ARIZONA COMMON SENSE

An Exercise in Aggressive, Non-Partisan Political Activism January 22, 2013 Volume 3, Number 02

TUCSON CITY COURT ARROGANTLY ASSERTS THE POWER OF PRIOR RESTRAINT

AS A MATTER OF FACT, the Tucson City Court is a limited jurisdiction court of non record, directed by the Tucson City Council, partisan political and economic interests and local Good Old Boys. In other words it is one of the smallest courts in the land, where, speaking very frankly, most of the significant constitutional violations begin. Yet arrogantly and unlawfully, the Tucson City Court asserts an authority surpassing that of the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land: the power to issue a non-appealable order of prior restraint to silence a political speaker who challenges the rectitude of local political authority. The issue of prior restraint is addressed in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, notably New York Times vs United States (1967) which says they should never be issued, and Walker v Birmingham (1971) which says injunctions which temporarily restrict expressive conduct must be obeyed until they are appealed. The Arizona Supreme Court, in State v Chavez, (involving the Director of the Farm workers Union, activist Cesar Chavez), affirmed the holding in Walker v Birmingham. And the 9th Circuit, in accordance with Walker and Chavez, has precisely set forth the conditions which must be met regarding any prior restraint restrictions on free speech: Prior restraints on free speech will be upheld only if they ...provide for a prompt decision during which the status quo is maintained and there is the opportunity for a prompt judicial decision Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir 2004)

Significantly; none of the rulings in any of the courts cited above conflict. All are in accordance with each other regarding orders of prior restraint. And it is abundantly clear: NONE of the above courts would condone the policy of the Tucson City Court, to wit: Use Non Appealable Conditions of Release Orders of Prior Restraint to Silence the Voice of Those Who Challenge Local Open Border Policy. Some may ask: Then, why is there no case precisely on point specifically outlawing the issuance of Non-Appealable Orders of Prior Restraint? For two reasons: (1) no local attorney has ever had the guts to frame the issue correctly and thus anger local courts, or (2) no court (other than Tucson City Court, has ever been stupid enough to issue one. Because of my experience with local attorneys, like Paul Gattone and Eric Manch, Im betting the answer is #1. In any event the issue of local courts suspending constitutional rights, now that it has been properly framed in Warden v Tucson City Court, is going to Pima County Superior Court, and from there up the Judicial Food Chain towards the Arizona Supreme Court. Roy Warden

roywarden@hotmail.com