Saturday, October 30, 2004


Glendale, CA: Where the 1st Amendment is Dying

Here is the text of the letter sent by the apparently anti-Bush government workers in the City of Glendale who are trying to stifle my First Amendement rights even though the city council has recently said that the law in question (but not the one cited by the city in its attack on me) was not to be enforced:

October 30, 2004

Mr. Sam Engel
Neighborhood Services Administrator
Mr. Gevorg Grigoryan
Neighborhood Services Field Represenative
Dept. of Community Development and Housing
VIA FACSIMILE: 818-240-7239

Dear Sirs:

{As there were minor errors in the letter sent to you via facsimile at 8:38 p.m., I thought it best to resend this corrected document.}

I received your letter in the United States Mail today, October 30, in reference to case # 04-0012084. I received and read the letter at approximately 4:30 p.m., which means, according to the requirements specifically cited in your letter, that I have until 4:30 p.m. on November 2 to comply with your request. Please rest assured that I will comply with your request even though it is an illegal one as the political sign in question will be removed on October 31 since I do not want it damaged by Halloween vandals, and my schedule will not permit me to re-install it prior to the election.

Your request is illegal for at least three reasons: 1) it is in violation of the United States Constitution, specifically amendments one, nine and 14 (in addition, it would appear that your request is also in conflict with the constitution of the state of California); 2) in the recent special municipal election, the City of Glendale was threatened with a lawsuit by the A.C.L.U. on behalf of a property owner in Glendale who allegedly was in violation of the City’s constitutionally hostile ordinance that wrongly targeted political campaign signs. The city council announced that it would not enforce the code due to First Amendment issues; 3) the fatal flaw in your alleged violation is that the Code Section you supply [GMC30.33.210(b)(1)] is not applicable based on the facts as described below:

A) Here is the text of the alleged violation and remedy from your letter: “Political campaign sign in excess of 6 sq (sic) feet and above 4 feet above the ground in a residential zone, “ and, “Reduce sign size/height or remove sign.” Further you cite specifically the aforementioned Glendale Municipal Code: “For each ground floor occupancy of a building, one illuminated window sign shall be permitted in each window to a maximum of two which directly faces a dedicated street, dedicated alley, mall or parking lot area. This section shall not permit illuminated advertising signs for alcoholic beverages at service stations which are prohibited by state law. A maximum of two illuminated window signs shall be permitted per establishment. A neon border being placed around the perime (sic and unfinished).

The section of the code is nonsensical and unconstitutional as applied to a private residence displaying protected political speech. Even if the speech were not protected, the section of the code is nonsensical as it applies to illuminated window signs and appears to be directed at commercial establishments.

Your letter is riddled with other legal and logical errors, but my rebuttal above should suffice as a logical, legal, and coherent answer to your fallacious charge.

Please note that since the property in question is not in any way in violation of the municipal code cited, no representative of the property will call you as wrongfully “required” by your letter. In fact, I demand that you issue a letter of apology to me and the trust which owns this property immediately for what can only be described as a deliberate attempt to stifle free speech in a city that, according to your letter, “is a great place to live.” I was born and raised in this city. Actions of harassment perpetrated by its government do not make it a great place to live.

Very truly yours,

Salutations and all the rest were inserted here. A copy was forwarded to my attorney. A copy will be forwarded to the ACLU. As much as the ACLU usually annoys me, they are correct on this issue EVEN THOUGH they would not support my sisters right to post a SMALL yard sign in Nevada... could it be that they did not do it since she was a Republican in a contested state? One has to be careful when one dances with the devil.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Visitors to this page!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?