I'm Throwing Down The Gauntlet To Code Enforcement!

[pennycat]

I sent the following email to our Meetup Group:

I'm throwing down the gauntlet to Orange County Code Enforcement. See this article which is the online version of what will be in tomorrow's paper: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/10/ron-paul-signs-.html

Tomorrow I'll assume that there will be a Orlando Sentinel article about our efforts to get the Ron Paul message out. Yes, a lot of people have been putting out signs for the Champion of the Constitution, Ron Paul. Apparently, our Ron Paul signs are much more dangerous than the endless signs for 'Avoiding Foreclosure' and 'Make $10,000 a month.'

Most of us assumed this would be a cat and mouse game of putting up signs and then wait to see how long they would last. It is now obvious that Orange County Code Enforcement means to hold me personally responsible for every single Ron Paul sign ever posted in Orange County.

This is no laughing matter. This is a $1000 dollar a day per violation civil court proceeding. Their hope is that I will knuckle under and some how force you guys to stop posting signs. Oh that I had that much power! But to give a short, simple answer 'Hell No!'

Many will say, just fib and wiggle out of this mess. No one fights city hall and wins. The list of excuses is endless. Our civil liberties are not.

Orange County Code Enforcement will say, 'Just doing our jobs.' They may be, but they are the front men for an insidious group whose real goal is to completely squash the grassroots movement. Under the heals of these so-called defenders of beautification lies every small time underfunded campaign. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more.

These little yard signs pose no risk to anyone and do no permanent harm. But they do terrify the bureaucrats that sit behind desks in air conditioned offices. They want to keep the cost for mounting campaigns in the stratosphere. Anything and anyway they can suppress opponents' attempts to unseat them is viewed as an acceptable action. Already elected officials have only one objective--stay in power at all costs.

Time to stand and fight.

If we are afraid of the cop wanna-be Code Enforcement officers, heaven help us when the real tough battles loom. I hope that all of you will support me in my attempt to face down these tyrants. But if the cost is to high for you, so be it.

I do promise you this. If Orange County Code Enforcement thinks for one minute that I will grovel at their feet and ask for mercy (and a lower fine) they will wait for eternity. If they think that I will try to force members of the Orlando Ron Paul Meetup Group to stop the March of Freedom, they had better get out of the way.

I say this to them: Do Your Own Dirty Work! Find someone else whose conscience doesn't care about freedom of speech and grassroots campaigns.

[NewEnd]

All I can say is keep up teh good fight, btu I will nto condemn you for buckling under pressure. You have a tough road ahead of you.

Please, please, please contact the ACLU immediately.

[Tidewise]

I don't know where you are posting the signs, but we have no right to post them on public property. Even Scalia and Thomas will tell you that.

[ronpaulyourmom]

At the same time do not allow yourself to be held personally responsible for the actions of many. You are not paying anybody to put up the signs.

[jjschless]

I don't know where you are posting the signs, but we have no right to post them on public property. Even Scalia and Thomas will tell you that.

check this site out: http://www.freewayblogger.com/

here is his take on the legality:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it legal?

YES and NO

YES! Free political speech is a fundamental right under the First Amendment. It is your right as a citizen to display non-commercial signs and banners, with some exceptions. Rules regarding signposting along roadways vary from state to state, and locality to locality. So, call your local department of transportation to find out more. Ask for public relations and say you'd like to put up some American flags and "Support the Troops" signs... they will likely be more than helpful. Don't feel bad if that's not precisely what you intend to put up: this is America, and the rules apply equally to all points of view.

NO! Again, the rules vary from state to state, but here in California, your right to political self expression ends exactly 600 feet from the Interstate, and failure to comply may run afoul of the law notwithstanding that nothing in the Streets & Highways Code or Outdoor Advertising Act expressly bars political expression in those areas. Although it remains unresolved whether they are constitutional, some local laws may be used to keep you from speaking out on the roadways. The stated reason for limiting your right to political expression is that such signs present a safety hazard due to their being a "visual distraction" to drivers, which is perfectly reasonable just as soon as they move every damn billboard, commercial sign and jumbo-tron screen 600 feet from the freeway as well. So long as my local car dealer's allowed to show commercials on a thousand square foot TV right next to the 405, you can call my piece of cardboard a visual distraction, but I'm not buying it. Going by those rules, the only people allowed to address commuters are those who either rent or own billboards, which may be fine for the sake of capitalism, but it's bad for America.

Here at Freewayblogger, we feel that free speech is meaningless unless it extends to everybody: not just to those who can afford it. When the founders of this nation said that everyone was entitled to freely express their political opinions, they didn't mean we could hammer up a sign out in the woods somewhere, they meant we could hammer it up right in the middle of the town square. Why? Because that's where all the people were.

It is our contention that the town square of colonial times has now become the interstate: for better or for worse, that's where all the people are. With this in mind, we feel it is our God-given and constitutionally-granted right to post our messages on the interstates, freeways, or wherever-the-hell-else-we-think-people-will-read-them and we're willing to fight for this right all the way to the Supreme Court.

But you'll have to catch us first.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nick, I am sure there are many knowledgeable and legal savvy people in the rEVOLution.

1. Contact FFF, JBS, Lew Rockwell.com and the like and ask for some help to fight the legal battle.

2. Contact ACLU

3. Liberty or Death

[me3]

I'm going to follow this thread, please keep posting updates.

[michaelwise]

If the distractions pose a hazard, why don't billboards and business signs pose a hazard?

[ctb619]

If the distractions pose a hazard, why don't billboards and business signs pose a hazard?

exactly...but they provide revenue...so a blind eye is turned to the double standard

[fj45lvr]

We should send them a united "DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE"

They probably think that Thomas Jeffersons comment is a FELONY:

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

Let them dwell on the "declaration" and if they don't like it they can shove it ...you know where......we are fighting for more than their damned "ordinance".....trying to prevent ourselves from using our own "oridinance" of a different type.

[john_anderson_ii]

Have you contacted the ACLU or similar organizations by chance? They might be interested in helping you with legal representation.

To me, the fact is pretty simple. Any sign they claim you put up (i.e. any violation) must be proved. They certainly aren't prepared to prove you posed each and every sign. They are hoping for a plea or an admittance of guilt.

[Sean]

Anyone that has been to traffic court on a bogus ticket knows that the officer doesn't have to prove anything. Many times the judges in these case just act as the prosecution. That is why our Constitution calls for jury trials for even a low fine.

[jointhefightforfreedom]

Anyone that has been to traffic court on a bogus ticket knows that the officer doesn't have to prove anything. Many times the judges in these case just act as the prosecution. That is why our Constitution calls for jury trials for even a low fine.

There is an alternate method of defense! it is known as the "common law Default Method" I use it in traffic cases and win 100% of the time

Declare your sovereign citizenship as granted under the constitution and as such you are not bound by local ordinances

it starts out like this"


TO: ________________, (name of county) ______________ (name of DA (prosecutor))

FIRST: This is lawful notification and is sent pursuant to the federal Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree, is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law”. See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

1. I am a living, flesh and blood human being by the given name of
John Quincy Jones.

2. I am not the person, "JOHN QUINCY JONES", named on any papers submitted in this case and have never claimed to be "JOHN QUINCY JONES".

3. I have never been known as "JOHN QUINCY JONES", a nom de guerre and misnomer.

4. I am the sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370

Note: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom
and for whom all government exists and acts.; "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370”

5. I demand that the prosecutor, should he attempt to dispute my claim of right as a sovereign flesh and blood human being, who is not subject to the law (legislative law) as stated by Supreme Court Justice Mathews in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370, show proof to the court that, the United States Supreme has overturned this landmark case.

6. I have no contract or agreement with STATE OF (NAME OF STATE) or any STATE OF (NAME OF STATE) agency, or any STATE OF (NAME OF STATE) municipality.

7. I have no contract or agreement with (name of county) County or any other county.

8. I am not a party of the body politic or corporate.

9. I have not joined in the above captioned suit.


Send me an email and i can give you the full docs!
BTW the "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370" is a california case that is on record and specifically deals with Sovereignty and local ordinaces.

[jointhefightforfreedom]

Anyone that has been to traffic court on a bogus ticket knows that the officer doesn't have to prove anything. Many times the judges in these case just act as the prosecution. That is why our Constitution calls for jury trials for even a low fine.

For future reference on traffic cases

IF THE JUDGE SAYS THAT THE LAW IN THIS STATE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF A PROSECUTOR IN TRAFFIC INFRACTION CASES!

THE JUDGE CANNOT BE THE PROSECUTOR THAT IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW


Throwing the Constitution out the window = tyranny, which enriches the state.

Here is the scoop on the no prosecutor in infraction cases. In 1967 California invented a new class of public offense, called the infraction.

The infraction was invented for numerous reasons. For one, it stripped away your Constitutional right to a jury trial thus, making it a lot easier to use traffic tickets as a money machine for the state and local governments. Another, it saved the state and local governments the cost of providing jury trials, public defenders and prosecuting attorneys from traffic trials.

In most states having the classification of infraction, appeals courts and high courts in those states primarily hold that, the state does not have to provide the defendant with a jury trial, a public defender if he can not afford a lawyer and does not have to provide a prosecutor to prosecute the infraction case. The courts maintain that the judge is allowed to call witnesses forward to give testimony against you, and the judge being held to be the finder of facts, can ask you certain questions, the scope and limits of which are not defined. None of this is constitutional.

The courts have conveniently over looked a small detail concerning the absence of the prosecutor… who is present in court to uphold the state’s claim if there is not prosecutor in court? The judge can not represent the state’s claim in court against you, that would be total bias against you, besides being violation of his oath of office and the constitution.
A California appeals court said, the citing officer who testifies as to the circumstances of the citation is a witness, no [6 Cal.App.4th Supp. 5] more, no less. So, the officer can not be the prosecutor. No surprise, he has no BAR card, besides if he were the prosecutor how could he cross-examine himself as the witness on the stand? Without the prosecutor there is no case against you. The state has abandoned its case against you.

Think of this concept like a civil action which is truly what traffic cases involving infractions are. In a civil case, if the party making a claim against you fails to come to court to pursue its claim against you and you show up, what is the result? The judge will dismiss the action against you because, the party making the claim against you failed to come to court to uphold its claim against you. It is no different with an infraction case where there is no prosecutor, the judge has a duty to dismiss.

“If you said to the judge; there exist no matter of controversy before this court, as there is no prosecutor present in this court to uphold the claim of the state against me, I therefore move to dismiss.” Where does this leave the judge? He can either dismiss, or he can attempt to argue that a matter of controversy still exists before the court. If he refuses to dismiss and argues in favor of there being a matter of controversy before his court, he takes on the role of the prosecutor. Only the prosecutor can argue in favor of the state against you. You say; “I again move to dismiss based upon your arguing for the state’s position and against me, - a clear violation of rule of law and my constitutional rights.”

The judge can hardly use the excuse he is just trying to get to the truth and find the facts of this case. Nope, he has argued in favor of the state’s position and against you, showing open bias against you and causing you legal injury.

[pennycat]

I'm the original poster. Thanks for all the great replies.

I forgot to bring up the statement by the field Code Enforcement officer. He actually told me that he signed up for our Meetup under an assumed name and was monitoring our emails.

The founding fathers would be appalled at the abuses that we have to endure in the name of 'obeying the law.'