WARDEN TO CHALLENGE

“TRANSPARENTLY
INVALID” ORDERS IN
TUCSON CITY COURT
Mexican Flag Burner Claims: “Municipal Court Judges, Sua Sponte,
Do Not Have the Authority to Suspend First Amendment Rights.”

CSII Press
Tucson Arizona
July 24, 2010

Several years ago, in response to Tucson City Court Judge Hays’ numerous
threats to suspend his First Amendment rights, Warden, the Notorious Mexican
Flag Burner, held a public rally in Library Square and defiantly told Judge Hays
and the rest of the Tucson Municipal Court Judges: “Don’t Let Your Mouths Run
Up What Your Asses Can’t Register!”

The judges responded by issuing a series of court orders preventing Warden from
coming within 1,000 feet of the corner of Pennington and Stone, a location where
Warden had conducted the Tucson Weekly Public Forum since 2006, effectively
suspending Warden’s First Amendment rights.

On January 14, 2009, nearly a year after Warden first asked the trial judge to
modify the orders, Warden was arrested for arriving on Library Square to give a
speech excoriating local public officials for engaging in “Open Border Policy” in
violation of federal law, intentionally defying court orders which he claims are
“transparently invalid” or “void on their face” and therefore constitutionally and
legally unenforceable, setting the stage for a legal challenge which may end up in
the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The legal issue has never before been directly addressed because no judge has
been stupid enough to issue such an order, sua sponte, to directly stop a citizen
from speaking on issues of public concern on the public square or, if he did, no
lawyer had the guts to get in his face and take him on,” says Warden.

“What the Tucson Police Department did on January 14, 2009 is EXACTLY what
the First Amendment was written to prevent,” Warden says.

Warden contends that via the legal process of injunction, upon application for
relief by an allegedly aggrieved party, the courts lawfully may temporarily
suspend First Amendment rights without violating the 14th Amendment, or what
is known as “due process.”
Although it was a bitterly divided court, the temporary suspension of First
Amendment rights was first upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Walker v
Birmingham, a classic civil rights case involving Dr. Martin Luther King.

It was also upheld in Arizona v Chavez, which raised the same issue regarding the
conduct of United Farm Workers Union President Cesar Chavez, who ironically,
defied a lawfully issued injunction and picketed a Yuma farmer for using Illegal
Mexican Labor.

The great difference between those cases and Warden’s case is: in both Walker
and Chavez the parties had ignored a lawfully issued injunction, a legal process
which provided immediate appellate relief during which time both King and
Chavez could have maintained and exercised their rights while the matter was
still being decided by a higher court.

Warden was provided no such immediate remedy.

“The process of injunction to temporarily suspend First Amendment rights has

safeguards to insure rights are protected,” Warden says, “but these judges were
enraged by my public exposure of Tucson City and Pima County Open Border
Policy, the corruption of Arizona legal institutions by “Pro-Raza” Policy, and the
use of the Tucson Police Department to silence political opposition.

“So they denied me due process, issued invalid orders to shut me up and locked
me down for more than a year.

“When Tucson City Court Judges suspend First Amendment rights, sua sponte,
they violate the Rule of Law, engage in judicial tyranny and stain the integrity of
the court.”

On July 22, 2010 Tucson City Court Thomas Berning set forth a briefing schedule
to determine: (1) what exactly is a transparently invalid order, and (2) under
what circumstances, (if any), may the state enforce such an order.

Oral argument is expected in late August.

For further information, Please Contact:

Roy Warden
roywarden@cox.net

For Reprint or Republication, Click Here