Don Bankhead vs. Free Market Speech
Word has it that Mayor Pro Tem Don Bankhead was not so happy to see volunteers gathering signatures to recall him from office outside of Ralphs supermarket on Harbor Blvd. earlier this week.
Petition gatherers say that he and the Mrs. suggested that they shouldn’t be there and were then seen to be speaking to a store manager inside. A couple of days later the signature gatherers were told by both the manager of Ralphs and the manager of the shopping center that they were not welcome there, and had to leave. Volunteers collecting signatures in front of Albertsons on Raymond Ave. were told the same thing.
Fortunately Fullerton Recall Coordinator Chris Thompson knew that petitioners have the right to collect signatures on some private property as long as they are not causing a disturbance. The California Supreme Court upheld this right in something called Pruneyard vs. Robins, that basically holds that any place that is normally open to the public, like a mall or shopping center, is covered by free speech rights, even if it is private property.
Thompson called the city of Fullerton and had none other than City Manager Joe Felz and the city attorney confirm that the signature gatherers had a perfect right to collect signatures in front of both Ralph’s and Albertsons. Thompson then met with police officers at Ralphs, who agreed. One of them even gave the signature gatherers his card and told them to call him if they had this problem again.
Don Bankhead, who has no problem giving away millions of dollars in public land to developers is suddenly bothered by a couple of people collecting signatures in front of a busy supermarket. I guess he hasn’t learned much since the last time he was recalled from the Fullerton City Council 17 years ago.
can’t view the video… anyone else or just me and my PC?
I didin’t see the video earlier when I saw this post, however I looked a half hour later and the video was posted. The recall effort is in full swing and the signature gatherers I’ve observed are having an extremely easy time getting voters to sign all three petitions and are eager to do so.
CASE LAW: PRUNEYARD V ROBINS, PROHIBITS RETAILERS FROM DENYING PETITION COLLECTION IN FRONT OF THEIR STORES. IT IS OLD CASE LAW GOING BACK TO THE 80’S.
PETITION GATHERING IS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND THE CALIF. CONSTITUTION.
I was at the protest in Saturday and approached the recall table and asked the signature gathers whag the recall was for and I got the response of ” I don’t know, I don’t live in this city I live in corona! It just goes to show that bushala
And thompson are using all these morons as their personal puppets! These morons have no idea what cause they are supporting! They just keep drinking the cool aid!!! Haha
Yeah, I sent out the moron Bat Signal and they all just came running asking what mindless task they could pursue for me. It’s just one of my many talents. What is it like to wake up to an immoral, losing cause every day of your life?
Chris, pay no attention to the baboon behind the curtain..you are doing a great job, Kelly would be proud
Plus, don’t all the signature gatherers have to be registered voters in Fullerton?
dickfor,
I saw you there, and you still signed LMAO
Meriblow, you have NO idea what you’re talking about and are obviously a big fat troll! I was a signature gatherer on Sat. And know all 3 shifts were manned by Fullerton registered voters. Legal, knowledgeable citizens. Chris and Tony are running this recall with very strict rules about who can sign, witness, etc. Your lame efforts to put negative vibes on the recall won’t work. Sorry.
VIDEO is working find on this side.
Hey all you fffers read the last two sentences in paragraph four if you can count that high. Funny when you need help you call the police even though you all said you are scared of the Fullerton police ! Funny Thompson called! So what was said was that the police were professional and did their job! All you idiots that have no clue as to what is really going on should stop posting! Put the ben and jerry’s down , get out of your parents house and get a life!!!
Yeah, you’re right, Officer Mary Blows. They didn’t come and beat these 2 women into a coma (or give them the Officer Rincon pat down), so I guess they deserve freakin’ medals.
The only “idiot” who should stop posting is YOU. You are simply an FPD apologist with nothing to say here other than to insult those who truly care about peace and justice. Now go back to your Ben&Jerry’s and choke on it!
Save us! Really??? Great post, when you move to Fullerton then you can post!
“when you move to Fullerton then you can post!”
You lose at life.
Epic failure. I point out their your goons beat an unarmed man to death and you have another guy serially abusing women under the color of authority, and the best retort in your arsenal is GEOGRAPHY?? Simply pathetic!
By the way, I don’t need a loser like you to give me permission to post.
Blowboy has to point out when officers actually do their job correctly. sad.
Fullerton gets federal tax dollars, ergo, stfu.
Not really sure who taught you comprehension of the English language, however when I read the sentences that you suggested we FFFF bloggers read, I understood the first sentence to say that Chris called the City of Fullerton and spoke with the City Manager and the City Attorney and confirmed that signature gatherers affiliated with the recall campaign have a constitutional right to gather signatures at a privately owned shopping mall as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s UNANIMOUS Pruneyard decision in 1980. The article then states that Chris Thompson met with officers at the Ralph’s who also confirmed the recall campaign’s legal right to collect signatures at a shopping mall that’s on private property and they continued gathering signatures in peace. My own personal observation is that the supporters of the City Councilman have engaged in name calling and heated exchanges with the signature gatherers and I have several videos as proof if needed.
Thompson called the city of Fullerton and had none other than City Manager Joe Felz and the city attorney confirm that the signature gatherers had a perfect right to collect signatures in front of both Ralph’s and Albertsons. Thompson then met with police officers at Ralphs, who agreed. One of them even gave the signature gatherers his card and told them to call him if they had this problem again.
It might be fun and elucidating for Honorable Don if someone explained this to him in person.
Bankhead, Don
1231 W. Valencia Mesa Drive
Fullerton CA 92835
(714)738-8683
Honorable Don Bankhead
Other Contacts: Mrs. Carol Bankhead
I know this may sound a bit far-fetched, and I honestly don’t want it to be true, however has anyone seriously looked into the possibility that Don Bankhead is actually suffering from brain tumors? He happems to live in an area that’s very close to a bunch of oil wells in the nearby hills that have been causing a higher than normal rate of brain tumor diagnosis’s in the local population, and I also remember reading a West Coyote Hills environmental impact report released a few years ago that mentioned that the Chevron workers underwent annual MRI’s to monitor for these sorts of tumors. It would truly explain or connect a few dots, because those with brain tumors have frequent blackouts, and if you’ve seen Don “Blankhead” during a city council meeting it sort of fits.
First of all, the protesters and petition signers are well aware of the fact that many of the officers are good at what they do. Secondly, the fact that people who are not very pleased with the department at the moment will freely point out when there have been positive interactions with officers in Fullerton just proves that they are rational…unlike those who are stubborn and can only see from one viewpoint.
Bankhead just dug his grave! If I were him i would quit now while he has some dignity left. He has to go, all of them.
Wile he has some dignity left? …. ummm
Nice try, Douchebag!
What a joke. So concerned about covering his own ass, that he doesn’t even know the laws. I would have expected more from a long term council person.
Hopefully this is the last time we have to recall this guy. Who is it that votes for him in the first place?
HE DOES NOT SEE THE LAW AS APPLYING TO HIS DEMANDS. FRANKLY, THE SUPERMARKET SHOULD BE THE NEXT TARGET OF A BOYCOTT.
Totally agree!
The best part about this recall is that 95% of the signature gathers are not even from Fullerton!! Funny how FFFF wants to recall FULLERTON city counsel but can’t even find Fullerton residents to gather the signatures! Good luck! Instead of wasting the money on a recall why doesn’t bushala and Thompson use the money for all the homeless I see passed out by the Kelly Thomas memorial and build them a shelter or all they have to do is go south across the street to 110 e walnut!
Does it matter where signature gathers are from? Nope! As long as they collect that 15% there will be a vote. Start clippin’ coupons.
It does! Must be a resident of Fullerton and registered voter.
Are you talking about the people signing the recall or gathering the signatures? Obviously the 15% have to be confirmed Fullerton residents. I don’t see why it would matter who is sitting at the table. And I highly doubt the people in charge of this recall would overlook something like that.
I just looked it up & it does appear you need to be registered to vote in the jurisdiction, so I’d say proponents of the recall could have a field day with that if what Meriblow has posted is actually true.
ALL SIGNATURE GATHERERS MUST BE REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDING IN FULLERTON. TONY AND CHRIS ARE VERIFYING EACH AND EVERY SIGNATURE GATHERER IS A REGISTERED FULLERTON VOTER.
FULLERTON RECALL HAS AVERAGED A FEW HUNDRED SIGNATURES PER DAY!
THEY MAY HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES IN JUST A FEW SHORT WEEKS.
GOODBYE BANKHEAD, JONES, MCKINLEY!
The normal intelligent person would just know this and does not have to look it up..What a dumbass!!
I gathered volunteers signatures and can say affirmatively that you have no clue what you are talking about. Besides the law requires recall signature gatherers to be city residents. Jackass.
Erik who is the jackass? Read your last sentence! You just proved my point!!!
…although the city of Fullerton has written into the police officers contract that they encourage them to live and shop in Fullerton, the great majority of the police force lives outside of the city of Fullerton and the only shopping that they do here is when they’re supposed to be on-duty.
Exclamation points make it true!!!
Hey Erik, what city do you live in?
This is bigger than just Fullerton. Yes the recall is Fullerton City Council. But the corruption goes all the way to the DA’s office.
So if the corruption started in Fullerton and ended at the DA’s office, perhaps that is why other city residents are kind enough to get involved! And this isn’t just about Kelly Thomas, its about an abuse of power and continuing PD, City and DA cover-ups. Anyone who thinks this is just about Kelly Thomas is wrong. This is much much bigger…
Barry, where do live?
Anonymous, the short yellow bus is out side waiting for you, don’t forget your helmet and drool cup! Really??? Great post moron!
pass the weaksauce Barry, or did you finish it already.
I live in Fullerton. I’ve lived in Fullerton 30 years. My parents have lived in Fullerton 38 years. I worked for the City of Fullerton. My dad worked for the City of Fullerton for 34 years. What’s your point?
The best part is the 3 blind mice and their fatboy gang are scared.
YOU BETTER BELIVE-thay are scared power to the good people of Fullerton down with evil.
Merblow sits behind a keyboard in north Dakota. Posts irrelevant.
How the hell did you know?
We can see you
We can see youuuuu
Like the boys in the KKK, I noticed that you lost your pluck when you were un-masked?
The next time the girl scouts are trying to sell Bankhead cookies in front of a grocery store is he going to try and get them removed?
My point is he’s abusing his position for his own personal gain! he wants the petition gatherers removed because it benefits him personally. Isn’t that an abuse of power???
Are you taking about Tony Bushala?
Beavis and Bankhead, above the law, but below common sense.
Who is the “Mark” dooshbag? more info pls.
NO WAY IS THIS GANG IN POWER STEPPING DOWN. THEY ARE JUST GETTING STARTED GET READY FOR THE CITY BOSSES TO COME DOWN HARD ON THE TROUBLEMAKERS.
…the voting public here in Fullerton has ass/u/me(d) in the past elections, that candidates that were endorsed by the Fullerton Police Officers Association, or F.P.O.A., were the type of people that you would want to vote in for elected office. I foresee in the next election that candidates will all run the other way when they see that smarmy President of the F.P.O.A.,Barry Coffman, knocking on their door and offering the Fullerton Police Officers Association official endorsement.
I just can’t believe this is all going down. You guys make me proud. We moved from Fullerton recently but I really wish we were still there to be a part of all of this.
What can we do to help from other counties?
No just stay there and start your own shit there.
That’s actually a great idea, I will contact our local media.
nice comeback Ex Fullerton Res!
They don’t care.
I heard that Slide Bar is going to host a fundraiser for the councilmen getting recalled. If they do we need to protest that night.
Yes, protest the Slime Bar!! Another corrupt entity!
NO yall stay away from the SLIME-BAR YOU ARE BETTER for it. The kind of S#+# thay are serving, Is for will give you STD,S
Gadz, that SnakeBar is corrupt too – they’re all in cahoots with the council-the connection needs to be looked in depth-my opinion
Im sure there are other community businesses that are in on some shenangins too.
boycott and protest slimebar!
Or go there with video camera and videotape everyone who is there..
SO in the future when one wants to do business in Fullerton they know who to avoid
Now that,s a good one !
someone should video from the parking lot, as I would suspect you wont be treated well inside the slimeJar.
zoom in on the entrance, lets put more names to faces.
I met with Bankhead through a church organization talking about low-income tenants living in squalor, one of the properties we were talking about he voted for the acquisition which created the mess in the first place. He was rude, condescending, couldnt care less about people having to go to the emergency room to pull cockroaches out of their ears. He was much more concerned about the more important fund raiser he was going to be late for. I will enjoy seeing him recalled the most!!
BOYCOTT Ralphs
I would like to suggest that Police Union President Barry Coffman be referred to as just “Fat Boy” from now on. When i see his picture the name just fits.
Mr. Bankhead will need the head of the bank,soon to get a lone!
I see girl scouts selling cookies, petitioners requesting politicial party signup, salvation army requesting dontanations and santa claus with a big red pot every holiday, all in front of a lot of different grocery stores, including ralphs, Albertons, Henry’s etc. Its okay for them but not us, why?
And the people who are requesting signatures dont need to be fit -its not their job to run, except they may want to from the FPD
And BTW, alot of the FPD are Fat loads that need to visit weight watchers instead of trying to score free food from businesses
Maybe there is a job washing balls for the Bankheads.
I wish I was there for the beligerent, evil cop licker property owners-it was their lucky day
TIGERMAN for the WIN
most excellent job in community advocacy, Mr. Thompson. Geez, Bankhead is a fucking tool.
ditto.
FYI I thought the women on the video (gathering signitures) were well spoken, conducted themselves like ladies, and not too hard on the eyes to boot! What more could ya ask for?
well done indeed
This situation points out to me why the recall will likely happen. It seems as though every time the team comprised of FPD and the council members acts they do something that further embarrasses the group. The coup de gras is that the actions keep getting overturned.
How long is the list of missteps now? Ticket horn blowers (voided), run off the signature gatherers (voided); two cops had broken bones from the fight (voided); Kelly Thomas had stolen property (not); Kelly was on drugs (see toxicology report); “No official source has confirmed a video tape exists (the cops all watched it multiple times); “i have seen worse from soldiers returning from Viet Nam and aircraft crashes” (Kelly was minding his own business in downtown Fullerton breaking no law, not returning from a mortar attack on the front lines); “I have had my eyes bloused before” (Kelly had multiple facial fractures and suffered brain damage) etc., etc., etc.
Either these guys (Goodrich, Coffman, Sellers, Bankhead, Jones, McKinley) are writing a book on how to screw up a crisis for a public relations class of university professor or you can not argue these guys are an all time low of incompetence.
Advise to gang of unstraight shooters: If you are going to be incompetent at least dont be malicious about it. People will tolerate a kind dope much longer than a belligerent ass%@#&.
Ha. I wish these ladies had videoed this happening, would’ve been awesome. Are signature gatherers allowed to video when being harassed? Well, I’m sure there is surveillance footage of it somewhere and no doubt will never be released.
Yes they are allowed to videotape, and they should fortheir own protection. These low-life rabble rousers scatter like roaches when you pull out your camcorder and begin filming. Ask Tony Florentine, owner of Florentine’s Bar and Grill who drove down to Smart and Final yesterday to specifically scream and yell at Tony Bushala who was sitting down minding his own business collecting signatures for the recall campaign. I personally will never set foot in Florentine’s after I witnessed this heated exchange.
I dont usually respond to troll posts, as they offend my delicate sensibilities with thier nonsense, but I could not let the assinine post that was left on this board without responding. God bless everyone that struggles daily with disabilities, and thier loved ones as well, wether it be mental or physical infirmities, your efforts ought be lauded, not held up for ridicule.
The three men who visited our site yesterday made me feel intimidated and were indeed condescending. It was ugly. I’d be ashamed to be associated with their tribe. Truly, when I asked for the business card of the one speaking, he at first didn’t give it to me, then after asking a second time he did. He was not verbally battering us, but he threatened to call the police and loudly, determinedly repeated his dislike of our presence (I’m being mild) and was insistent that we leave. Then after reading the sign, demanded we remove our recall sign… There was more, but I haven’t the time now to submit further. After I told him (while the two goons stood by his side remained silent) “You didn’t have to be so condescending,” they left. They, we felt were bullies. I thought the man who said he was the property owner behaved like a misogynist as well. He may or may not be; however, when Thompson and a police officer arrived minutes later, the two goons had departed (perhaps after feeling shamed?) and the property owner TOTALLY changed his tone. If nothing else, he was a bully.
The name on the card:
Mark Perlmutter, DMP Properties, office located in Newport Beach.
Thank you L
http://www.dmpproperties.com/assets/Uploads/Hillcrest-Park-Center-Site-Plan-V1.pdf
Whoops, I feel another blast to john and ken coming on
Maybe J&K will give Mr. Perlmutter a call.
They’re coming to Fullerton in the next week or two to help with the recall signature drive. I’ll be there for that, definitely.
An estimated one million people listen to John and Ken, every day.
He sounds like a real punk if he talks to ladies as he apparently did.
Shall you all voice your opinions on his actions?
DMP Properties
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite #660
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Main: 949-720-8166
Fax: 949-720-8184
Mark Perlmutter, Principal mark@dmpproperties.com
THEY ARE VERY POWERFUL. THEY CAN ORDER BUSINESSES TO VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS. THE MARKET MANAGER SHOULD BE ASKED WHY HE WAS ACTING ON THE ORDERS OF THE CITY BOSS. PUT HIM ON THE SPOT.
After reading several posts/blogs, I have the distinct feeling Fullerton business owners are either intimidated by the police or are misreading their citizen’s sentiments. Were I a Fullerton resident, I wouldn’t patronize any business that is so clearly and blindly pro-murdering FPD. Which is it? Do they fear backlash from FPD/City Council or are they that out of touch?
As a signature gatherer, there were several people since monday that where wives of business owners, and they stated that they would sign, but fear the retribution- I asked specifically what one lady meant, and she said- and Im paraphrasing here- After I sign this, it goes to who?
Me:Well we have to varify the signatures, then they ( meaning the current admin/city council) reviews the signatures to varify they are in fact valid.
Lady: Well, alot of us hate these guys and have for a while …”Good Ol Boys club”….is horrible here.
Me: So you wont sign…..
Lady: I would love to, but people keep voting them in, and if we stand up to them, they will retaliate. And with the economy as bad as it is…we couldnt move locations……
If you want to know whats going on in this city- spend 4 hours in front of a store and they will tell you everything from back in 72 when I first met that idiot bankhead………..or I love Mayor Jones and here is why- we have a freaking beautiful city and wonderful people…with awesome abilities, the talent in this city- and we cant seem to be come to the conclussion- we can do way better than this right? If we cant- we are screwed – THEY ARE THAT OUT OF TOUCH…
STORES CAN NOT PROHIBIT PETITION GATHERING AS IT IS PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, THIS IS CASE LAW AND I SUGGEST THOSE MANNING TABLES TO GATHER PETITIONS, PRINT OUT A COPY OF THIS LAW.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. RobinsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 18, 1980
Decided June 9, 1980
Full case name Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Citations 447 U.S. 74 (more)
100 S.Ct. 2035; 64 L.Ed.2d 741
Prior history Writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California
Holding
A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Majority Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Stevens
Concurrence White
Concurrence Powell
Concurrence Blackmun
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379).[1] In American constitutional law, the Pruneyard is famous for its role in establishing two important rules:
under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
This holding was possible because California’s constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution’s First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center.[2] The Pruneyard case, therefore, raised the question of whether an implied right of free speech could arise under a state constitution without conflicting with the federal Constitution. In answering yes to that question, the Court rejected the shopping center’s argument that California’s broader free speech right amounted to a “taking” of the shopping center under federal constitutional law.
A typical “Please Do Not Contribute” sign at a California shopping center.Footnote two of the decision quotes the relevant portions of the California Constitution, which states in Article 1, § 2
“ Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. ”
and Article 1, § 3
“ [P]eople have the right to . . . petition government for redress of grievances. ”
The vote to uphold the California decision was unanimous, although three justices disagreed with part of the reasoning in Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the majority. Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, and Harry Blackmun filed separate concurring opinions.
Because of the Pruneyard case, people who visit shopping centers in California may regularly encounter people seeking money or attention for various causes, including charitable solicitations, qualifying petitions for amendments to the state constitution, voter registration drives, and sometimes a beggar. In turn, many shopping centers have posted signs to explain that they do not endorse the views of people exercising their right to free speech, and that if patrons do not give them money, the speakers will go away.
Contents [hide]
1 Subsequent developments
2 References
3 Further reading
4 External links
[edit] Subsequent developmentsAlthough 39 other states have free speech clauses in their constitutions that look like California’s – indeed, California borrowed its clause from a similar one in the New York Constitution – at least 13 of those states have declined to follow California in extending the right of free speech into private shopping centers.[3] In refusing to follow Pruneyard, the state supreme courts of New York and Wisconsin both attacked it as an unprincipled and whimsical decision.[4] In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights also considered and refused to follow Pruneyard, in a United Kingdom case.[5] Only New Jersey, Colorado, and Massachusetts have followed California, albeit with some reservations. In a 2000 decision, Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory) also adopted Pruneyard’s right of free speech, although the case was complicated by the presence of a branch office of a government agency (Puerto Rico Telephone, since privatized) in the shopping center (the Mayagüez Mall).[6] Some commentators have suggested the Pruneyard rule could be applied to speech on the Internet, including speech activities in virtual worlds, like Linden Labs’ Second Life, although the courts have not addressed this theory.[7]
In the two decades since Pruneyard was decided, the Supreme Court of California has become much more conservative, especially after three liberal justices (including Chief Justice Rose Bird) were removed by the electorate in 1986 for their opposition to the death penalty.[8]
In the 2001 Golden Gateway decision, a 4–3 majority of the Court significantly narrowed Pruneyard by holding for a variety of reasons that California’s free speech right does not apply to private apartment complexes – yet, they also refused to overrule Pruneyard.[9] Thus, California’s right of free speech in private shopping centers still survives.
Naturally, the shopping center industry strongly “detests” the Pruneyard decision (since it has resulted in numerous “test” cases by protesters in California and elsewhere trying to find the boundaries of the Pruneyard rule); shopping centers have regularly imposed restrictions on unwanted solicitors and appealed the resulting legal cases in the hope of convincing the California judiciary that Pruneyard should be overturned, or at least limited.[10] Since Golden Gateway, decisions by the intermediate Courts of Appeal have generally limited the scope of the Pruneyard rule to the facts of the original case. For example, starting in 1997, the parking lots of many Costco warehouse club stores in California became sites of conflict involving a large number of political activist groups who had gradually become aware of their rights under Pruneyard. In 1998, Costco’s management imposed several restrictions, including a complete ban on soliciting at stand-alone stores, a rule that no group or person could use Costco premises for free speech more than 5 days out of any 30, and the complete exclusion of solicitors on the 34 busiest days of the year.
In 2002, these restrictions were upheld as reasonable by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, and the Supreme Court of California denied review.[11] Costco’s stand-alone stores lacked the social congregation attributes of the multi-tenant shopping center at issue in Pruneyard. As for the restrictions on the stores in shopping centers, they were held to be reasonable because Costco had developed a strong factual record at trial which proved that hordes of unwanted solicitors had significantly interfered with its business operations – they had damaged its reputation, obstructed access to its stores, and traumatized Costco employees.
In 2007, the Supreme Court of California confronted the Pruneyard decision once more, in the context of a complex labor dispute involving San Diego’s Fashion Valley Mall and the San Diego Union-Tribune. On December 24, 2007, a 4-3 majority of a sharply divided court once again refused to overrule Pruneyard, and instead, ruled that under the California Constitution, a union’s right of free speech in a shopping center includes the right to hand out leaflets urging patrons to boycott one of the shopping center’s tenants.[12] Justice Ming Chin, in his dissent joined by Justices Marvin Baxter and Carol Corrigan, expressed his sympathy with several of the most common critiques of the Pruneyard decision: “Pruneyard was wrong when decided. In the nearly three decades that have since elapsed, jurisdictions throughout the nation have overwhelmingly rejected it. We should no longer ignore this tide of history. The time has come for us to forthrightly overrule Pruneyard and rejoin the rest of the nation in this important area of the law. Private property should be treated as private property, not as a public free speech zone.”[13]
In 2010, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, in an opinion authored by then-Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (now Chief Justice of California), held that it is unconstitutional under Pruneyard for shopping mall giant Westfield Group to promulgate rules discriminating in favor of commercial speech in its malls and against noncommercial speech.[14] The plaintiff had been detained by Westfield security after attempting to discuss the principles of his Christian faith with strangers at the Westfield Galleria at Roseville.
[edit] References1.^ Linda Greenhouse, “Petitioning Upheld at Shopping Malls: High Court Says States May Order Access to Back Free Speech,” New York Times, 10 June 1980, A1.
2.^ Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972).
3.^ Mulligan, Josh (2004). “Finding A Forum in the Simulated City: Mega Malls, Gated Towns, and the Promise of Pruneyard”. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 13: 533, 557. ISSN 10690565. → This article is an excellent overview of Pruneyard’s progeny.
4.^ See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 488 N.E.2d 1211 (N.Y. 1985) and Jacobs v. Major, 407 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. 1987).
5.^ Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 222, (2003) 37 EHRR 38 (6 May 2003)
6.^ Empresas Puertorriqueñas de Desarrollo, Inc. v. Hermandad Independiente de Empleados Telefónicos, 150 D.P.R. 924 (2000).. The court’s decision turned on the fact that the PRT branch office in the mall was the only local PRT facility in the entire municipality where the unions could publicly demonstrate against the governor’s privatization proposal.
7.^ Barger, James (July 2010). “Extending Speech Rights Into Virtual Worlds”. The SciTech Lawyer 7 (1): 18–22. ISSN 1550-2090. http://delawarevalleylawyer.com/sites/DVL/SciTech_Speech-in-Virtual-Worlds-Barger-Summer2010.pdf. Retrieved 2011-03-08. “In this new world, long-established property law and state constitutions may provide the best protection for a user’s right to express himself in sometimes controversial ways.”.
8.^ Culver, John H. (1998). “The transformation of the California Supreme Court: 1977-1997”. Albany Law Review 61 (5): 1461–1490. ISSN 00024678.
9.^ Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass’n, 26 Cal. 4th 1013 (2001).
10.^ Joseph R. Grodin, Calvin R. Massey, and Richard B. Cunningham, The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993), 26.
11.^ Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant, 96 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2002).
12.^ Fashion Valley Mall, LLC, v. National Labor Relations Board, 42 Cal. 4th 850 (2007).
13.^ Id. at 870.
14.^ Snatchko v. Westfield, LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 469 (2010).
[edit] Further readingAlexander, M. C. (1999). “Attention, Shoppers: The First Amendment in the Modern Shopping Mall”. Arizona Law Review 41: 1. ISSN 0004153X.
Epstein, Richard A. (1997). “Takings, Exclusivity and Speech: The Legacy of PruneYard v Robins”. University of Chicago Law Review (The University of Chicago Law Review) 64 (1): 21–56. doi:10.2307/1600196. JSTOR 1600196.
[edit] External linksCornell University Collection – U.S. Supreme Court decision
California Continuing Education of the Bar Collection – California Supreme Court decision
California Constitution from Official California Legislative Information Site – Article 1, Declaration of Rights (of which Section 2 was challenged in Pruneyard)
[hide]v · d · eUnited States First Amendment case law
[show] Establishment Clause
Public funding Everson v. Board of Education (1947) • McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) • Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) • Marsh v. Chambers (1983) • Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) • Agostini v. Felton (1997) • Mitchell v. Helms (2000) • Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) • Locke v. Davey (2004)
Public displays Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) • County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) • McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) • Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
School prayer Zorach v. Clauson (1952) • Engel v. Vitale (1962) • School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) • Stone v. Graham (1980) • Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) • Lee v. Weisman (1992) • Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) • Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)
Creationism Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) • Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa. 2005)
[show] Free Exercise Clause
Reynolds v. United States (1879) • Davis v. Beason (1890) • Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) • Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) • Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) • Sherbert v. Verner (1963) • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) • Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) • Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) • Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) • Employment Division v. Smith (1990) • Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) • City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) • Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) • Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) • Gonzales v. UDV (2006)
[hide] Freedom of speech
Sedition and
imminent danger Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) • Schenck v. United States (1919) • Abrams v. United States (1919) • Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) • Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Whitney v. California (1927) • Dennis v. United States (1951) • Yates v. United States (1957) • Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Fighting words and
the heckler’s veto Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) • Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) • Feiner v. New York (1951) • National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) • R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) • Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Freedom of assembly
and public forums Hague v. CIO (1939) • Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) • Martin v. Struthers (1943) • Cox v. Louisiana (1965) • Brown v. Louisiana (1966) • Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) • Adderley v. Florida (1966) • Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) • Hill v. Colorado (2000)
Symbolic speech United States v. O’Brien (1968) • Cohen v. California (1971) • Texas v. Johnson (1989) • United States v. Eichman (1990)
Compelled speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) • West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) • Wooley v. Maynard (1977) • Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) • Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007)
School speech Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) • Board of Education v. Pico (1982) • Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) • Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) • Morse v. Frederick (2007)
Obscenity Rosen v. United States (1896) • United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) • Roth v. United States (1957) • One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) • Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) • MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) • Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) • Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) • Freedman v. Maryland (1965) • Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) • Redrup v. New York (1967) • Ginsberg v. New York (1968) • Stanley v. Georgia (1969) • United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) • Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) • Miller v. California (1973) • Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) • United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) • Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) • New York v. Ferber (1982) • American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) • Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) • Osborne v. Ohio (1990) • United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) • Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) • United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) • Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) • Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) • Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) • United States v. Williams (2008) • American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) • United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) • United States v. Stevens (2010)
Public employees Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) • Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) • Connick v. Myers (1983) • Rankin v. McPherson (1987) • Waters v. Churchill (1994) • Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) • Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
Hatch Act
and similar laws Ex parte Curtis (1882) • United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) • United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) • Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)
Commercial speech Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) • Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) • Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) • Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) • Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) • Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) • Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n (1980) • Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) • San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) • 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
Campaign finance and
political speech Buckley v. Valeo (1976) • First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) • Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) • California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) • Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982) • FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) • FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) • Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) • McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) • Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) • Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) • FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) • McConnell v. FEC (2003) • FEC v. Beaumont (2003) • Randall v. Sorrell (2006) • FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) • Davis v. FEC (2008) • Citizens United v. FEC (2010) • Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. (2011)
Local bands to play for Kelly Thomas
http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/thomas-317222-fullerton-death.html
Exactly they have so many deals with the cops and city bosses, they have to take orders w/o question. I would too, these cops openly tortured a sick man w/o no concern for all cameras rolling.
Chilling – seems so third world…
Boycott Ralphs.
Boycott Fullerton.
I think it’s more effective to boycott only those businesses that have clearly shown that they will be dis-respectful of us eFullerton citizens exercising our constitutional rights. I have the utmost respect for the grocery stores like Stater Brothers on Euclid who have respected the signature gatherers rights and have even taken flak for it by agitators and supporters of the three blind mice we have currently sitting on the Fullerton City Council.
While I do not advocate this, I will say that I think the only thing that will wake up the city, county, state, and country at large, is a full blown riot. Again, I am not in any way promoting this I just think that is the reality of the situation. Government agencies on all level’s seem to have forgotten the reason they exist. Protests are fine and good, but obviously in this case the Fullerton Government is too rooted in corruption and could care less how or why Kelly was killed. And at the core of the corruption is $$$$$$$. So however unlikely, before the worse case scenario of a violent riot does break out, I would think a city wide boycott might hit them where they care…nothing else seems to effect them. Maybe a lack of revenue for the City might be enough for them to realize this issue is bigger than one murder and one cover up and enlighten all of the public offenders to do the right thing while they still can. Just my 2 centz.
Sean I totally agree!
Riots are great. More overtime. I don’t think white people in the US know to riot though.
From what I just heard on KFI, it wasn’t the Ralph’s manager who harassed the signature gatherers; it was the actual property owner. His contact info is posted on this thread.
Excellent interview, BTW. Congratulations on a fine job. Keep up the good work.
/tear of joy
THANK YOU
QUOTE
The hot-button situation still has people divided, but several acts, including punk rock outfit Sederra (above), 80 Proof, Julian Porte, New Skool Kings, Mr. Mirainga and Robert Guta of the L.A. Philharmonic have put together a memorial concert and canned food drive in honor of Thomas, set for 3-8 p.m. Saturday in the Fullerton Downtown Plaza on Wilshire Boulevard. ENDQUOTE
IF THE CORRUPT D A LET’S THESE COPS OFF THE HOOK, AND WITH THE DELAYING MOVEMENTS HE’S USING. HE’S HOPING TO DISAPPEAR INTO THE HOLIDAYS AND BEYOND. HE HAS BIG CONTRIBUTORS TO ANSWER TO. I WISH YOU FOLKS LUCK. IF THESE BASTARDS RETURN TO TEIR TERRITORIAL STREETS, GET READY FOR REVENGE.
Yes!! Revenge rules!!
Interesting.. I just noticed Ralphs is a Kroger company
I shop at King Soopers here in Colordo.. another Kroger company.. I may let my local manager know what Ralphs Fullerton did and see about contacting their corporate offices
http://services.ralphs.com/StoreLocator/StoreDetails.aspx?recordId=70300072
RALPHS1121 N Harbor BlvdFullerton CA 92832Store Phone: (714) 992-2591
http://www.thekrogerco.com/index.htm
Executive Offices
(please direct correspondence to the attention of a department or individual)
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-1100
(513) 762-4000
http://www.kroger.com
Financial Information
Email
kroger.investors@kroger.com.
Financial Materials Request (513) 762-1220
Shareholder Services (513) 762-4808
Investor Relations (513) 762-4366
Stock Transfer Agent & Registrar
The Bank of New York
Shareholder Relations Department – 11E
P.O. Box 11258
Church Street Station
New York, New York 10286
(1 800 524-4458)
I think it’s about time to find out how fat our police farce is. Public records request uniform sizes of police officers.
They work for us it’s time to institue physical standards. I want a physically fit cop, not these xxxl cops like Goodyear oops I mean Goodrich and good ole Barry the fatass purple dinosar!
Absolutely. I see even the trolls are not attempting to defend the plus-sized.
You think??
All PDs have fat people, skinny, muscled, old, young, ugly, cute. Fullerton is no different. When you get to be 40-45-50-55 people get fat or fatter. Look at the world today. Fat. Cops and every other job match the population.
How about the two fatasses you had asking for signatures for your recall. At least put two hot looking chicks, you’ll do much better..Oh I forgot you don’t have any. All I’ve seen at the protest on Saturdays are trailer trash looking ones.
You get you hot chicks outside bars and throw ’em into the backseat of you patrol car.
Is it true Coffman wears size 46 pants?
If I throw chicks in back of my own car, they don’t look like those hoe bags you guys have at your protest rallys or gathering signatures.
“If I throw chicks in back of my own car…”
Wow, you’re quite the romantic, aren’t you? Now these “chicks” whom you “throw” into the back of your car, would they be conscious yet or already chloroformed, Officer Rincon???
I’ll take an intelligent woman with a warm heart over a cold-hearted gold digger any day of the week.
Sorry if not every person is to your liking, but our tax dollars don’t pay for them to be in shape. They are citizens standing up for what they believe in. Feel proud.
Protestors and signature gatherers can be fat. Seems like most of the protestors at the council meetings are fat and ugly. Fat cops are different. Oink.
Good luck. You won’t be able to do it. Discriminate fat people. Do race and age too then. You could try something for new employees but I don’t think you wil succeed. Research it.
Bankhead, Jones and McKinley just don’t get it. these three fullerton city council members, the bad government trinity, no longer have influence and power because their decades of deceit, and influence peddling and misuse of funds has been exposed by the FFFF. the public’s efforts to recall Bankhead, Jones and McKinley is the first step towards restoring representative government to the city of fullerton. Keep up the good work FFFF and God bless Tony Bushala and Chris Thompson for making our town a better place to live for all of us.
Why not the other two council people ? They voted the same way.
I forgot about those non-entities
If this could happen to one homeless man, it could happen to anyone of us down on our luck. If the Fullerton police can imprison 2 innocent people they could imprison any innocent person, it could be you next. If politics can be so corrupt in Fullerton, due to public union campaign tactics, it can happen to any small town in American. With the United States leading the world in incarcerations, we have indeed become a police state. Thank you FFFF to bringing to light and educating me to the potential corruption of unchecked political power and how it comes to be that way. And for showing us how “we the people” can take back that power with every local political election by keeping up the good fight.
Let G-d bless all of us who stand for righteousness.
And just rememeber politics and unions are the same in every other city. It’s not just Fullerton. And it’s all not what people preach here either. 🙂
Next time, you might want to try petitioning in front of Walmart. The traffic is much heavier, and they should pay you no mind.
No Walmart in Fullerton.
yes there is a walmart in fullerton……….new store just opened!
where?
The new Walmart is technically in Anaheim, but is right across the street from Fullerton. Look at the city limits line…there is a little pocket that is Anaheim along Orangethorpe.
I think the two ladies are looking very pretty, and thanks for your service in this cause.
Absolutely. I agree. I think you’re very brave, too.
Thank you for your hard work in Kelly’s cause. Be careful out there, ladies.
DMP Properties
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite #660
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Main: 949-720-8166
Fax: 949-720-8184
Dan Perlmutter, Principal dan@dmpproperties.com
http://www.dmpproperties.com/contact/
…Enjoy
I was just there Tuesday and signed all 3. I had also mentioned that anyone who got a ticket from any of the 6 should go to court and contest it. They can’t show up. Oh and the morons on the council have some nerve. This should be brought to the media’s attention so more people can realize how stupid they are!
Yeah, don’t show up for your ticket..you’ll see.
They ripped the tickets up. If they go to court they won’t be on the calendar.
Everyone tap your horn every time you drive by a FPD officer. Just be careful he doesn’t knows it’s you. I get more and more pissed off every time I read about some idiot defending the FPD. Justice, when? NOW!
Ok
The city council, Police Officer Association President, Barry Coffman, the mayor, The Bankheads, The idiot 6 stooges…
There needs to be a Fullerton Reality Show.
“F’d up in Fullerton.”
“Fullerton Shores”
I met one of these ladies at the signature table this afternoon, and I will say she is even prettier in person. I also met Tony and he is very cool. Keep up the good work FFFF.
So a city council member (and former police officer, I believe) is convincing store managers to break the law by forcing legal signature gatherers to leave? That in itself should be enough to kick him out of office.
Good point. The Spank will do anything to avoid being recalled (again). I can’t wait ’til they trot out Flory and McClan’tahan and the ghost of Buck Catlin.
It won’t help.
ladies you are brave and they are afraid of you- keep up the good work- you are beautiful wonderful people= thanks for all you do!!1 fullerton citizen!
Depends.
How many fat soldiers do you see? Are they allowed to be out of shape while serving? Not so far as I now they’re not.
Ratio of 45-55 year old field soldiers to younger? I thought so. 🙂
I’m sorry but Fullerton in paticular has a big problem. I lived in Irvine for years and all were in tip top shape. I think only the OCSD is giving fullerton a run for their money, with regard to weight issues…
And believe it or not, just because you’re over forty is no excuse. They need to be able to protect and serve, not just beat on small ill people.
55? You slacker retire at 50. And by the look of it you’re all lard asses!
Reality Is: That really you or did you get hijacked again?
Me.
You can’t tell it’s her from all of the brilliant come-backs?