November 03, 2009

ACLU of ARIZONA
Attn: Intake Screening
PO Box 17148
Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
Website: www.acluaz.org

Re: May Arizona Courts Deny First Amendment Protection to Persons the Court
Finds Politically Objectionable?

Dear Sir:

From right wing Tea Party activists marching in the streets of Tucson to left wing
Brown Berets clashing with Neo Nazis in Southern California: as we move from
an era of political apathy to intense political activism and vigorous public debate
on the contentious issues which divide our country, America needs the ACLU
more than ever to protect the people’s right of assembly and free political speech.

The Arizona Appellate Court Division 2 recently denied jurisdiction and refused
to hear my Petition for Special Action involving the most egregious violation of
First Amendment rights on record: the three year suspension of my political
rights by Order of the Tucson Municipal Court, which declared I “may not speak
within a 1,000 feet of any demonstration.”

“Alleged 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, 991 (9th Cir. 2004)

I believe the clear language of two Courts, the Ninth Circuit in Dream Palace and
the Arizona Supreme Court in Citizen Publishing Co. v Miller, 210 Ariz. 513 (both
citing the U.S. Supreme Court) forbid courts otherwise competent, to deny
jurisdiction in cases involving prior restraint of political speech and other serious
First Amendment violations merely because the courts may find the subject
matter politically embarrassing.
To rule otherwise means simply this: By closing their eyes and plugging their ears
Arizona Courts may deny First Amendment rights to all persons the Court finds
politically objectionable.

“(I)t is plain that a State cannot escape its constitutional obligations by the simple
device of denying jurisdiction in such cases to Courts otherwise competent.”
Dream Palace at 1006 citing Bilagody v Thorneycroft, 125 Ariz. 88 (App)

I request the ACLU read my current Petition for Special Action #999001032P
which may be found on the website of the Arizona Appellate Court Division 2 at:
http://www.appeals2.az.gov/APL2Docs1/COA/263/2357599.pdf and submit an
Amicus Curiae Brief on the singular issue I plan to present in my Petition for
Review to the Arizona Supreme Court:

“May the Arizona Appellate Courts Escape Their Constitutional

Obligation to Protect First Amendment Rights by Denying
Jurisdiction?”

Regarding your policy of four week case evaluation: Within the next several days,
as per Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Rule 23 (j), I will file in the
Arizona Appellate Court Division 2 a Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for
Review to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Very Truly Yours,

Roy Warden
1015 W. Prince Road #131-182
Tucson Arizona 85705

(520) 300-4596

cc: Former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas
Subscribers to CSII Press, including 1,000 Pima
County attorneys and legal professionals