| Our Petition Rights: Letter to the City Council (December 13, 2009) |
| Subject: PETITION POLICY
From: Douglas Bruce Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:09 -0700 To: lrivera@springsgov.com, lsmall@springsgov.com, shente@springsgov.com, bherpin@springsgov.com, jmartin@springsgov.com, "Purvis, Randy" The city needs to cancel its illegal practices and new policy against petitioning. To start, you should return to your old policy, which tolerated peaceful petitioning at public access stores. It served the public well for many years. It was changed this year at the written request of Costco, which has an irrational hatred of all petitions. Costco came to our city two years ago and should have known what our policy was. The city's indulgence of that corporate phobia has cost you dearly in public respect. In the trespass case, the city was publicly humiliated again this week, just as I warned for the past 15 weeks that you would be. Police misconduct in that case is now the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation I have requested. Police should not be used as your weapons in your war against petitions. They should not be politicized. For over five years, the city attorney has waged this war on petitions in general and me in particular. City stonewalling and pettifoggery only strengthened my resolve, and led to the passage of issue 300. It is past time to restore our rights to petition. Rescind the 2009 version of police General Order 701. The alternative is more civic shame, and more very public and costly legal defeats. I am asking that you return to your policy of last year, which is the same policy the sheriff has had for many years, and still maintains. The old policy said peaceful petitioning at public access stores (not residences!) would be tolerated, provided there was no violation of disturbing the peace with bullhorns, blocking traffic, fighting, etc. Trespass was specifically excluded as a violation. The city's current tolerance of petitioning at two public access locationss only--Chapel Hills Mall and Citadel Mall--is an irrational policy that is arbitrary and capricious. It would not survive equal protection and First Amendment scrutiny, since restrictions on petitioning must serve a compelling governmental interest (not corporate interest--governmental interest). According to the U.S. Supreme Court cases of ACLF v. Buckley and Meyers v. Grant, both from Colorado, the burden of your meeting that strict scrutiny test is "well nigh insurmountable" because the right to petition is "at the zenith of our system of ordered liberties." That means you would lose. Furthermore, the USSC Pruneyard decision says that states may offer a higher level of protection of First Amendment rights, and that FEDERAL courts will enforce that according to FEDERAL standards. Colorado indisputably offers a higher level of protection, and cannot deny citizens equal protection after doing so. Once our city offered that higher level of protection, it cannot retract that. Stores don't get to discriminate against blacks, handicapped, females, or other classes of people. You should not use public police power to promote private prejudices punishing petitioners. Stores are public accommodations, like lunch counters in the Deep South in the 1950s, where black citizens were arrested for....trespass. Aren't we beyond those ugly days? Costco's manager could not even explain its policy of "prohibiting expressive activity." We showed at trial that it was not applied to any expressive activity except "soliciting," which he also could not define, except to say that holding a piece of paper for citizens to sign for a ballot issue was covered. Anyone was allowed to be there and talk with others; it was only the word "petition" that was banned. You need also to repudiate publicly Judge Spencer Gresham's absurd "order" that no one may distribute fliers or hold signs within 100 yards of the courthouse. Both his order and the police order illegally pre-empted your legislative power. Under our form of government, neither the judiciary nor the executive get to make the laws. Our elected representatives alone may do so. You are getting very bad advice from Mrs. Kelly. Count your biggest losses, just related to petitions--
I could list dozens of other examples. All are provocative, punitive, and improper/illegal acts by the city against me because of my political beliefs and petitioning activity. You should be able to figure by now that, after 23 years here, I am not going away. Others may wish to petition as well, without your threats of public punishment. You need to reform your policies and practices in good faith, not only because it is your legal and moral duty, but to avoid further liability and further damage to the city's image. I propose that the council select Councilmen Purvis and Glenn, the council's two lawyers, to meet with me and one representative of the city attorney's office (NOT the two inept prosecutors in my recent political show trial, and NOT Will Bain, who knows less than he thinks about petition law). I hope we can correct this problem in a responsible manner, like adults. I can endure your illegal tactics and political misconduct, as I have for years, but I should not have to. I would rather the city agree to de-escalate the conflict the city began years ago, which continues to this day. Sincerely, Douglas Bruce Box 26018 Colo. Spgs. CO 80936 550-0010 taxcutter@msn.com |