Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/72059522/Occupy-v-Sacramento-Complaint
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 00:08:39
Document Index: 707698575

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1343', '§ 2201', '§ 1983', '§1367', '§ 12', '§ 27', '§ 12', '§\n12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§52', '§52', '§ 12', '§ 12']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicOccupy v Sacramento ComplaintUploaded by melissacorkerSacramentoInjunctionComplaintPlaintiffFirst Amendment To The United States Constitution15 viewsDownloadEmbedDescription: Full document of Occupy lawsuit against city of SacramentoSee MoreFull document of Occupy lawsuit against city of SacramentoCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Cathleen A. Williams (State Bar No.068029) LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com Jay-Allen Eisen (State Bar No. 042788) JAY-ALLEN EISEN LAW CORPORATION 2431 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, California 95816 Telephone: (916) 444-6171 Facsimile: (916) 441-5810 E-Mail: jay@eisenlegal.com Robert A. Buccola (State Bar No. 112880) DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: (916) 379-3500 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599 E-Mail: rbuccola@dbbwlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OCCUPY SACRAMENTO, an unincorporated association; CESAR AGUIRRE; AMY ANDERSON; FRANK BAREI; LUKE BARNES; KAREN BERNAL; BRENDAN BISHOP; MARK BRADLEY, PAUL BURKE; JOSH CADJI; KEVIN CARTER; CLARA CROSSMAN; KATHRYN COKE; JERMAINE DAWSON; GABRIELA DEOLIVEIRA; CONNOR FINNEGAN; DANNY GARZA; MIKE ISRAEL; ERIC LEE; MORGAN LESKO; STACIA LINDE; STEVE LINDE; MELISSA MASON; BRANDON MILLER; DAVID NORTHALL; SARAH PRODEN; RYAN PAAVOLA; ANDREW RAMSEY; RUSSELL RAWLINGS; TRACIE RICE-BAILEY; PAT RIORDAN; CINDY SHEEHAN; SEAN THOMPSON; CRESCENT VELLUCCI; NICK WARE, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO; JOHN F. SHIREY, Sacramento City Manger, in his official capacity; JIM COMBS, Sacramento City Director of Parks and Recreation, in his official capacity, Defendants. 1
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION, DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Case No. __________ VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION, DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Occupy Sacramento, et al. vs. City of Sacramento, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1.
Filed 11/01/11 Page 2 of 10
INTRODUCTION The Occupy Wall Street movement is sweeping the Country with sites of “occupation” present in over 1,100 cities across the country. In sympathy with and in support for the Occupy Wall Street movement, occupations are now active in cities across Europe and even in the Middle East where recently protests were held in Cairo, Egypt against the recent police violence in Oakland, California. According to the Washington Post and the Pew Research Center, the Occupy movement is now more popular than the tea party. Since early October, persons participating in “Occupy Sacramento” have gathered in Cesar Chavez Park, in downtown Sacramento across from City Hall and, in a demonstration of grassroots democracy, have organized committees, assemblies and teach-ins centered around the profound economic inequality in this country and the deterioration of our way of life. People are being drawn to the Occupy Sacramento gatherings but Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO and its city manager have steadfastly refused to permit Occupy Sacramento to remain in Cesar Chavez Park past 11:00 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends, and have forced those associated with Occupy Sacramento to evacuate the park, arresting those who, insisting on their constitutional rights to peacefully assemble and engage in free speech, refuse to leave the park on the ground that they are violating section 12.70.090 of the Sacramento City Code which sets park hours. To date 79 people have been arrested, among them plaintiffs in the within complaint. This complaint seeks a declaration that the challenged section of the city code is unconstitutional and requests a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against its enforcement on the principle ground that it confers unfettered discretion on the Defendants to interfere with Plaintiffs constitutional rights of freedom of assembly and of speech. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 20 U.S.C. § 1331, this being a civil action
arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is also conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and (4), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, this being an action for declaratory judgment, equitable relief and damages authorized by law to redress deprivation under color of law of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the 2
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3.
Filed 11/01/11 Page 3 of 10
United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367. 2. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, and in taking all of the actions described in this
Complaint, Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO, its officers, agents and employees, acted and threatened to act under color of law and were effectuating, and will effect, the custom, policy and laws of the CITY OF SACRAMENTO. PARTIES Plaintiff OCCUPY SACRAMENTO is an unincorporated association aligned with the
unincorporated association “Occupy Wall Street” and other occupy movements which have sprung up in cities and towns across the United States. It is a peaceful assembly and forum for the expression of free speech on a variety of economic and social justice issues which is venued in Cesar Chavez Park. 4. Plaintiffs CESAR AGUIRRE, AMY ANDERSON, LUKE BARNES, KAREN BERNAL,
BRENDAN BISHOP, MARK BRADLEY, PAUL BURKE, JOSH CADJI, KEVIN CARTER, CLARA CROSSMAN, KATHRYN COKE, JERMAINE DAWSON, GABRIELA DEOLIVEIRA, CONNOR FINNEGAN, DANNY GARZA, MIKE ISRAEL, ERIC LEE, MORGAN LESKO, STACIA LINDE, STEVE LINDE, MELISSA MASON, BRANDON MILLER, DAVID NORTHALL, SARAH PRODEN, RYAN PAAVOLA, ANDREW RAMSEY, RUSSELL RAWLINGS, TRACIE RICE-BAILEY, PAT RIORDAN, CINDY SHEEHAN, SEAN THOMPSON, CRESCENT VELLUCCI, and NICK WARE are natural persons who reside in the Eastern District of California who were arrested while participating in Occupy Sacramento events at Cesar Chavez Park in the City of Sacramento when they refused to disrupt and discontinue their peaceful gathering when police decided to enforce a provision of the Sacramento City Code which limits park use to certain hours, unless the meeting or event which persons are attending is sponsored or co-sponsored by the Director of Parks and Recreation. 5. Plaintiff FRANK BAREI is a resident of the Eastern District of California who was
unable to participate in the Occupy Sacramento gatherings because he was employed as an instructor at a technical school and did not get off work until 11:00 p.m. He took a substantial cut in pay in order to get earlier hours so that he could participate in at least some of the Occupy Sacramento events but desires to return to his prior hours of employment and still to participate in Occupy Sacramento when the occupation is permitted to continue throughout the night. 3
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 6.
Filed 11/01/11 Page 4 of 10
Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California. Defendant JOHN F. SHIREY, named in his official capacity only, is the CITY OF SACRAMENTO’s City Manager. Defendant JIM COMBS, named in his official capacity only, is the CITY OF SACRAMENTO’s Director of Parks and Recreation (formerly “Parks and Community Services”). FACTS Since on or around the first week of October 2011, a group of individual citizens has
associated together for the purpose of peaceably assembling and associating to express their political opinions, petition the government for redress of grievances and engage in constitutionally protected expression in Cesar Chavez Park in Sacramento, California. The group is known as “Occupy Sacramento” and is a local off-shoot of the national “Occupy Wall Street” movement which has similar occupations in more than 1,100 cities across the country and abroad. 8. Among the issues on which the members of Occupy Sacramento have expressed their
views are those relating to economic justice and citizen participation in government. In association with other local manifestations of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, they are planning for a national convention called for July 4, 2012, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Plaintiffs have engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activity and have
communicated their views on these subjects and others to citizens and public officials by way of protests, dialogue and other peaceable means in Cesar Chavez Park opposite the City Hall in Sacramento. They also, daily, have teach-ins on subjects of public interest, show educational films and have daily “general assemblies” at which important issues are discussed and voted upon. Plaintiffs desire to engage in constitutionally protected political expression twenty-four hours a day in Cesar Chavez Park. Plaintiffs do not seek to use the park to the exclusion of other potential users but, at the times in question, there have not been any others who have wished to use the park. 10. Plaintiffs and others have chosen to assemble in Cesar Chavez Park because it is central to
public transportation, symbolically located opposite City Hall and because it is the historic site for peaceable assemblies and free speech. It is a location in which their message regarding economic justice and the need for political and financial reform can be articulated to a broad audience of passers-by as 4
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 3. B. 2.
Filed 11/01/11 Page 5 of 10
well as to the people who come at all hours of the day or night to participate in this growing movement. 11. Plaintiffs seek and desire to assemble and to communicate on a continuous basis, around
the clock on a 24 hour basis. A continuous presence in Cesar Chavez Park, the civic heart of downtown, communicates the urgency of their call for reform, their intention to persist in protected activity and their solidarity with like-minded individuals in all parts of the country. The Plaintiffs and others have gathered, intending to remain in Cesar Chavez Park and have participated in “live streams” of their actions with groups of people occupying public squares and parks in places around the world where it is daytime while it is night in Sacramento. They intend and desire to continue their demonstrations, and to maintain a continuous presence in Cesar Chavez Park toward that end, indefinitely. 12. However, Sacramento City Code § 12.72.090 prohibits Plaintiffs from remaining in Cesar
Chavez Park and engaging in political protest, political speech and other constitutionally protected activity after 11:00 p.m. and before 5:00 a.m. each week day, and after midnight and before 5:00 a.m. on weekends. More specifically, the ordinance states: 12.72.090 Remaining or loitering in parks during certain hours prohibited. A. No person shall remain or loiter in any public park: 1. Between the hours of midnight Friday or Saturday and five a.m. of the following day; and Between the hours of eleven p.m. Sunday through Thursday and five a.m. of the following day.
The prohibitions contained in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) of this section shall not apply: 1. 2. To any person on an emergency errand; To any person attending a meeting, entertainment event, recreation activity, dance or similar activity in such park provided such activity is sponsored or co-sponsored by the department of parks and community services or a permit therefor has been issued by the department of parks and community services; To any person exiting such park immediately after the conclusion of any activity set forth in subsection (B)(2) of this section; To any peace officer or employee of the city while engaged in the performance of his or her duties. 5
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. D. C.
Filed 11/01/11 Page 6 of 10
The director, with the concurrence of the chief of police, may designate extended park hours for any park when the director determines that such extension of hours is consistent with sound use of park resources, will enhance recreational activities in the city, and will not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare. The prohibitions contained in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) of this section shall not apply to any person present in a public park during extended park hours designated pursuant to this subsection. The chief of police, with the concurrence of the director of parks and community services, may order any park closed between sunset and sunrise when he or she determines that activities constituting a threat to public safety or welfare have occurred or are occurring in the park and that such closing is necessary to protect the public safety or welfare. At least one sign designating the sunset to sunrise closing shall be installed prominently in the park. When a park is ordered closed between sunset and sunrise, it is unlawful for any person to remain or loiter in said park during said period. (Prior code § 27.04.070)
On October 7, 2011, shortly after 11:00 p.m., and on succeeding nights until the present,
members of the CITY OF SACRAMENTO’s Police Department arrived at Cesar Chavez Park and arrested a number of individuals engaged in the exercise of their rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, ostensibly for violating Sacramento City Code § 12.72.090 prohibiting their remaining in the park after 11:00 p.m. Upon information and belief the City routinely sponsors and/or co-sponsors events which are held after the hours specified in city code section 12.72.090, and there are no standards by which determinations are made and discretion is exercised as to which events are permitted to be held after such hours. Occupy Sacramento, through its counsel, has requested permission from Defendants to remain in Cesar Chavez Park after park hours but Defendants have failed and refused to grant such permission (see letter attached hereto as “Exhibit 1”). 14. As a result of the CITY OF SACRAMENTO’s enforcement of Sacramento City Code §
12.72.090, Plaintiffs are afraid to exercise their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble, to engage in constitutionally protected activity, to engage in political speech, to petition the government for redress of grievances, to freely associate with other like-minded citizens in Cesar Chavez Park after 11:00 p.m. on
The persons arrested that night and on succeeding nights included plaintiffs who were cited not only for violating City Code Section 12.72.090 but also for violating Penal Code Section 409 (remaining at the site of an unlawful assembly) but the District Attorney of Sacramento County has refused to prosecute the persons arrested on any grounds and has stated that, in her opinion, there was no violation of state law. The City Attorney, however, has thrown the resources of her office into prosecution of those arrested for violating the park hours ordinance referenced above.
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. rewritten. 17.
Filed 11/01/11 Page 7 of 10
week days and after 12:00 a.m. midnight on weekends. Others, because they do not get off of work until after 11:00 p.m., are foreclosed from participating in Occupy Sacramento events at all. 15. More specifically, Plaintiffs fear that their liberty will be abridged and they will be
arrested again and charged with violating Sacramento City Code § 12.72.090 if they remain in Cesar Chavez Park and engage in constitutionally protected activity after 11:00 p.m. weekdays and after 12:00 a.m. midnight on weekends. As a result of that fear, Plaintiffs have been deterred from and refrain from engaging in constitutionally protected activity. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT ONE Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 15 of their Complaint as though fully
Sacramento City Code § 12.72.090 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied under the
First and Fourteenth Amendment for each of the following reasons: a. the law operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint on constitutionally protected expression; b. the law abridges the right to freedom of speech and expression protected by the First Amendment; c. the law abridges the right to freedom of assembly protected by the First Amendment; d. the law abridges the right to petition the government for redress of grievances protected by the First Amendment; e. the law confers standardless discretion on city officials to grant or deny permission to remain in Cesar Chavez Park after the hours stated in Sacramento City Code § 12.72.090; f. the law is impermissibly overbroad; g. the law is unconstitutionally vague; h. the law deprives Plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws; i. the law deprives Plaintiffs of their right to due process by imposing strict liability for engaging in innocent conduct; j. the law is underinclusive; 7
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24. 22. rewritten. 23. 19. rewritten. 20. 18.
Filed 11/01/11 Page 8 of 10
k. the law is selectively and discriminatorily applied; l. the law is overinclusive; and m. the law operates to chill protected speech. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a declaration that the law violates their rights secured by
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, both on its face and as applied. COUNT TWO Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 18 of their Complaint as though fully
Defendants’ conduct and threatened conduct threatens to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights
secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and has caused and will cause in the future irreparable harm to Plaintiffs for which there is no adequate remedy of law. 21. By reason of Defendants’ misconduct and threatened misconduct, and the irreparable
harm Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer, Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, attorneys, and any person acting in concert and participation with them, with actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, from enforcing Sacramento City Code § 12.72.090 against them. COUNT THREE Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 21 of their Complaint as though fully
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been arrested
and have been deprived of their rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution; they have been prohibited from engaging in constitutionally protected expression and have been deterred from doing so and will continue to be so deprived and deterred in the future, for all of which they are entitled to recover compensatory damages.
COUNT FOUR Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 23 of their Complaint as though fully set forth 8
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. herein. 25.
Filed 11/01/11 Page 9 of 10
Based on the conduct alleged above, all Defendants, and each of them, are liable to
Plaintiffs for violation of their federal and California civil rights under the Bane Act, Cal. Civil Code §52.1, in that they interfered by threats, intimidation, or coercion with the Plaintiffs’ rights to freely assemble and to engage in free speech in Cesar Chavez Park, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in violation of Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 of the California State Constitution. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights under the Bane Act, Plaintiffs have suffered harm. Under Civil Code §52. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of up to three times their actual damages, to exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the Jury, to a civil penalty of $25,000 for each violation of their rights; and to attorneys’ fees to be determined by the Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seeks Judgment as follows: Upon Count One of their Complaint, a declaration that Sacramento City Code § 12.72.090
is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, both on its face and as applied; and, 2. Upon Count Two of their Complaint, a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction and permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and those acting in concert and participation with them, who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, from enforcing Sacramento City Code § 12.72.090 against them; and, 3. Upon Count Three of the Complaint, compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined at trial; 4. Upon Court Four of the Complaint, compensatory and exemplary damages in an amount
to be determined at trial; and 5. Upon all counts of the Complaint, the costs and expenses in maintaining this action,
including Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, as well as any other relief, whether legal or equitable, to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. 9
Case 2:11-cv-02873-MCE -GGH Document 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 DATED: November 1, 2011
Filed 11/01/11 Page 10 of 10
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ “Mark E. Merin” By:_______________________________________ Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Cathleen A. Williams (State Bar No. 068029) LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 Jay-Allen Eisen (State Bar No. 042788) JAY-ALLEN EISEN LAW CORPORATION 2431 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, California 95816 Telephone: (916) 444-6171 Facsimile: (916) 441-5810 Robert A. Buccola (State Bar No. 112880) DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: (916) 379-3500 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
VERIFICATION I, Mark E. Merin, am counsel for Plaintiffs in this action. I verify that the facts contained within this Complaint are true and accurate, except those facts asserted on information and belief, and as to those facts, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Verification was executed on this 1st day of November, 2011, at Sacramento, California. /s/ “Mark E. Merin” _________________________________ Mark E. Merin
Documents similar to Occupy v Sacramento ComplaintUS Court for the Middle District of FloridaDane County Circuit Court Dismissal in Wisconsin v Crute 020514Woodworth v. Subprime Lenders, Inc., et al - Document No. 3Michael Cutler Company v. Williams AG Commodities Brokerage Inc et al - Document No. 11McKay v. Indian Health Service et al - Document No. 4Malaga vs. Penachos, 213 SCRA 516Sheriff Arpaio 9th Circuit DecisionMalaga v Penachos DigestDoe v. SexSearch.com et al - Document No. 77Emergency Petition to Utah Supreme Court, ACLU1 Malaga vs. PenachosUtah response to Brown family damages filingGene Martin Auto Sales, Inc. v. Davis et al - Document No. 8Unlimited Lighting, LC et al v. East Buchanan Community Schools et al - Document No. 6Malaga v PenachosInn Foods, Inc. v. Turner Mead, LLC et al - Document No. 10Back Page OrderComplaint and Answer Edit (1)Acordia of Minnesota, Inc. v. Hies - Document No. 11Colorado United Credit Recovery InjunctionDecision and Order August 1 2016M.A.L. et al v. Kinsland et al - Document No. 10Shane Co. v. Pacific Diamond & Swiss Watch Exchange, Inc. et al - Document No. 105 Pltfs Motion for TRO FinalBook8-1revGeorgia Supreme Court Rules That Internet Posts About Someone Don’t Constitute “Stalking” Rovio Entertainment, Ltd., v. Angry Clubs LLC, et al.P.C. Yonkers, Inc Party City Clifton, Inc. Party City of Hamilton Square, Inc. Party City of Lawrenceville, Inc. Party City North Bergen, Inc. P.C. Voorhees, Inc. East Harrisburg, P.C., Inc. Lancaster P.C., Inc. Montgomeryville P.C., Inc. Party City of Cottman Avenue, Inc. Party City of Harrisburg, Inc. Party City of Lehigh Valley, Inc. Party City of Reading, Inc. City of Springfield, Inc. Party City of New York, Inc. Scranton Party City LLC Stroudsburg P.C. Inc. Wilkesbarre Party City LLC Party City Management, Co., Inc. v. Celebrations the Party and Seasonal Superstore, LLC Andrew Bailen Andrew Hack, 428 F.3d 504, 3rd Cir. (2005)8:12-cv-01137 #128Los Angeles v. LyonsBooks similar to Occupy v Sacramento ComplaintOf Gods and JudgesThe Port Hope Simpson ChallengeUnder FireCleveland PoliceThe San Jose Police DepartmentAnatomy of a JuryThe Chamberlain CaseNo Small ChangeHistoric Crimes and Justice in Burlington, VermontThe Wrong HouseCSIPool GirlsAlicia FriendA Matter of Justice (A Grace deHaviland Bounty Hunter Novella)Mr SinLast WordScotland Yard
The methods and organisation of the Metropolitan PolicePrime Suspect SeriesRansom/Charters MysteriesKate BurkholderYalta Boulevard QuintetCSIOut of BoundsMauledMurdering PointCall in Pinkerton'sDocuments about PlaintiffAmended Complaint Filed 9/30/2016 Doe v. Trump et al refiled complaint 9/30/16Tiffany Doe DeclarationiPhone Touch Screen - Amended Complaint [CONFORMED COPY]2016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and LewandowskiSaudi Lawsuit179125570172Mejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfPennie v. Soros et al Amended ComplaintLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesLawsuit against Hillary ClintonAmended Levaquin complaint Palantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtBenzies v RockstarVW Diesel caseZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintFresh Guidelines on Quashing of Proceedings of a Non-compoundable Offence on the Basis of Settlement Between the PartiesGhomeshi rulingClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmMumford Emergency MotionHaloSongs Inc v SheeranGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Carlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintBooks about First Amendment To The United States ConstitutionThe Great DissentFigures of SpeechThe Censor's LibraryShut Up, America!Harvard Law ReviewBanned Books and Book BurningsFighting WordsYou Can’t Read This BookThe New CensorshipTo the Far Right Christian Hater...You Can Be a Good Speller or a Hater, But You Can't Be BothCensorshipMadison's MusicHarvard Law ReviewPerspectiveWhy Tolerate Religion?Internet CensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionYou Can't Say That!Dear Sir, I Intend to Burn Your BookAreopagitica
of the Lord Chief Justice as to Obscene LiteratureFreedom Of Feisty Speech DemystefiedRage and RighteousnessHarvard Law ReviewThe ProgenyIncisive Journalism in CameroonBeyond the Schoolhouse Gate"Brother Soldier Banned From NJ.Com"Audiobooks about First Amendment To The United States ConstitutionAreopagiticaThe Great DissentOn the Duty of Civil DisobedienceOn the Duty of Civil Disobedience (Version 2)Documents about First Amendment To The United States ConstitutionThe Daily Tar Heel for Sept. 28, 2016Cavanaugh v BarteltPocket ConstitutionMcChesney - The Problem of the Media (2004) - SynopsisSection 66A JUdgment.pdfSpecial prosecutors' review of complaints in Texas v. Battleground TexasFirst Amendment Defense Act - Frequently Asked QuestionsAmerican Humansits v USJameswoods Doe OppoTed Cruz Birther LawsuitMOA v BLM TRO OrderThe Legal LimitFirst Amendment Defense Act (original version)Singer Appeal9th Circuit OpinionCruz LawsuitBundy Report Jail ConditionsU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in Banks v. The Fly on the WallK-Beech - Order &amp; Report &amp; Recommendation (Ordered 5-1-12)6 3 14 Udall Amendment Letter_FINALKEYES v OBAMA - 78 - opposition surreply opposition to motion to dismiss re10-16696 #398_DecisionSister Wives RulingJesse Ventura and Taya Kyle's Trial BriefsFederal lawsuitElonis Free SpeechHarvard Law Record, V. 130 No. 2, Jan. 28, 2010Opinion Granting SJ MotionThe Legal LimitDoe v Reed Amicus Brief before Supreme Court joined by Sunlight FoundationDocuments about ComplaintMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfPennie v. Soros et al Amended ComplaintEmployee ManualLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesEmployee HandbookLawsuit against Hillary ClintonAmended Levaquin complaint Palantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtVW Diesel caseZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintFresh Guidelines on Quashing of Proceedings of a Non-compoundable Offence on the Basis of Settlement Between the PartiesClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmHaloSongs Inc v SheeranGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Carlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintStarsTantaros ComplaintLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlPodliska v Select Committee and Trey GowdyDocuments about Injunction179125570172Khizr Khan Juristic Classification Islamic LawSEC v. CoopermanAndrea Tantaros suitPalantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmMumford Emergency MotionStarsLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlPodliska v Select Committee and Trey GowdyElaine Miller vs. ToyotaPrince v. Chodera - ComplaintMyEx.com LawsuitREBA v. NREIS DecisionBIRTHER TIMELINEUber SettlementBlurred Lines Post Trial OrderTierneyNon Disclosure AgreementweekndUBS Complaint Against Jeffries, Lorello and KellyBroadcom Corp v. Innovium - complaint.pdfSpecial prosecutors' review of complaints in Texas v. Battleground TexasOctober 24, 2013 Class Cert OrderWolfDocket - Nguyen Et.al. v. Chase Bank USA, NA; Chase Home Finance LLC. Et.al.Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Books about SacramentoGold RushFEMA U.S. Fire Administration Emergency Vehicle Safety Initiative60 Hikes Within 60 MilesSacramento's Greenhaven/Pocket AreaOld Sacramento and DowntownSacramento's StreetcarsSacramento's MidtownNiles Canyon RailwaysSacramento Southern RailroadSacramento's Southern Pacific ShopsSacramento's K StreetSacramento RenaissanceLook Up, Sacramento! A Walking Tour of Sacramento, CaliforniaSacramento's Southside ParkWeinstock'sSacramento ChroniclesProhibition in SacramentoSacramento's Gold Rush SaloonsWorld War I and the Sacramento ValleyTurning Green - Home RunTurning Green - TouchdownDocuments about SacramentoQuit Claim DeedPrivate Tracker EnforcementMarriage Separation AgreementT2 Partners“Creating Jobs For A New California”Power of Attorney for Child10-10-16 edition09-30-16 edition10-07-16 edition10-15-16 edition09-17-16 EditionAttorney Elizabeth Niemi Moral Turpitude - Fraud on the Court MisconductFraud on the Court Full Bench Disqualification Order Re Set Aside Motion - Chief US District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. US District Court Eastern District of California Bench Recusal Order - U.S. v. Sierra Pacific Industries09-12-16 editionBusinesses Leave California08-23-16 editionJudge Jaime Roman Illegal Use of Vexatious Litigant Law - Retaliation - Sacramento Superior Court Controversy Hon. Jamie R. Roman Sacramento County Judge Laurie Earl - Judge Robert Hight - Judge James Mize -3rd District Court of Appeal Sacramento Judge Vance Raye - Judicial Council of California - California Commission on Judicial Performance Victoria Henley Director - Supreme Court of California Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice2015 Attorney Misconduct Reporting Canon 3D(2) California Code of Judicial Ethics - California Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley Chief Counsel - California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Justice Ming Chin, Justice Carol Corrigan, Justice Kathryn Werdegar, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Leondra Kruger Supreme Court - Judicial Council of California Chair Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - CJP San Francisco3:09-cv-02292 #329Judge Jaime Roman Misconduct Sacramento Superior Court08-26-16 edition09-21-16 edition2015 Disqualification and Disclosure Canon 3E California Code of Judicial Ethics - California Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley Chief Counsel - California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Justice Ming Chin, Justice Carol Corrigan, Justice Kathryn Werdegar, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Leondra Kruger Supreme Court - Judicial Council of California Chair Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - CJP San Francisco06-29-16 editionJudge Matthew Gary Misconduct, Collusion with Attorney, Accessory After the Fact to Criminal Child Abduction03-14-16 edition06-18-14 wedFederal Class Action Lawsuit Charging Illegal Use of Vexatious Litigant Law Against Family Court Parents by Superior Court JudgesSelf-Certification Conservation StandardsAffidavit for search warrant, Emiliano and Luis Cortez You're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadAboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APILegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsStay ConnectedCopyright © 2016 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOKWe've moved you to where you read on your other device.Get the full title to continueGet the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.Restart preview{{ title }}{[ if (typeof authors !== undefined && authors.length) { ]}by {[ for (var i=0; i < authors.length; i++) { ]}{[ if (i > 0) { ]}, {[ } ]}{{ authors[i].name }}{[ } ]}{[ } else { ]}{{ publisher.name }}{[ } ]}{{ length }}{[ if (typeof download_url !== undefined && download_url) { ]}Download{[ } ]}{{ title }}Collection{{ formatted_count }}View collectionscribd