Photos above and text below From "Art in the Market" blog, (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25016546&postID=4897839116360220267):
At the City approved and sponsored Junkanoo Festival last Saturday, tourists were shocked and perplexed by seeing uniformed ,armed police officers taking multiple photographs of the artists and their displays. It is interesting to note that many felt that if a camera is aimed in their direction, it must be them that the police are recording. Four middle aged ,prosperous looking guys said,"Let's get the hell outta here!" after spotting the cop thirty feet away aiming the camera in their direction.
The city issued a dozen special event permits to food and merchandise vendors. None of these friends were photographed.
Question: Look at the pictures. Why does St. Augustine have such a high proportion of "pear shaped" police officers? Deleted: Stupid, unoriginal donut joke. Do not forward any either
Based upon the photos on the Art in the Market blog and accompany narrative (above), it appears that Judge Howard has the power to order COSA and SAPD to cease and desist from surveillance or giving the impression of surveillance. Consolidated Edison Company, 4 NLRB 71, 94 (1937), enforced, 305 U.S. 197 (1938); Atlas Underwear Co. v. NLRB, 116 F.2d 1020, 1023 (6th Cir. 1941); NLRB v. Ford Motor Co., 119 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1941); Press Co. v. NLRB, 118 F.2d 937 (D.C. Cir. 1940), cert. denied 61 S.Ct. 1118; NLRB v. Baldwin Locomotive Works, 128 F.2d 39, 49 (3d Cir. 1942); NLRB v. Jasper Chair Co.., 138 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1943); NLRB v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 146 F.2d 454, 455 (4th Cir. 1944).
Has SAPD and COSA given the impression of surveillance? It is well known that --
whistleblowers often face some type of surveillance from either the government, the industry, or some other private investigator. The experience can be very frightening and can add an ominous presence to the misery of blowing the whistle.... We often advise that if someone is watching you, he or she wants you to become affected by the surveillance and to act irrationally about it. It can be another way of bullying you into a mistake.
Government Accountability Project, et al. Courage Without Martyrdom -- A Survival Guide for Whistleblowers 5 (1989)(Emphasis added).
Artists can request a remedy for surveillance or giving the impression of surveillance, in order to halt future lawbreaking. See NLRB v. Anchorage Times Publishing Co., 637 F.2d 1359, 1365-6 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 835 (1981); NLRB v. Randall P. Kane Co., 581 F.2d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 1978); NLRB v. Squire Shops, Inc., 559 F.2d 486, 487 (9th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. Miller Redwood Co., 407 F.2d 215, 218 (9th Cir. 1978); NLRB v. Intertherm, 596 F.2d 267 (8th Cir. 1979); Russell Stover Candies, Inc. v. NLRB, 551 F.2d 204, 207 (8th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. Speed Queen, 469 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir. 1973); NLRB v. Hawthorn Co., 404 F.2d 1205, 1208-09 (8th Cir. 1969); Olsen Rug Co. v. NLRB, 304 F.2d 710, 714-15 (7th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Tidelands Marine Service, 339 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1964); National Phosphate Corp., 211 NLRB 567 (1974); Fotomat Corp., 207 NLRB 461 (1973); J.P. Stevens & Co., 245 NLRB 198 (1979); Laidlaw Waste Systems, 305 NLRB No. 5 (1991); see also Local 309, United Furniture Workers v. Gates, 75 F.Supp. 620, 625-26 (N.D. Ind. 1948); Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007 (7th Cir. 1984); Handschu v. Special Services Divn, 349 F.Supp. 766 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); Presbyterian Church (USA) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989); Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. Tate, 519 F.2d 1335 (3d Cir. 1975); Paton v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d 862 (3d Cir. 1975); Cf. Fr. Robert F. Drinan, "First Amendment Endangered" (book review) 78 Geo L.J. 2057 (1990).
Injunctive relief against COSA and SAPD engaging in surveillance or giving the impression of surveillance should be sought. Otherwise, "[o]nly a brave soul would dare to express anything other than orthodoxy under such circumstances." White v. Davis, 120 Cal. Rptr. 94 (1975).
Also, RONALD WAYNE BROWN has apparently made himself a fact witness, and he should be disqualified from representing SAPD and COSA.
For RONALD WAYNE BROWN to do so would violate the lawyer-witness rule. See Hull v. Celanese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 571 (2nd Cir. 1975); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp. 588 F.2d 221, 225 (7th Cir. 1978); IBM v. Levin, 271, 283 (3d Cir. 1978); Cardinale v. Golinello, 42 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. App. 1977). Goss Graphics Systems, Inc. v. Man Roland Druckmaschlinen Aktiengesellschaft, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181000 (N.D. (N.D. Iowa 2000) (disqualifying Kirkland & Ellis); Asyst Tech. Inc. v. Empek, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D. Cal. 1997)(disqualifying Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati); New Jersey Blue Cross/Blue Shield v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 53 F.Supp. 2d 338, 347 (E.D.N.Y 1999) (disqualifying Winston & Strawn); Islander East Rental Program v. Ferguson, 917 F.Supp. 504, 506 (S.D.Tex. 1996)(disqualifying Fulbright & Jaworski); Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court. 29 Cal Rptr. 2d 693 (Ct. App. 1994) (disqualifying Latham & Watkins); USFL v. NFL, 605 F. Supp. 1448, 1544 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(disqualifying Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison). See, also Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp. 588 F.2d 221, 225 (7th Cir. 1978); IBM v. Levin, 271, 283 (3d Cir. 1978); Hull v. Celanese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 571 (2nd Cir. 1975); Cardinale v. Golinello, 42 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. App. 1977). See, also United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 548 (1961)(citing Matthew 6:24 -- "no man can serve two masters" -- holding that preventing conflicts of interest is aimed "not only at dishonor but at conduct that tempts dishonor.")
What flummery and dupery by our corrupt, feckless City of St. Augustine -- our police officers are intimidating and photographing artists (after cruelly arresting them and having been found to have violated the First Amendment).
What do y'all reckon?
No comments:
Post a Comment