ORDINANCE NO. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

[Benny's Friend]

Ordinance No. 884 was first introduced to the Riverside Board of Supervisors on November 25, 2008.

The initial discussion among the Supervisors is a fascinating piece of history.

Here we have Supervisor Jeff Stone who has been persuaded to passionately front the ordinance after viewing a “pamphlet” from a “white superiority group” he believes were holding “potentially violent demonstrations that were inappropriate.”

Supervisor Bob Buster doggedly defends the Constitution of the United States, debating Stone, County Counsel Joe S. Rank, and Scientology's lawyer, Samuel Alhadeff. The debate between Buster and Alhadeff is an absolute must see for anyone who doesn't believe Scientology's goal is to stop picketing by subverting the Constitution.

Buster is a true representative of the people and knows exactly what's at stake with the ordinance. Before entering his "no" vote on the record, he says to Stone, "I know what you're trying to do. I know what you're trying to do."

http://209.128.123.171/ppportal/agenda/webcast.aspx

From the Agenda, choose the *second* entry of 11/25/2008 on the list. Note that this site is Internet Explorer only; i.e., Firefox does not stream the video. The topic of the ordinance starts at 40:31 (40 minutes in). The debate between Buster and Alhadeff begins at approximately 1:00:00 (one hour in).

============================

This is the ordinance as it was originally introduced:

ORDINANCE NO. 884, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FROM: Supervisor Jeff Stone

SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 884 Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing

SUBMITTAL DATE: November 16, 2008

RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Board of Supervisors:
Introduce and on the following week adopt Riverside County Ordinance No. 884 regulating targeted residential picketing.

BACKGROUND:
Picketing activity that is targeted at a particular residence disturbs the peace, tranquility, well being, sense of security and privacy in the home. Such activity can harass, intimidate and cause emotional distress to the occupants. It also creates a "captive audience" situation because the occupants cannot readily move to another residence in order to avoid the unwelcome picketing activity.

Both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have affirmed that ordinances prohibiting such targeted picketing of a residence are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which do not unconstitutionally violate the First Amendment. (See Klein v. San Diego County (9th Cir. 2006) 463 F.3d 1029 and Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474.) Several cities and counties currently have ordinances in place regulating such activity. There is no State law that adequately protects the right to privacy in the home against such targeted picketing activity. The proposed ordinance is necessary to reconcile and protect the rights of picketers to peacefully communicate and express their ideas and opinions and the rights of persons to enjoy the right to privacy in their homes.

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside ordains as follows:

Section 1. FINDINGS. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside finds that:

a. The preservation and protection of the right to privacy in the home and the enjoyment of tranquility, well-being and sense of security in the home are in the public interest and are uniquely and critically important to the public health, safety and welfare.

b. Picketing activity that is targeted at a particular residence or household whose occupants do not welcome such activity may harass and intimidate such occupants, is inherently and unreasonably offensive to and intrusive upon the right to privacy in the home and may cause the occupants of such home to experience great emotional distress.

c. Such unwelcome and targeted picketing activity creates a "captive audience" situation because the occupants of a residence or household cannot readily move to another residence or household in order to avoid the unwelcome picketing activity being directed at them.

d. This "captive audience" situation and the protection of the right to privacy in the home requires the enactment of a reasonable time, place and manner restriction upon such unwelcome picketing activity that is targeted at a particular residence or household.

Section 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of picketing activity targeted at a particular residential dwelling. This ordinance prohibits picketing focused on and taking place in front of a particular residence. It is not intended to preclude the right to picket in a residential area generally and in such a manner that does not target or focus upon a particular residential dwelling. The limited purpose of the prohibition is to preclude intrusion upon the constitutionally protected privacy rights of the targeted resident.

Section 3. DEFINITIONS.

a. Picketing. The posting of a person or group for a demonstration or protest.

b. Targeted Picketing. Picketing activity that is targeted at a particular residential dwelling and proceeds on a definite course or route in front of or around that particular residential dwelling.

c. Residential Dwelling. Any permanent building being used by its occupants solely for non-transient residential uses.

d. This ordinance does not and shall not be interpreted to preclude picketing in a residential area that is not targeted at a particular residential dwelling.
Section 4. PROHIBITION. No person shall engage in picketing activity that is targeted at and is within three hundred (300) feet of a residential dwelling in the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside.

Section 5. PENALTIES. Any person violating this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any provision of this ordinance is committed or continued.

Any person so convicted shall be (1) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation; (2) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation. The third and any additional violations shall constitute a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or six months in jail, or both. Notwithstanding the above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor.

Section 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person, entity, etc. is found to be invalid this shall not affect the provisions of the ordinance that can be given effect.

its adoption.

Section 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

By:
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE BOARD
By:
Deputy
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
November/7 , 2008
PAMELA J. WALLS
Assistant County Counsel

edit: link to meeting video corrected

[Benny's Friend]

Re: Klein v. San Diego County (9th Cir. 2006) 463 F.3d 1029 and Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit information found here:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/463/463.F3d.1029.04-55819.html

[Benny's Friend]

As of yet, Ordinance 884 does not appear on tomorrow's Board of Supervisors meeting agenda, however it is being monitored carefully.

If any OCMB poster would like to have a message read to the Supervisors when the ordinance does come back for final vote, please post your message to this thread.

Thank you.

BF

[I'mglib]

Good report, BF.
The other monkey wrench is that the supervisors took part in the protests in front of a sex offender's house a couple years ago, and they want to be able to define the law so that it would still be possible to stage this type of protest, but not protest Scientology. This doesn't seem possible to me.

Here's a little info about David Allyn Dokich, the sex offender. He eventually was sent back to prison, where he died either from a beating or cancer.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/publicsafety/stories/PE_News_Local_D_dokich28.312621d.html

[Benny's Friend]

Just to clarify, the OP is regarding the first meeting (11/25/08 ) of the Board of Supervisors discussing the ordinance.

AnonOrange and Glibby spoke at the second meeting (12/09/08 ), which was supposed to be when the final vote would be taken.

Bob Buster speaks boldly against the ordinance in both meetings, but his exchanges with Supervisor Jeff Stone and Scientology attorney Samuel Alhadeff are particularly poignant in the first (11/25/08 ) meeting.

I hope many of you take the time to watch this. It truly is relevant to all of us.

(Plus, it's just darn heartening to see a decent politician in action. Referring to Buster here, of course.)

http://209.128.123.171/ppportal/agenda/webcast.aspx [starting at 40:31]

[Benny's Friend]

It looks like Supervisor Jeff Stone will be taking another stab at getting his special interest Ordinance No. 884 passed at the January 6, 2009 meeting of the Riverside Board of Supervisors:

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 884, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing.

http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2009/01_06_2009.htm

He's also looking to pass Ordinance No. 888 which appears to be related:

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 888, an Urgency Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating Targeted Residential Picketing. (4/5 vote required)

I find no information regarding No. 888 and interesting to me, the list of County Ordinances posted on their official website cuts off at Ordinance No. 883:

http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/ords.htm

It would be good to attend this meeting in great numbers to make sure the Supervisors are equipped with solid information as they contemplate this dangerous piece of legislation.
_________________
My top issues with Scientology: human rights abuses including the SP Hole, RPF, forced abortions and forced divorces, Fair Game, PTS/SP, disconnection, Jeff Stone, and all the lies the Church of Scientology tells its own members.

[Benny's Friend]

Original language:



http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2008/11_25_08/03.02.pdf

New language:



http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2009/01_06_09/03.28.pdf

Muldrake from WWP makes a good point:

[I'mglib]

$^U&*(@@@XXX!!!!!
_________________
Scientology and Human Trafficking? You decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A4l-GItmxY

[hartley]

The new Ordinance is intended to answer the objection that the old one would merely move a picket into someone else's front yard.

However, it still contains the same restrictions and does not apply to your pickets. It says so explicitly, clearly and specifically. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

In your place I would

(a) Point out that you have never and do not intend to picket any 'Residential Dwelling'. You are picketing Golden Era Productions, a division of the Church of Scientology that produces training and promotional films for Scientology. It is a place of Employment.

(b) However in a spirit of cooperation you will abide by the intent of the Ordinance and picket on the opposite side of the road from the Main Gate. You will do so on the understanding that the Board will inform the police that this is an AGREED location for picketing.
This is not unreasonable, it is what sensible police insist upon at pickets where emotions run high.
_________________
ARSCC Demographics Department
Still looking for 9,900,000 scientologists.
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com/
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/

[Sea Horse]

Ah, but is there any "sidewalk space" on the opposite side of the road to Gold Base?

I couldn't imagine there are sidewalks out there in that part of the county.

Also, don't the scios own both sides of the street there?
_________________
We are the architects of our own lives. Design and build the life you want.

[I'mglib]

I believe the area is zoned "residential." I don't think they would make that kind of mistake in drafting this thing. They have lawyers combing through it.

Also, yes, they own both sides of the street (for a distance of about a mile), and there are no sidewalks.

This sucks, basically.
_________________
Scientology and Human Trafficking? You decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A4l-GItmxY

[Benny's Friend]

bump for more comments (please)
_________________
My top issues with Scientology: human rights abuses including the SP Hole, RPF, forced abortions and forced divorces, Fair Game, PTS/SP, disconnection, Jeff Stone, and all the lies the Church of Scientology tells its own members.

[Sea Horse]

Ordinances and laws are VERY LITERAL. If there is no sidewalk, the sidewalk portion will be moot. Get them to change the wording. They could just as easily said "across the street"... but they didn't. That's not by mistake, I assure you.

In a residential subdivision, it would be obvious where 50 ft from the property line would be. I can imagine that the outer boundaries of Gold Base (the property line) are not that obvious.

Badly written ordinance... and unneeded.

Tell them that you'll protest in town and protest each meeting if they don't ditch this unconstitutional ordinance (hinderance of free speech). So if the scios don't like the protesting in their face, they'll get it in their "neighborhood" instead, where even MORE people will see it and be annoyed.

Corporate Scientology is probably putting enormous pressure on these guys to get an ordinance passed. You have to quit being "Mr. Nice Guy" and put enough pressure on them to get what YOU want.

If you think that laws are made "because it's right and fair" and that governments work "for their constituents", you are deluding yourself. Power and money and "squeaky wheels" get far more work done than playing it safe, being nice, or playing by the rules. You just don't know the OTHER rules.
_________________
We are the architects of our own lives. Design and build the life you want.

[hartley]

[I'mglib]

I just don't think it's practical to try to tear this apart using legalese if it passes. The bottom line is, THEY think it's been drafted to stop protesters SPECIFICALLY at Gold. If by some slip up they didn't write it correctly, and there's some loophole, that won't help protesters at all. What would happen is the protesters would show up, and immediately be arrested. Then they would have to go to court and somehow prove, by whatever technicality, that they didn't break the law.

I personally wouldn't do that. I doubt anyone would. Who has the resources to fight that?

Better that we focus on trying to stop it from being passed at all.
_________________
Scientology and Human Trafficking? You decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A4l-GItmxY