From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Robert Norse Coverage In Haaretz
A federal appeals court has ruled that city council members in the California city of Santa Cruz did not violate a man's rights when they ordered him removed from a council meeting after he made a one-armed Nazi salute.
Robert Norse was arrested at the March 2002 meeting after he made the gesture and refused to leave. He was arrested again in 2004 when he refused another order from the city council to leave after parading around council chambers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled this week that the council was justified in asking Norse to leave both meetings because he was disruptive. The court said Norse's right to freedom of speech was not violated, the Santa Cruz Sentinel reported.
Norse sued the city after his first ejection in 2002. He says his attorney will consider appealing the decision to the Supreme Court.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126429.html
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled this week that the council was justified in asking Norse to leave both meetings because he was disruptive. The court said Norse's right to freedom of speech was not violated, the Santa Cruz Sentinel reported.
Norse sued the city after his first ejection in 2002. He says his attorney will consider appealing the decision to the Supreme Court.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126429.html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
In 2002, the gesture was silent, did not block anyone's view, was done directly in front of the Sgt. of Arms who did nothing. It was done in a place where citizens customarily stand, often holding signs which can be seen by members of the council. Sometimes those messages are contemptuous. The video (which I taped) shows that it was FITZMAURICE who interrupted, and thereby disrupted the meeting, because he (as he explained later) his wife who IS Jewish (and was not at the meeting) would have been deeply offended.
In 2004, Norse was arrested for WHISPERING which clearly was NOT disruptive!! Scott Kennedy invented this weird formula of 3 demerits = a disruption, clearly NOT a legal rule. If the "parade" was a disruption, then why weren't all 25 people banned from the meeting? Why only NORSE? Why not me, for instance? I "paraded". Why not Michael Parenti? He paraded with us. In fact, Parenti was the ONLY person who spoke ( our intent was to be entirely silent so as not to disrupt the meeting). Kennedy didn't even name Parenti in his List of Offenders. He DID name Thomas Leavitt who wasn't part of the "parade."
As for the "parade" itself. We MEANT to speak at oral communcations. That is why we lined up where we did. But KENNEDY was playing game with us, and wouldn't let the public know when he would be holding oral communcations. We lined up, waited several minutes, and when it became clear that oral communications would not be held for hours, we decided to exit the room via the long route, passing in front of the rail in front of the council and out the door. THis is an area where members of he public are allowed to walk, and allowed to carry signs. It is not an area where a person is allowed to stand and hold a sign. We didn't do that. We walked past the council silently. Kennedy stopped Porter in mid-sentence (he didnt have to) and waited while we walked past. then he denounced us for "disrupting the meeting" and he began to give "first warnings". Micheal Parenti looked Kennedy in the eye and said "No, it's not. You know it's not". Norse walked silently with no sign.
When Kennedy asked Porter to continue, he blamed the protesters for causing him to lose his train of thought.
This was not a disruption because Kennedy didn't have to stop the meeting. He chose to in order to claim a disruption. It was HIS fault anyway. We were there to speak for oral communications!!
We were responding to his game playing with sleight of oral communications!
Of course we have never had a trial on these facts. Barisone basically spent $114,000.00 to prevent a trial from happening.
The 9th circuit court got a few things wrong too. Norse was not ejected for the "parade". He was ejected for inaudible whispering. And they thought he was "supporting a disruption at the back of the room". the disruption was at the side of the room, and that was caused by Michael Tomasi. Robert Norse did NOT support Tomasi's ACTUAL disruption.
Nor was it "disruptive" apparently 2 weeks later when two people used "Nazi" salutes at City council during oral communications. So using the Nazi Salute is not the issue. It was whether Norse disrupted the meeting . He didn't. Fitzmaurice disrupted the meeting. the video is clear on that.