Je suis Heroine Kathy Griffin à Votre Santé!

Enlevez Leur Têtes!

Image result for kathy griffin donald trump photo

“There is no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever said that starving peasants should “eat cake” if they had no bread. In fact, the story of a fatuous noblewoman who said “Let them eat cake!” appears in the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions, which was written around 1766 (when Marie Antoinette was just 11 years old).” ~History

William J. Brennan, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

“We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State’s power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.”

~William J. Brennan, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

(New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964)

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

#FUEL is important on any adventure. Since Donald J. Trump was elected President the cost of petro in the Monterey Bay area has risen sum fifty-cents without justification as the Republican Party dismantles the very foundations of our GREAT NATION intent on destroying the AMERICAN DREAM in liege with greedy corporations and an unresponsive media digging its own grave.

WE the People of the UNITED STATES, in ORDER to form a more perfect UNION establish JUSTICE, insure domestic TRANQUILITY, provide for the common DEFENCE, promote the GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the BLESSINGS of LIBERTY to OURSELVES and our POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

#WEnotME or #Ubuntu, a Nguni Bantu term meaning #Humanity recognizes ALL LIVING BEINGS upon PLANET EARTH. Living being is synonymous with Sentient Being (Tib. sem chän). Any being who possesses a mind that is contaminated by delusions or their imprints. Both ‘living being’ and ‘sentient being’ are terms used to distinguish beings whose minds are contaminated by either of these two obstructions from Buddhas, whose minds are completely free from these obstructions.

HOW STUPID IS AMERICA?

Image result for JOHN ADAMS BIOGRAPHY

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

~John Adams, 2nd President of The United States of America EARTH

With SALON: Are tens of millions of Americans really this stupid? If the findings from a new ABC News poll are any indication, then the answer is yes:

There’s no honeymoon for Donald Trump in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll but also no regrets: He approaches his 100th day in office with the lowest approval rating at this point of any other president in polls since 1945 — yet 96 percent of those who supported him in November say they’d do so again today. . . .

Among those who report having voted for [Trump] in November, 96 percent today say it was the right thing to do; a mere 2 percent regret it. And if a rerun of the election were held today, the poll indicates even the possibility of a Trump victory in the popular vote among 2016 voters.

With Forbes:

Voters also often reward and punish elected officials for events they did not cause, such as short-term economic trends and even droughts and sports team victories (all of which have been shown to influence election results).

Beyond that, there are a host of issues where governments routinely pursue harmful and misguided policies that appeal to relatively ignorant voters, even though policy experts across the political spectrum recognize their flaws. In some cases, the harmful policies persist because voters do not even know about them, or do not understand their effects.

With BUSINESS INSIDER:

Voters are angry at the political establishment and the political establishment doesn’t much care for the voters either.

In fact, they think voters are pretty damn stupid.

With HUFFPOST Why Does the (White) Lower Middle Class Vote Republican?:

Why should this be so? Based purely on self-interest, such lower wage earners should vote for the party that would help them the most economically. The Democrats favor a higher minimum wage, protection of union rights, generous, if not free, medical care programs for working class Americans, safety regulations for the working place, reducing global warning (which effects the health of everyone), higher taxes on rich people to pay for even more generous social programs, and maintaining if not increasing social security payments. Republicans, on the other hand, want to reduce taxes on the rich, restrict union rights, repeal Obamacare, privitize social security benefits (which could undermine the program’s reliability) and eliminate various regulations on business, including safety requirements and efforts to deal with global warming.

With theguardian Working class voters: why America’s poor are willing to vote Republican:

So why do poor people vote Republican? The first thing to note is that most of them don’t. In 2008 73% of those who earned less than $15,000, 60% of those who earned between $15,000 and $30,000, and 55% of those who earned between $30,000 and $50,000 voted for Obama. This year 57% of those earning less than $36,000 plan to vote Democrat as do 50% of those with a high school diploma or less. Even in deeply conservative Mississippi the overwhelming majority of the poor voted for Obama.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Generally speaking, the law does not regard the intent to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude, and it is quite understandable that most, if not all, jurisdictions have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is sufficiently “outrageous.” But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), we held that, even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will, his expression was protected by the First Amendment:

Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.

Id. at 73. Thus, while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.

Were we to hold otherwise, there can be little doubt that political cartoonists and satirists would be subjected to damages awards without any showing that their work falsely defamed its subject. Webster’s defines a caricature as “the deliberately distorted picturing or imitating of a person, literary style, etc. by exaggerating features or mannerisms for satirical effect.” Webster’s New Unabridged Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language 275 (2d ed.1979). The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events — an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal. The art of the cartoonist is often not reasoned or evenhanded, but slashing and one-sided. One cartoonist expressed the nature of the art in these words:

The political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on the back. It is usually as welcome as a bee sting, and is always controversial in some quarters.

Long, The Political Cartoon: Journalism’s Strongest Weapon, The Quill 56, 57 (Nov.1962). Several famous examples of this type of intentionally injurious speech were drawn by Thomas Nast, probably the greatest American cartoonist to date, who was associated for many years during the post-Civil War era with Harper’s Weekly. In the pages of that publication Nast conducted a graphic vendetta against William M. “Boss” Tweed and his corrupt associates in New York City’s “Tweed Ring.” It has been described by one historian of the subject as “a sustained attack which in its passion and effectiveness stands alone in the history of American graphic art.” M. Keller, The Art and Politics of Thomas Nast 177 (1968). Another writer explains that the success of the Nast cartoon was achieved “because of the emotional impact of its presentation. It continuously goes beyond the bounds of good taste and conventional manners.” C. Press, The Political Cartoon 251 (1981).

Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate. Nast’s castigation of the Tweed Ring, Walt McDougall’s characterization of Presidential candidate James G. Blaine’s banquet with the millionaires at Delmonico’s as “The Royal Feast of Belshazzar,” and numerous other efforts have undoubtedly had an effect on the course and outcome of contemporaneous debate. Lincoln’s tall, gangling posture, Teddy Roosevelt’s glasses and teeth, and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s jutting jaw and cigarette holder have been memorialized by political cartoons with an effect that could not have been obtained by the photographer or the portrait artist. From the viewpoint of history, it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.

Respondent contends, however, that the caricature in question here was so “outrageous” as to distinguish it from more traditional political cartoons. There is no doubt that the caricature of respondent and his mother published in Hustler is at best a distant cousin of the political cartoons described above, and a rather poor relation at that. If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate the one from the other, public discourse would probably suffer little or no harm. But we doubt that there is any such standard, and we are quite sure that the pejorative description “outrageous” does not supply one. “Outrageousness” in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An “outrageousness” standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982) (“Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action”). And, as we stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978):

[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.

Id. at 745-746. See also Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969) (“It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers”).

Admittedly, these oft-repeated First Amendment principles, like other principles, are subject to limitations. We recognized in Pacifica Foundation that speech that is “‘vulgar,’ ‘offensive,’ and ‘shocking’ ” is “not entitled to absolute constitutional protection under all circumstances.” 438 U.S. at 747. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), we held that a State could lawfully punish an individual for the use of insulting “‘fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Id. at 571-572. These limitations are but recognition of the observation in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 758 (1985), that this Court has “long recognized that not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance.” But the sort of expression involved in this case does not seem to us to be governed by any exception to the general First Amendment principles stated above.

Approved Approved 14 July 1798 the SEDITION ACT made it illegal:

To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.

Although the SEDITION ACT was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. Fines levied in its prosecution were repaid by Act of Congress on the ground that it was unconstitutional. See, e.g., Act of July 4, 1840, c. 45, 6 Stat. 802, accompanied by H.R.Rep. No. 86, 26th Cong., 1st Sess. (1840). Calhoun, reporting to the Senate on February 4, 1836, assumed that its invalidity was a matter “which no one now doubts.” Report with Senate bill No. 122, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3. Jefferson, as President, pardoned those who had been convicted and sentenced under the Act and remitted their fines, stating:

I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.

Letter to Mrs. Adams, July 22, 1804, 4 Jefferson’s Works (Washington ed.), pp. 555, 556. The invalidity of the Act has also been assumed by Justices of this Court. See Holmes, J., dissenting and joined by Brandeis, J., in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630; Jackson, J., dissenting in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288-289; Douglas, The Right of the People (1958), p. 47. See also Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed., Carrington, 1927), pp. 899-900; Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1942), pp. 27-28. These views reflect a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment.

There is no force in respondent’s argument that the constitutional limitations implicit in the history of the SEDITION ACT apply only to Congress, and not to the States. It is true that the First Amendment was originally addressed only to action by the Federal Government, and that Jefferson, for one, while denying the power of Congress “to controul the freedom of the press,” recognized such a power in the States. See the 1804 Letter to Abigail Adams quoted in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 522, n. 4 (concurring opinion). But this distinction was eliminated with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and the application to the States of the First Amendment’s restrictions. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666; Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 160; Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 268; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235.

NOW

With Cornell Law Advocacy of Illegal Action:

A category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment.  For many years, the constitutional rule famously was that speech was unprotected if “words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919).  However, the current rule is that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).

A day after Griffin released a picture holding a mock “decapitated” head of President Trump shot by self-proclaimed “provocateur” photographer Tyler Shields, CNN announced Wednesday that they have terminated their decade-long contract with the comedian to appear with Anderson Cooper on New Year’s Eve.

EMMY Award-winning comedian, best-selling author, reality star and actress KATHY GRIFFIN has yet to meet a celebrity that she won’t mock in the name of humor. She’s got a gift for making fun of her own life, too, all the way back to her birth on November 4, 1960, in the Chicago burbs. This famous funny lady is also a highly recognized advocate for the LGBT community. As reflected within the Manifesto The Happy Hippie Foundation Miley Cyrus, “People who say WE can’t change the world ARE wrong. We will make some noise and cause a scene!”

“Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!”

~Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

With CNN, “As a mother, a wife, and a human being, that photo is very disturbing,” Melania Trump said in a statement. “When you consider some of the atrocities happening in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong and makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it.”

With PC Principal Svadean Napoleon Dynamite: Look, PEDRO, I don’t know how they do things down in Juarez, but here in Idaho we have a little something called pride. Understand? Smashing in the face of a pinata that resembles SUMMER WHEATLEY is a disgrace to you, me, and the entire Gem State.

About Mexican’s DONALD J. TRUMP with CNN spouted, “I would build a great wall,” in his campaign announcement speech aswellas “They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.””When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said in his announcement speech. June 2015. 

Rapists? As reported by POLITICO 4 May 2017, “A woman suing in connection with Jeffrey Epstein’s underage sex ring claims she was first approached while working as a towel girl at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.”

HISTORY

Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States

“Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.”

~Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States

(Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 1976)

Modern Greece dates back only to 1821, when the Greeks finally threw off the yoke of Ottoman rule. The poet Lord Byron, who died trying to fight in the Greek war of independence, movingly links this modern war with the ancient battle of Marathon, the earlier moment when Greece achieved freedom from Eastern oppression, ventriloquizing the voice of a native Greek bard, a modern Homer:

The mountains look on Marathon—.
And Marathon looks on the sea;.
And musing there an hour alone,.
I dream’d that Greece might yet be free..
For, standing on the Persians’ grave,.
I could not deem myself a slave.

Homer is the name ascribed by the ancient Greeks to the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, two epic poems which are the central works of ancient Greek literature.

Image result for homer simpson

“Television! Teacher, mother, secret lover.”

~Homer Simpson

The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company. The series is a satirical depiction of working-class life epitomized by the Simpson family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. … The shorts became a part of The Tracey Ullman Show on April 19, 1987. Homer (b.May 12, 1956) was raised on a farm by his parents, Mona and Abraham Simpson. In the mid-1960s, while Homer was between nine and twelve years old, Mona went into hiding following a run-in with the law. Homer attended Springfield High School and fell in love with Marge Bouvier in 1974.

Image result for bart cuts off statue head

The Telltale Head” Episode aired 25 February 1990 Bart gets more than he bargained for when he saws the head off a statue of the town’s founder.

CNN delivers, “President Donald Trump, amid his own swirling controversies, advised United States Coast Guard Academy graduates that while things aren’t always fair, “you have to put your head down and fight, fight, fight.” The guillotine continued to be used long after the revolution and it remained France’s standard method of judicial execution until the abolition of capital punishment in 1981. With History, “Over some 200 years of use, the guillotine claimed the heads of tens of thousands of victims ranging from common criminals to revolutionaries, aristocrats and even kings and queens. More than just a gruesomely effective killing machine, ‘Saint Guillotine’ served as a symbol of the French Revolution and cast an infamous shadow over much of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries…once dubbed the ‘National Razor’ of France.”

It was a popular children’s toy!

“Children often attended guillotine executions, and some may have even played with their own miniature guillotines at home. During the 1790s, a two-foot-tall, replica blade-and-timbers was a popular toy in France. Kids used the fully operational guillotines to decapitate dolls or even small rodents, and some towns eventually banned them out of fear that they were a vicious influence. Novelty guillotines also found their way onto some upper class dinner tables, where they were used as bread and vegetable slicers.” (Ibid)

Just how unique is the political rhetoric of the Donald Trump era?

With The Washington Post, “Political rhetoric is the attempt to apply fundamental principles to the circumstances a particular people now face. At its best, it’s both elevating and realistic and is effective at both mobilizing immediate popular political support and making an enduring impact on our self-understanding. A fine example is Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail,’ which was addressed mainly to white moderates who know what is right but prefer order to justice. And so who want to do what’s right, but not right now.

Continuing, “In a country such as ours, with a written Constitution and a complicated political/literary tradition based on it, rhetoric is just as likely to be written as spoken, and the spoken word endures in its written form. The Gettysburg Address was boring to those who listened to it, but it was the foundation for a reformulation of our national devotion. Presidents Clinton and Obama, by contrast, are riveting and often inspiring speakers, but typically their words aren’t so memorable when read.” (Ibid)

As logged by PHYS ORG, “Donald Trump presents an atypical figure, employing short sentences, a reduced vocabulary, repeating the same arguments with simple words. He is the single candidate to have the pronoun “I” in the second rank (after the article “the”)” continuing, “As Trump won the primaries and the general election, does that mean that efficient communication must be based on tweet-like rhetoric and this form will dominate the future elections?” asked lead author Jacques Savoy. “Clearly the rhetoric evolution goes towards to short communication messages, but this also implies simplistic analysis and solutions? If the answer is affirmative, I see a real risk of the democracy.”

With FORBES:

When it comes to negative campaign advertising and rhetoric, today’s candidates aren’t even in the same league as our own Founding Founders—and the many presidential contenders who have followed—when it comes to playing rough in the game of electoral politics.

It was the election of 1800 where President John Adams and Vice-President Thomas Jefferson—the two highest elected officials in the land and each a pivotal player in the creation of our nation—squared off in a race for the White House and established a tradition of negative campaigning that would cause our current candidates to blush with embarrassment.

Not unlike much of the mud-slinging we experience in modern elections, the dirty work, back in the earliest days of the nation, was often left to surrogates. One such surrogate was the influential President of Yale University, a John Adams supporter, who publicly suggested that were Jefferson to become the president, “we would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.”

The concern was amplified by an influential—and highly partisan—Connecticut newspaper’s warning that electing Jefferson would create a nation where “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced.

And that was the soft stuff.

FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION

LEGAL STANDARD:

Billy bob Bramscher’s weapon is words.  He seeks to destroy those who he feels has wronged him by using his weapon of choice to threaten people with his goal of getting people fired from their jobs.”

~Daniel T. Brechbuhl, Former Senior Deputy District Attorney Adams County

“What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.”

~Watts v United States, 1969, 394 US 705, 707, 89 S Ct 1399, 22 L Ed 2d 664

A. Legal Standard

The First Amendment is one of the most formidable sources of American Civil Liberties.  It includes several guarantees, of which the most important are the “Freedom of Speech” and the “Freedom of Press.”  Freedom of Speech and of the Press is a constitutional guaranty under the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the Constitution of the United States and provisions in many state constitutions, embracing the concept that free discussion is essential to the growth, development, and well being of our free society under a democratic form of government (see N.A.A.C.P. v Button, 371 US 415, 435, 9 L Ed 2d 405, 419, 83 S Ct 328 (01/14/1963); Associated Press v United States, 326 US 1, 20, 89 L Ed 2013, 2030, 65 S Ct 1416 (06/18/45); Parsons v Age-Herald Publishing Co, 181 ALA 439, 450,461, So 345, 350 (1913)).

While some threats have no First Amendment protections, other threats are protected speech.  In Aguilar v People, 886 P2d 725, 728 (Colo 1994) the Supreme Court of Colorado recognized that “Constitutionally protected speech may be threatening” (see also People v Hickman, 988 P2d 628, 644 (Colo 1999); People v Smith, 862 P2d 939 (Colo 1993) in re “A state cannot prohibit speech in public places merely because it is offensively course, even if the speech is repeated and is made with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm” Id at 942).

KATHY GRIFFINS’ petition of First Amendment Retaliation must be considered against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials (see Terminiello v Chicago, 337 US 1, 4, 93 L Ed 1131, 1134, 69 S Ct 894 (05/16/49); DeJonge v Oregon, 299 US 353, 365, 81 L Ed 278, 57 S Ct 255 (01/04/37).

Citing New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 273, 84 S Ct 710, 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964), “Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.  Where Judicial officers are involved, this court has held that concern for the dignity and reputation of the courts does not justify the punishment [376 US 273] as criminal contempt of criticism of the Judge or his decision.”

Citing Craig v Harvey, 331 US 367, 91 L Ed 1546, 67 S Ct 1249 (5/19/47), “If Judges are to be treated as ‘men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate,’ [at 1552] surely the same must be true of other governmental officials, such as elected city commissioners.  Criticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations.”

In broad terms, the First Amendment protects the right to be free from government abridgment of speech. Retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights is a blackletter constitutional violation. In fact, an act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under 42 Chap 21 USC § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper.

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, KATHY GRIFFIN must demonstrate three things. First, that KATHY GRIFFIN engaged in protected conduct. This means that KATHY GRIFFINS’ speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the KATHY GRIFFIN that would deter “a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by KATHY GRIFFINS’ protected conduct.

Citing Rocky Mt Rogues, Inc v Town of Alpine, 375 Fed Appx 887, 04/19/2010, “Any form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech, including… legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom.”

Citing Worrell v Henry, 219 F3d 1197, 1212 (10th Cir 2000) “The eight circuit’s approach in Helvey resembles one we have adopted in assessing First Amendment Retaliation claims against defendants other than the defendants employer.  We have stated that ‘any form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom’.”  (see also Lackey v County of Bernalillo, 1999 US APP Lexis 75, No 97-2265, 1999 WL 2461, at **3 (10th Cir 1999))

42 USC § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

For liability under 42 USC § 1983, direct participation is not necessary.  Any official who “causes” a citizen to be deprived of his constitutional rights can also be held liable.  The requisite casual connection is satisfied if the official(s) set in motion a series of events that the President Donald J. Trump, CNN and so on knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to deprive KATHY GRIFFIN of her Constitutional Rights (see Snell v Tunnell, 920 F2d 673, 700 (10th Cir 1990); Buck v City of Albuquerque, 549 F3d 1269, 1280, Dec 9, 2008; Jenkins v Wood, 81 F3d 988, 955 (10th Cir 1996) whereas “[KATHY GRIFFIN] may satisfy this standard by showing the official(s) supervisor(s) personally directed the violation or had actual knowledge of the violation and acquiesced in its continuance.”)

Qualified Immunity protects officials’ discretionary function from individual liability in Federal claims unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

To succeed in re KATHY GRIFFINS’ claims in violations of 42 USC § 1983 et seq., KATHY GRIFFIN must show (1) That officials violated his First Amendment Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, a protected activity; and, (2) This First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression was clearly established at the time officials of the the Untied States to include yet not be limited President Donald J. Trump, CNN and so on engaged in FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION (see Clark v Wilson, 625 F3d 686, 690 (10th Cir 2010); Deutsch v Jordan, 618 F3d 1093, 1099 (10th Cir 2010); Hope v Pelzer, 536 US 730, 741, 122 S Ct 2508, 153 L Ed 2d 666 (2002)).

 

CONCLUSION

 

Image result for abraham lincoln

“I am a firm believer in people.  If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.  The great point is to bring them the real facts.”

~Abraham Lincoln

 

There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of OUR GOVERNMENTS’ power lies at the very center of the First Amendment and this ISSUE involves punishment of pure speech in the political forum. (See e.g., Butterworth v Smith, 1990, 494 US 624, 632, 108 L Ed 2d 572, 110 S Ct 1376 in re the dissemination of information relating to alleged governmental misconduct is “Speech which has traditionally been recognized as lying at the core of the First Amendment”; Sheppard v Maxwell, 1966, 384 US 333, 350, 16 L Ed 2d 600, 86 S Ct 1507 in re “The Press… guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial process to extensive public scrutiny and criticism”; Nebraska Press Assn v Stuart, 1976, 427 US 539, 606, 49 L Ed 2d 683, 96 S Ct 2791 in re “Public awareness and criticism have even greater importance where, as  here, they concern allegations of police corruption”;  Whitney v California, 1927, 274 US 357, 378-379, 71 L Ed 1095, 47 S Ct 641 in re “Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech… are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain STEADFAST there actually did exist at ANYTIME a clear danger; whether the danger, if any, was imminent;” and whether the evil apprehended, KATHY GRIFFIN was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restrictions interposed by the THE PRESIDENT, CNN and so on; Landmark Communications, Inc v Virginia, 1978, 435 US, 56 L Ed 2d 1, 98 S Ct 1535 in re “A major purpose of the First Amendment protects the free discussion of governmental affairs”).

The right of an American citizen to criticize public officials and policies and to advocate peacefully ideas for change is “The central meaning of the First Amendment” (see New York Times v Sullivan, supra; see e.g., Weise v Casper, 593 F3d 1163, 1175 (10th Cir 2010) in re Halloway, J., dissenting, “Official reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the constitution because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right, and the law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions… for speaking out”; Members of City Council of City of Los Angeles v Taxpayers for Vincent, 1984, 466 US 789, 804, 104 S Ct 2118, 80 L Ed 2d 772 (1984) in re “The general principle that has emerged from this line of cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others”; Mesa v White, 197 F3d 1041 (10th Cir 1999) in re “Public comment period of public meeting”;  Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp v Regents of the Univ of the State of N.Y., 1959, 360 US 684, 79 S Ct 1362, 3 L Ed 2d 1512 (1959) in re “Government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination”; Glasson v City of Louisville, 518 F2d 899 (6th Cir 1975) in re “Protesting in public forum”.

Under the Federal Constitutions First and Fifth Amendments, speakers are protected from arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of vague standards (see National Endowment for the Arts v Finley, 1998, 524 US 569, 141 L Ed 500, 118 S Ct 2168, 98 Daily Journal DAR 6957, 1998 Colo J CAR 3222, 11 FLW FED S 675).

The right to criticize public officials (see New York Times Co v Sullivan, supra) and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (see United Mine Workers v Illinois State Bar Ass’n, 1967, 389 US 217, 222, 19 L Ed 2d 426, 88 S Ct 353 (1967)) are protected activities and KATHY GRIFFINS activities and criticisms focused on matters of “Public Concern” as required by Connick v Myers, 1983, 461 US 138, 75 L Ed 2d 708, 103 S Ct 1684 whereas “The First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” ID at 145 (see also Roth v United States, 1957, 354 US 476, 484, 1 L Ed 2d 1498, 77 S Ct 1304, 14 OHIO Ops 2d 331 (1957)).

 

KATHY GRIFFIN is a VICTIM of FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION by an EMPLOYER and NON-EMPLOYER. KATHY GRIFFIN is you Martyr! Official retaliation against on who threatens to expose governmental corruption may, in certain circumstances, amount to political persecution warranting relief.  (see Hayrapetyan v Mukasey, 534 F3d 1330, 1337 (10th Cir 2008) in re “explaining  that persecution requires the infliction of suffering or harm by the government itself, or by a non-governmental group that the government is unwilling or unable to control.”; see Ahang v Gonzales, 426 F3d 540,542 (2nd Cir 2005) in re “Retaliation for opposition to government corruption may… constitute persecution of political opinion.”; Hasan v Ashcroft, 380 F 3d 1114, 1120-21 (9th Cir 2004) in re exposure of political leader’s corruption is “inherently political.”; Grava v INS, 205 F3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir 2000) in re whistleblowing against abuse of public trust is necessarily political, even where whistleblower does not espouse political theory.”)

FURTHERMORE, KATHY GRIFFIN petitions that the term “THREAT” as applied to HER ACTIONS and ART as vague and overbroad in violation of substantive/procedural Due Process and Equal Protection.  While some threats have no First Amendment protections, other threats are protected speech. In Aguilar v People, the Supreme Court of Colorado recognized that “Constitutionally protected speech may be threatening” (886 P2d 725, 728 (Colo 1994). Citing People v Janousek, 871 P2d 1189 04/04/84, “The critical inquiry for First Amendment purposes is whether the statements viewed in the context in which they were spoken or written, constitute a “True Threat” (see also Watts, 394 US at 708; United States v Welch, 745 F2d 614, 618 (10th Cir 1984) cert denied, 470 US 1006, 84 L Ed 2d 384, 105 S Ct 1364 (1985); United States v Dysart, 705 P2d 1247, 1256 (10th Cir, cert denied 464 US 934, 78 L Ed 2d 307, 104 S Ct 339 (1983) in re a “True threat is a serious threat, as opposed to mere political argument, talk, or jest”. KATHY GRIFFIN argues that a “True threat” never existed and that constitutionally protected speech was manipulated to chill KATHY GRIFFINS’ criticisms of in the forms of Freedom of Speech, Press and the right to petition for redress of grievances and that KATHY GRIFFIN is a victim of First Amendment Retaliation.

Thank you…

William Robert Bramscher

~BbB~

 

1. See also Weise v Casper, 593 F3d 1163, 1175 (10th Cir 2010) in re Halloway, J. dissenting, “Official reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the constitution because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right,’ and the law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions… for speaking out.”;  Members of City Counsel of City of Los Angeles v Taxpayers for Vincent, 1984, 466 US 789, 804, 104 S Ct 2118, 80 L Ed 2d 772 in re “The general principle that has emerged from this line of cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints at the expense of others.”; Mesa v White, 197 F3d 1041 (10th Cir 1999) in re “Public comment period of public meeting.”; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp v Regents of the Univ of the State of N.Y., 1959, 360 US 684, 79 S Ct 1362, 3 L Ed 2d 1512 in re “Government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination.”; Glasson v City of Louisville, 518 F2d 899 (6th Cir 1975) in re “Protesting in public forum.”; Hope v Pelzer, 1002, 536 US 730, 740, 122 S Ct 2508, 153 L Ed 2d 666 in re “on a pretext so flimsy that the violation was obvious.”; Watts v United States, 1969, 394 US 705, 707, 89 S Ct 1399, 22 L Ed 2d 664 in re “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.”

2. There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the state’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment and this case involves punishment of pure speech in the political forum (see Butterworth v Smith, 494 US 624, 632, 108 L Ed 2d 572, 110 S Ct 1376 (1990) in re “that dissemination of information relating to alleged governmental misconduct is ‘speech which has traditionally been recognized as lying at the core of the First Amendment’.”; Sheppard v Maxwell, 384 US 333, 350, 16 L Ed 2d 600, 86 S Ct 1507 (1966) in re “The press… guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.”; Nebraska Press Assn v Stuart, 427 US 539,606, 49 L Ed 2d 683, 96 S Ct 2791 (1976) in re “Public awareness and criticism have even greater importance where, as here, they concern allegations of police corruption.”;  Whitney v California, 274 US 357, 378-379, 71 L Ed 1095, 47 S Ct 641 (1927) in re “Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech… are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain open to [Billy bob Bramscher] to present the issue whether there actually did exist at the time a clear danger; whether the danger, if any, was imminent, and whether the evil apprehended was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restrictions interposed by the legislature.”;  Landmark Communications, Inc v Virginia, 435 US 829, 56 L Ed 2d 1, 98 S Ct 1535 (1978) in re “A major purpose of the First Amendment protects the free discussion of Governmental Affairs.”)

 

3. Citing People v Weeks, 591 P2d 91 (1979), “Although each case ultimately must defend on its own specific facts, some general principles have emerged. A state or municipality may protect individual privacy by enacting reasonable time, place, and manner regulations applicable to all speech irrespective of content (see Kovacs v Cooper, 336 US 77, 97 (1949); Cox v Louisiana, 379 US 356, 554, 13 L Ed 2d 471, 85 S Ct 453 (1965); Adderly v Florida, 385 US 39, 17 L Ed 2d 149, 87 S Ct 242 (1966)). But when the government, acting as censor, undertakes selectively to shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others, the First {591 P2d 96} Amendment strictly limits its powers (see Police Dept of Chicago v Mosely, 408 US 92, 33 L Ed 2d 212, 92 S Ct 2286 (1972); Fowler v Rhode Island, 345 US 67, 97 L Ed 828, 73 S Ct526 (1953); Kovacs v Cooper, supra at 97 (Jackson, J. concurring).  Such selective restrictions have been upheld only when the speaker intrudes on the privacy of the home (see Rowan v Post Office Dept, 397 US 728, 25 L Ed 2d 736, 90 S Ct 1484 (1970)), or the degree of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure…As Mr Justice Harlan cautioned: “The ability of government, consonant with the constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is…dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silent dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.” (see Cohen v California, 403 US, at 21, 29 L Ed 2d 284, 91 S Ct 1780 (1971); Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville, 422 US 205, 209-210, 95 S Ct 2268, 45 L Ed 2d 125 (1975)). Citing FCC v Pacifica Foundation, 438 US 726, 57 L Ed 2d 1073, 98 S Ct 3026 (1978), “The fact that society may find speech offensive is not sufficient reason for suppressing it.  Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. {485 US 56} For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the market place of ideas” and citing Street v New York, supra, “It is firmly settled that…the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.”  A fatal error to the charge 38-91 is that the alleged conduct was received at a business as reported and 38-91 and C.R.S. 18-9-111(1)(e) protects, as defined by case law, the substantial privacy interests of the “home”.A fundamental cannon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning (see Perrin v United States, 444 US 37, 62 L Ed 2d 199, 100 S Ct 311 (1979)). Statute 38-91 protects the “privacy” of “any other person or family”.  A vague law offends due process because it fails to give fair notice of the conduct prohibited and does not supply adequate standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement (People v Janousek, 871 P2d 1195 (Colo 1994); see also Board of Education v Cincinnati, 402 US 611, 614, 29 L Ed 214, 91 S Ct 1686 (1971)).

4. The term “DISTURBANCE” is synonymous with “harassment”, “upset” or “annoy”.  A statute is unconstitutionally over-broad if it includes within its proscriptions a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech (see New York v Ferber, 458 US 747, 769, 73 L Ed2d 1113, 102 S Ct 3348 (1982); People v Baer, 973 P2d 1225, 1231, 01/25/99; Broadrick v Oklahoma, 413 US 601, 613, 37 L Ed 2d 830, 93 S Ct 3908 (1973); People v Ryan, 806 P2d 935, 940 (Colo 1991)).

5. Citing People v Weeks, 591 P2d 91 (1979), “Although each case ultimately must defend on its own specific facts, some general principles have emerged. A state or municipality may protect individual privacy by enacting reasonable time, place, and manner regulations applicable to all speech irrespective of content (see Kovacs v Cooper, 336 US 77, 97 (1949); Cox v Louisiana, 379 US 356, 554, 13 L Ed 2d 471, 85 S Ct 453 (1965); Adderly v Florida, 385 US 39, 17 L Ed 2d 149, 87 S Ct 242 (1966)). But when the government, acting as censor, undertakes selectively to shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others, the First {591 P2d 96} Amendment strictly limits its powers” (see Police Dept of Chicago v Mosely, 408 US 92, 33 L Ed 2d 212, 92 S Ct 2286 (1972); Fowler v Rhode Island, 345 US 67, 97 L Ed 828, 73 S Ct526 (1953); Kovacs v Cooper, supra at 97 (Jackson, J. concurring).

6. Such selective restrictions have been upheld only when the speaker intrudes on the privacy of the home (see Rowan v Post Office Dept., 397 US 728, 25 L Ed 2d 736, 90 S Ct 1484 (1970)), or the degree of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure…As Mr. Justice Harlan cautioned: “The ability of government, consonant with the constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is…dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silent dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.” (see Cohen v California, 403 US, at 21, 29 L Ed 2d 284, 91 S Ct 1780 (1971); Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville, 422 US 205, 209-210, 95 S Ct 2268, 45 L Ed 2d 125 (1975)).  Citing FCC v Pacifica Foundation, 438 US 726, 57 L Ed 2d 1073, 98 S Ct 3026 (1978), “The fact that society may find speech offensive is not sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. {485 US 56} For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the market place of ideas” and citing Street v New York, supra, “It is firmly settled that…the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.”

POEM 1

“Love”

I imagine a world filled with no commercials about a pill to cure depression~

A world where we care for another and every girl a princess~

Fill your mind and heart with givin’…

Not a feeling of lapse breathing and false prayin’

Were and Where we give instead of gettin…

Smiles from doing and not waiting!

When can I see you again?

Are you afraid cause I do not support major sports?

Give Peace Love and Understanding a CHANCE…

Instead of hiding from each other,

We can laugh and dance…

That is the world I want!

If I die trying to make that happen…

I tried for that and romance…

~BbB~

POEM 2

“Lie’in 4 Die’in”

I have nothing left to give…

No reason to live…

In a world filled with fear,

Dry and lonely without tears.

Where are my brothers…

Where are my sisters…

One world One love,

No feeling from the skies above.

I tried running with the crowd…

Lifeless and broken,

On loneliness I am choking.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s