against political speech in favor of commercial speech".

Please advise by October 12th, 2007 (one week) as to Lower Merion Township's position on the constitutionality of the above referenced Township Code. It is my clients intent to place a political lawn sign in his lawn and on his property numerous months before the election referencing the political sign on October 13th, 2007, but client will not do so if he is under threat of receiving an unconstitutional fine - as he is per the Lower Merion Township Code.

It is only reasonable for Lower Merion Township follow the rule of law and do what is correct and proper. I remind the Lower Merion Township commissioners that each of you has sworn an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and that this issue involves the individual and constitutional rights of a citizen of Lower Merion Township.

Please feel free to contact me if you would further like to discuss this matter.

Sincerely,

KICK... FUCKING.... ASS!!!

BLS
10-11-2007, 12:15 PM
Print and post these around your property:

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/No_Trespassing.jpg

Is this for real???

kylejack
10-11-2007, 12:16 PM
..... ........

I already contacted them before you edited your post, unfortunately....

UtahApocalypse
10-11-2007, 12:18 PM
BLS, please contact a Lawyer. The letters, and legal references each are based on relevant facts of the case. you cannot just copy another ACLU letter, or the other letter posted. You MUST get legal council. That IS the only way to beat this. If not you will just dig yourself a much deeper hole.

tmg19103
10-11-2007, 12:23 PM
What the heck. Feel free to contact the Lower Merion Township commissioners POLITELY, indicating that they have an unconsitutional political sign law on the books and that they have sworn an oath to defend and uphold the constitution.

Ask them to do the right thing by amending this ordinance so that the citizens of Lower Merion can be sure they have elected commissioners who will uphold the law and obey the constituiton.

Start it out - Dear Lower Merion Township Commissioner:

(my disclaimer is to be polite and respectful)

breed@berwind.com, jwbrown@flammlaw.com, etrainer@lowermerion.org, jane.dellheim@verizon.net, gelber330@email.msn.com, lfgould@duanemorris.com, bgordon@gordon-ashworth.com, maryam@erols.com, esrogan@gryphonsystems.com, lance@lancerogers.com, vscottzelov@comcast.net, george@gtmanos.com, mtaylor@marcusmillichap.com, phil@rrhc.com

BLS
10-11-2007, 12:23 PM
BLS, please contact a Lawyer. The letters, and legal references each are based on relevant facts of the case. you cannot just copy another ACLU letter, or the other letter posted. You MUST get legal council. That IS the only way to beat this. If not you will just dig yourself a much deeper hole.

What kind of lawyer should I consult?

Shink
10-11-2007, 12:24 PM
You guys are making me want to become a Constitutional lawyer.

bbachtung
10-11-2007, 12:25 PM
BLS, I sent you a PM, please check it.

Also, if you have not already done so, PLEASE fill-out the intake form at the ACLU-MN website:

https://www.aclu-mn.org/legal/fileacomplaint/intakeform/

ronpaulhawaii
10-11-2007, 12:31 PM
I could send the summary of the legal opinion from HI with a preface that says,

"Just thought that you might like to know, that your town is looking like it has little understanding of the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, worldwide!"

~~~~~~~
Aloha,

Here in HI, we have experianced the exact same mis-understanding. Below is the summary of the issue from our State Attorney General. The entire legal opinion is attached. I am also attaching an article from our local newspaper which may be considered a template for any town which attempts to limit the constitutional rights of the citizens which they have sworn an oath to protect.


http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/publications/opinions/1993_1999/96-04.pdf
(emphasis added)
"In conclusion, we believe that section 445-112(11), Hawaii Revised Statutes, contains a content-based restriction which is presumptively unconstitutional. In purporting to apply durational limitations to political signs but not to other signs, it grants commercial speech greater protection than noncommercial speech. It is not narrowly tailored to further the government's asserted interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, and there are no alternative, equally effective channels of communication. Therefore, we believe that section 445-112(11) will be held by a court to be unconstitutional under both the United States and Hawaii constitutions and that the statute is unenforceable in a court of law."


http://starbulletin.com/2002/06/19/news/story3.html


"Civil rights attorney Earle Partington called it "a no-brainer" in saying the law is wrong. "I think any prosecutor who prosecuted it would have a risk of being sued," he said."

Please think this through carefully as many of us are tired of looking like laughing stocks, worldwide

Mahalo Nui Loa for your consideration,

Michael Maresco
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll send this if people think I should, let me know.

and BLS, I trust you are listening to thse who are saying not to give these guys any ammo, and getting the advice and assistance of a lawyer.

Don't let them rile you, that is what they want to do. This will be good for the grassroots if we handle ourselves well.

sorry it had to be you in the middle

m

BLS
10-11-2007, 12:39 PM
I could send the summary of the legal opinion from HI with a preface that says,

"Just thought that you might like to know, that your town is looking like it has little understanding of the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, worldwide!"

~~~~~~~
Aloha,

Here in HI, we have experianced the exact same mis-understanding. Below is the summary of the issue from our State Attorney General. The entire legal opinion is attached. I am also attaching an article from our local newspaper which may be considered a template for any town which attempts to limit the constitutional rights of the citizens which they have sworn an oath to protect.


http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/publications/opinions/1993_1999/96-04.pdf
(emphasis added)
"In conclusion, we believe that section 445-112(11), Hawaii Revised Statutes, contains a content-based restriction which is presumptively unconstitutional. In purporting to apply durational limitations to political signs but not to other signs, it grants commercial speech greater protection than noncommercial speech. It is not narrowly tailored to further the government's asserted interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, and there are no alternative, equally effective channels of communication. Therefore, we believe that section 445-112(11) will be held by a court to be unconstitutional under both the United States and Hawaii constitutions and that the statute is unenforceable in a court of law."


http://starbulletin.com/2002/06/19/news/story3.html


"Civil rights attorney Earle Partington called it "a no-brainer" in saying the law is wrong. "I think any prosecutor who prosecuted it would have a risk of being sued," he said."

Please think this through carefully as many of us are tired of looking like laughing stocks, worldwide

Mahalo Nui Loa for your consideration,

Michael Maresco
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll send this if people think I should, let me know.

and BLS, I trust you are listening to thse who are saying not to give these guys any ammo, and getting the advice and assistance of a lawyer.

Don't let them rile you, that is what they want to do. This will be good for the grassroots if we handle ourselves well.

sorry it had to be you in the middle

m


Great info.

I have not emailed the City back.
I attempted to contact a lawyer here in MNPLS, but he's out until Monday.

ronpaulhawaii
10-11-2007, 12:49 PM
Great info.

I have not emailed the City back.
I attempted to contact a lawyer here in MNPLS, but he's out until Monday.

Glad to hear this, while I don't, personally, care for the ACLU, you may want to listen to the advice of others and contact them right away.

I think I would change the final line to read,

"...tired of looking like a nation of hypocrites, worldwide"

IF, others think this would be effective.

Please let me know, time marches on and we have bigger battles to fight

m

Kregener
10-11-2007, 12:54 PM
The "No Trespassing Sign" is for real, but only as effective as those who "enforce" the law wish to violate your rights "under" the law.

Never forget that the courts are stacked against you if you are talking on an unconstitutional government.

RonFan1776
10-11-2007, 01:13 PM
I like Badnarik's rules on taking stands like this:

1) Secure your property. The government does not fight fair.
2) Research and understand the law.
3) Take action.

In that order.

SewrRatt
10-11-2007, 02:48 PM
You're on the ground with a boot on the back of your neck and the guy is pressing down and "cordially" ordering you to stop breathing. Do you ask a passing cop for help or do you list some legal precedent for your right to continue breathing and expect the guy to say, "Good point," and go away?

Quit being ridiculous. If you attempt to debate them on anything the next communication you will have from them is a police officer ripping the sign out of your yard and serving you an order to appear in court.

V4Vendetta
10-11-2007, 03:20 PM
THIS IS NOT HARD AT ALL

Recite the 1st amendment to the constitution. And say IF ANY law local, County, State, or Federal Contradicts this, then the law is null and void.

Private Property - Have every right given by god and the Constitution to put whatever political sign I want in my yard.

kylejack
10-16-2007, 06:10 AM
What the heck. Feel free to contact the Lower Merion Township commissioners POLITELY, indicating that they have an unconsitutional political sign law on the books and that they have sworn an oath to defend and uphold the constitution.

Ask them to do the right thing by amending this ordinance so that the citizens of Lower Merion can be sure they have elected commissioners who will uphold the law and obey the constituiton.

Start it out - Dear Lower Merion Township Commissioner:

(my disclaimer is to be polite and respectful)

breed@berwind.com, jwbrown@flammlaw.com, etrainer@lowermerion.org, jane.dellheim@verizon.net, gelber330@email.msn.com, lfgould@duanemorris.com, bgordon@gordon-ashworth.com, maryam@erols.com, esrogan@gryphonsystems.com, lance@lancerogers.com, vscottzelov@comcast.net, george@gtmanos.com, mtaylor@marcusmillichap.com, phil@rrhc.com
Hey tmg, I received a reply.


Lance Rogers to me
show details 6:52 am (18 minutes ago)

Kyle:

Thank you for your email. This is an issue that we will most likely address
following this year's elections. I agree that there are aspects of this
ordinance which must be changed in order to be constitutional.

Thanks again for your email.

Lance


Lance Rogers
Commissioner
Lower Merion Township
1340 Garden Road
Wynnewood, PA 19096
(610) 896-5758
www.lancerogers.com

- Show quoted text -

-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Nielsen [mailto:kylejack@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:11 PM
To: breed@berwind.com; jwbrown@flammlaw.com; etrainer@lowermerion.org;
jane.dellheim@verizon.net; gelber330@email.msn.com; lfgould@duanemorris.com;
bgordon@gordon-ashworth.com; maryam@erols.com; esrogan@gryphonsystems.com;
lance@lancerogers.com; vscottzelov@comcast.net; george@gtmanos.com;
mtaylor@marcusmillichap.com; phil@rrhc.com
Subject: Unconstitutional Ordinance

"§ 155-93.1. Exempt signs. [Amended 1-18-1995 by Ord. No. 3378]

The following signs shall be allowed without a sign permit and shall
not be included in the determination of the type, number or area of
permanent signs allowed within a zoning district. However, no exempt
signs may project into the right-of-way of any public or private road,
except for a governmental sign, and except for temporary signs
authorized by Chapter 133 and this chapter.

C. Political signs, provided that no sign shall be displayed more than
45 calendar days prior to an election or for more than two days
following the election for which it is erected."

It is my understanding that political speech is speech which is most
protected by the First Amendment. Its also my understanding that
placing duration limits on political signs has been ruled
unconstitutional. Why, then, does the township continue to keep this
ordinance on the books? I look forward to seeing this corrected.

Cordially,
Kyle

LibertyEagle
10-16-2007, 07:03 AM
How can I help? I am an attorney in San Diego, perhaps I can contact the ACLU, etc. on your behalf and get some professionals swinging for you.

BLS, did you overlook this offer?