A-LINKS:

'Saint Aug Dog' On Line Edition - Power Concedes Nothing Without Demand!

Contact Publisher

SITE LINKS:

Saint Aug Dog Archives

Fountain of Baloney™

Baloneyspeak™

'Operation Take Back America'

FREEDOMS HEAVY LIFTERS:

Robert Lederman, New York City

David Scotkin, Saint Petersburg, Florida

Roger Jolley, Saint Augustine , Florida

Jay Pleasant, Saint Augustine, Florida!

NEWS LINKS:

Unknown News

WEB LOGS:

 

COMICS:

This Modern World By Tom Tomorrow

The Duby Chronicles

The Middleasses

RESOURCES:

Google Search

Dictionary @ Thesaurus

Local Saint Augustine Weather


READ & HEED!

Power concedes nothing without demand! Those who have neglected the duties of good citizenship, for what ever reason, bear full responsibility, for the incremental loss of our freedoms and the theft of the fruits of our labors that is going on in America today.

Those simple duties of good citizenship ignored in the past have now become the struggle of today.

This struggle ignored today, can and will, become the more tyrannical enslavement of your future!

By not fulfilling your patriotic obligation to the politics of America in the past you have allowed those criminals who have hijacked our government for there own selfish ends to attain great power. Left unchecked, this power will only become more tyrannical. That criminal power must be eliminated. Those who malinger and hope and dream of change without involvement are fools.

It never did and it never will . . . . Consider these words of Frederick Douglas, a former slave, spoken in 1857:

Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reforms. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of struggle . . . . . If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will . . . .
 

And this from the poet Shelly . . .

Rise like lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number!

Shake your chains to earth, like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you-

Ye are many; they are few!

ARTICLES & COMMENTARY:
 
Minion Margo Does Two Faced George Gardner . . .
 
Saint Augustine Wreckit's Margo Pope puts on the knee pads for newly elected City Mayor, Two Faced George Gardner.
 
Its All Fluff. In a marshmallow article in the Sunday edition (12/15/02) of the Saint Augustine Wreckit, [Link above, click title type.] Minion Margo, does the obligatory interview of the newly elected City Mayor, Two Faced George Gardner.
In this fawning and transparently contrived 'Tourist Factory' promo that is supposed to pass for journalism, Two Faced George describes his friendly orientation tour around the City of Saint Augustine with City Manager, Headman Harris.
The Headman, Trent Lott's alter ego in Saint Augustine, also appeared to have his knee pads on.
A highlight of this article is that Mayor Two Faced George has wasted no time in continuing the "pattern of racketeering activity" of his predecessors with the same old crap of calling things by their wrongful names.
Les Garcia is not referred to by Two Faced George as what he really is, a hair wrap artist, rather he is called an individual who is;
"in a service and sales business".
This despite the fact that hair wrapping is an esteemed and venerable art form that has been around for over two thousand years!
My, my, my, the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same . . .
Wasn't it just a very short while ago that all of these greedo business dirt balls were calling a newspaper by another name.
Yes, they called it "merchandise", and of course if you sold "merchandise" you were "in business", according to their self serving, protectionist, crooked merchandising law. Well my friends they were wrong then and they are wrong now!
 
Same Old Crap. Mayor Two Faced George is continuing the well established pattern and practice of the same old conduct meant to have the same or similar intent.
My that sounds awfully familiar, "conduct meant to have the same or similar intent", where have I heard that before?
Oh yes, I remember now, the State of Florida RICO Statute;
 
(4) "Pattern of racketeering activity" means engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering conduct that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characters and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one of such incidents occurred after the effective date of this act and that the last of such incidents occurred within five years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct.
 
Lies of Omission. As in most all Saint Augustine Wreckit articles it is what is left out that is most important and most telling.
Lies of omission they are sometimes called.
This article appeared to be no exception!
When Minion Margo and Two Faced George got to the "street performer ban" (which is another misnomer, it is in reality the corruption issue) Two Faced George, speaking out of that 'other' face, disingenuously beat up on Les Garcia as mentioned above and stated that the laws would probably stand.
The egregious omission here was that nothing was said about the current, and embarrassing to the city, appeal of a 'performing' citation by Roger Jolley in the Saint John's County Court. This appeal is a current and valid contestation of these obscenely self serving protectionist laws.
Minion Margo should have been all over that one, especially since Roger Jolley emailed his legal brief to the Saint Augustine Wreckit a week before this softball interview article with Two Faced George was printed. Of course every one in town knows that this little piece of Saint Augustine's dirty laundry will most likely never see the light of day in the 'Tourist Factory' newsletter.
 
The Good Old Days Are Over!
A few points here if I may regarding the value of Free Speech and the internet:
You are learning of these transgressions because the 'Saint Aug Dog', a BANNED newspaper, has an alternative Free Speech venue available - the internet.
The good old days of the Wreckit being the only source of information in town are over!
Consider how these dirt balls have so easily in the past, by owning and controlling the media, been getting away with murder.
Consider also the value of Free Speech venues such as the internet, which is still available to us all, and the public forum, which is not available to all in Saint Augustine because of these highly protectionist self serving laws.
Consider and realize that in the past, without the internet, these Jim Crow laws that oppress racial minorities and the poor would not be discussed.
Please forward this story to your friends and neighbors, and remember, power concedes nothing without demand.
 
Take Action Now! You must DEMAND an investigation of these past patterns and practices that Two Faced George Gardner now clearly continues with his own present behavior, even as he asks from that 'other' face that we all set the past aside!
You must DEMAND that these self serving dirt balls repeal these oppressive laws that; rob you of your freedom, fix your prices, deny you opportunity, keep your wages low, enrich an elitist few, create despair and hopelessness in your society, and subvert the Constitution of the United States of America!
These elitist Jim Crow laws, and the people that make and support them, are a continuation of the same dark forces that have been responsible for all kinds of past and present subjugation in America; the slaughter of the Indians, slavery, suppression of woman's rights, etc.
It is time to make a serious renunciation of these bigoted practices and restore freedom, equality and the promise of the American dream to all.
 
Please send this article to a friend or neighbor . . .
 
The Roger Jolley appeal story, and a little bit of CONTEXT to help you understand it all, follows below . . .
 
Saint Augustine Histo-kaching! City Without Soul . . .
 
The More Things Change, The More They seem To Stay The Same . . .
Freedom vs. Ersatz History and The Cash Register. The Roger Jolley appeal.
 
Call The Doctor! Anal and uptight downtown Saint Augustine is presently in the late stages of a severe case of 'contrived history to ring the cash registers' disease.
It is called Histo-kaching!
With all manner of subservient lackeys swelling the city pay roll to justify, attest to, and promote the veracity of this most sadly lacking and vilely sterile history ever contrived by human kind, the city is near death.
It is drowning in its own historical bile.
Saint Augustine has become a lifeless reflection of the soulless MEpublican dirt ball city officials who control these obeisant and pliable historical underlings!
It is why the City of Saint Augustine is so lacking in feeling.
It is why when you are in the downtown area of Saint Augustine you feel like you are in a 'Tourist Factory'.
It is why you feel like you are in just another MEpublican mall.
Saint Augustine's contrived history, like the news reporting of the Saint Augustine Wreckit, is most notable for what is left out, for what is omitted.
Without that real and left out history one can never truly understand what is going on in Saint Augustine.
 
CONTEXT. Like the sub dominant negative space in a painting, which gives meaning and CONTEXT to the dominant subject, one must also be aware of this 'omitted history' in Saint Augustine to truly grasp the whole picture.
It is only that which is left out, that which is purposefully omitted, that gives CONTEXT to and reveals the true and complete history of Saint Augustine.
It is this omitted history, in CONTEXT, that reveals the whole.
In order to further the understanding of the true and untold history of Saint Augustine I would like to lay out just a VERY SMALL AMOUNT of the CONTEXT surrounding the appeal of Roger Jolley's 'performing' citation, filed in The Saint John's County Court, on 11/30/02.
Having been filed it is now a matter of public record and I can share it with you.
It will give you some insight into the many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, singular incidents of oppression that have taken place here in Saint Augustine.

CONTEXT. The particular citation of Roger Jolley in question [his brief is attached, following below] was made on THE DAY FOLLOWING the search and seizure, by Saint Augustine City Police, of private property, without a lawful warrant. In that unlawful search and seizure the personal belongings of Walter Benedict, my political displays that I and others had provided to Walter, and copies of my BANNED newspaper, the 'Saint Aug Dog' were impounded at the Saint Augustine City Police Station.
I traveled to the Saint Augustine Police Station in my pick up truck with Walter Benedict the evening of that same following day, that same day Roger was cited, and retrieved all of these confiscated and impounded items. [Earlier in the day I had replaced many of the items and bought Walter a new chair for his protest. Yes, the cops even took Walter's chair, a nice bent wood rocker loaned to him by a local carriage driver.]
The confiscated and impounded items were released to us for two reasons;
 
1. A tourist witness explained to Walter Benedict that he had seen Saint Augustine City Cops, in the dark of night, shortly before midnight, taking the items from the private property.
2. Roger Jolley, called Chief of Police, David Shoar, who was conveniently at his National Guard Training Camp, to apprise him of the situation.
 
Prior to this call by Roger Jolley to Chief of Police David Shoar, [A call not mentioned in the Chief's white wash job of these events entitled, 'Memorandum for the Record', which was generated after much public protest.] and the coming forth of the tourist witness, City Police professed to Walter - to have NO knowledge of the incident!
 
PROTESTING NOT PERFORMING! That was why Roger Jolley was protesting, NOT performing, on Saint George Street!
Roger Jolley, playing his guitar and singing a medley of protest songs, under the balcony of the Columbia restaurant, dressed in a 'Spanish Hard Hat' (protest hat with boycott messages on it) with protest displays behind him, and copies of the BANNED 'Saint Aug Dog' spread at his feet, was cited for PERFORMING!
Unbelievably, Political Speech, the most sacred form of Speech in America, was stifled by this selective misapplication of a corruptly enacted self serving protectionist law.
 
What a sorry effing day for America that was!
 
That will give you a just little bit of the CONTEXT, to help you more fully understand Roger's brief [following below].
There is of course a lot more CONTEXT to this particular incident. The events surrounding Roger's actual arrest for this citation, made a week later in the dark of night shortly after midnight when THREE Saint Augustine Police Cruisers arrived at his home and he was taken away, in hand cuffs, and booked into County jail are particularly terrifying, and CHILLING.
But time does not permit me to lay all of that out, and of course much of this is already available on my web site in the BANNED 'Saint Aug Dog' issues.
You can read more about these illegal activities of your public officials
here and here.
Keep in mind as you read this brief [following below] that Roger Jolley is not a lawyer.
Considering that fact I believe he has done an admirable job.
Considering also that Roger's case is the only case now active in the legal system that concerns itself with overturning these bogus laws and exposing the corruption here in Saint Augustine you would think the Saint Augustine Wreckit would be all over this story.
Gee whiz I wonder why not?
Here is Roger's brief. Enjoy . . .
 
{The illustration used in this article is the "Arrest of [the Indian] Osceola". He was arrested after coming forward under a flag of truce. Figures, doesn't it?}

IN THE COUNTY COURT, SEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. CA02-754
LT CASE NO.: MM01-2333/ MM01-3124
DIVISION 55

ROGER G. JOLLEY, APPELLENT

Vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
________________________/

Summary: The lower court erred by allowing procedural flaws in prosecution and law enforcement
methods.

The lower court erred when it designated the ordinance as content neutral, and thus failed to find the ordinance unconstitutional on its face.

The lower court erred when it failed to address critical failures within the law enforcement methods, which renders this ordinance unconstitutional as applied.

The lower court erred when it ignored proven pattern and practices of deliberate civil rights violation by the city as found by a Jury in Celli v. City of St. Augustine (98-253-CV-J-21B) just prior to creating the ordinance in question. The court also ignored the unbridled discretion warned against by the court in Horton v. City of St. Augustine (3:00-CV-671-J-25A) which "it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement".

Finally, the court ignored the city commission's pattern and practice of creating a string of ordinances which they acknowledged as flawed, with the stated intent to continue to create more flawed ordinances until those who object were run out of town. In the records presented to the court, city commissioners stated their belief in the ordinance, but then indicated that they would try "again and again" when it was overturned as unconstitutional.

By treating this case as isolated from previous misconduct by the city, the court erred, even though the same lower court found the city had applied several previous ordinances in an unconstitutional manner. Several cases referenced by the court in its order answering appellant's motion to dismiss were ruled "unconstitutional as applied" by the same court.

This pattern and practice by both the legislative authority of the city commission, the executive, law enforcement authority of the city and by the State's unlawful prosecution was as familiar to the court as it was to the appellant who had several previous cases dismissed by the same lower court over the last few years.

 

I. Procedural Flaws:

1. Section § 27.02, Fla. Sta. (2000) entitled "Duties Before the Court" provides: "The State Attorney shall appear in the circuit and county courts within his or her judicial circuit and prosecute and defend on behalf of the State all suits, applications, or motions civil or criminal in which the State is a party"

2. Section § 162.22, Fla. Sta. (2000) entitled "Designation of Enforcement Methods and Penalties for violation of Municipal Ordinances" provides: "The governing body on municipality may designate the enforcement methods and penalties to be imposed for violation of Ordinances adopted by the municipality. These enforcement methods may include, but are not limited to, the issuance of the citation, summons, or notice to appear in county court or arrest for violation of ordinances as provided in Chapter 901."

3. Chapter 901 is entitled "Arrest".

4. Section § 901.02, Fla. Sta. (2000) entitled "When Warrant of Arrest to be Issued", provides (1) "a warrant may be issued for the arrest of the person complained against if the magistrate, from an examination of the complainant and other witnesses, reasonably believes that the person complained against has committed an offense within the magistrates jurisdiction", the warrant is issued at that time and signed by the magistrate. (2) The court may issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest when one of the following circumstances applies: (a) a Complaint has been filed charging the commission of a misdemeanor only, (b) the Summons issued to Defendant has been returned unserved; and (c) the conditions of subsection (1) are met."

No citation or summons was filed or served, and thus was never returned unserved.

Section § 901.16, Fla. Sta. (2000) entitled "Method of Arrest by Officers by a Warrant", provides that: "a police officer making an arrest by warrant shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and that a warrant has been issued, except when the person flees or forcibly resists before the officer has an opportunity to inform the person, or when giving the information will imperil the arrest. They also need not have the warrant in his or her possession at the time of arrest, but on the request of the person arrested, shall show it to the person as soon as practicable."

5. Section § 901.15, Fla. Sta. (2000) entitled "When Arrest by an Officer Without a Warrant is Lawful" provides: (1) that a law enforcement officer may arrest the person without a warrant when the person has committed a felony or misdemeanor or violated a municipal or county ordinance in the presence of the Officer and (2) an arrest for the commission of a misdemeanor or a violation of a municipal or county ordinance shall be made immediately or in fresh pursuit."

6. Section § 775.08, Fla. Sta. (2000) entitled "Classes and Definitions of Offenses" defines the following terms when used in the laws of this State: "(2) "misdemeanor" (a) shall mean any criminal offense that is punishable under the laws of this State or that would be punishable if committed in this State by a term of imprisonment in a county correctional facility, except an extended term not in excess of a one-year period. (b) "misdemeanor" shall not mean a conviction for any non-criminal traffic violation of any provision of Chapter 316 or any municipal or county ordinance. (c) "Non-criminal" shall mean any offense that is punishable under the laws of this State, or that would be punishable if committed in this State by no other than a fine, forfeiture, or other civil penalty. A non-criminal violation does not constitute a crime, and conviction for a non-criminal violation shall not give rise to any legal disability based on a criminal offense; "Non-criminal violation" shall not mean any conviction for any violation of any municipal or county ordinance. Nothing contained in this Code shall repeal or change the penalty for violation of a municipal or county ordinance; (d) "Crime" shall mean a felony or a misdemeanor." Thus, under Florida Law the violation of a municipal ordinance is not a "crime", nor is it a "misdemeanor" and the warrants issued pursuant to Section 901.02 is invalid since said procedure may only be invoked for a complaint filed charging the commission of a 'misdemeanor".

7. Section 1-8 (c) of the City of St. Augustine Code provides: "except as otherwise provided, a person convicted of a violation of this Code shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.00 or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed sixty (60) days or any combination thereof."

8. Section § 901.15 Fla. Sta. (2000) provides for an arrest for the commission of a misdemeanor or violation of a municipal or county ordinance in the presence of the officer. However, the term "arrest" as utilized in said section has been interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court to mean detention for the limited period of time in which to issue a citation for conduct that is essentially decriminalized. See State v. Thomas 614 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1993).

9. Over the last several years, numerous individuals residing in the City of St. Augustine, including Appellant as treated in the reference lower court cases, have been subjected to full custodial arrests for violation of a municipal ordinance and prosecuted by the State Attorney for violating a municipal ordinance in which the State is not a party.

10. The above nine (9) items above were taken nearly verbatim from a "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Rights Damages and Demand for Jury Trial" Class Action lawsuit filed in the District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division on behalf of Larry Horton, (Case No. 3:01-CV-604-T-25-B). This document was tendered to the lower court and is mentioned on page 14 of the transcript of the oral arguments on Appellant's motion to dismiss/suppress information (page92 of RECORD on Appeal). The RECORD indicates that the copy of Mr. Horton's federal complaint was received and was included in the case Record for the above listed sections (1-9). That document was not included in the Record on Appeal and indeed, upon inquiry of the Clerk of the Court, the lower court admits it was taken from the Clerk of the Court's folder and held by the lower court. The reason for altering this public record was not given.

11. As indicated in several motions and letters to this court, the Record on Appeal has also been found to be incomplete due to the removal of information presumably filed by an Asst. State Attorney requesting the invalid warrants issued in the lower court case. Though the elected Clerk of the Court indicated to appellant in a return phone call that a substitution of a Charging Affidavit for 'information' presented to a magistrate for issuance of a warrant is within normal guidelines, the name of the Asst. State Attorney requesting the warrant and designating the case as a misdemeanor with a MM code was absent as a result of the altered procedure. The returns of service warrants included in the Record on Appeal by this court's own motion and subsequent order was blank in the original package appellant received from the Clerk and was blank in it's inclusion into the Record. The information listed on the form but left blank did not include the name of the Asst. State Attorney requesting and processing the warrant.

12. The Asst. State Attorney handling the lower court case was Amy Oysteryoung. All of the appellant's lower court filings were served to her directly.

13. According to public information, the State Attorney's contract with the City of St. Augustine to prosecute city cases had lapsed and was no longer valid when the State Attorney prosecuted the appellant in the lower court on behalf of the State of Florida.

14. Within 30 days of the courts acceptance of a previously undisclosed class action lawsuit (ref. item 10 above), the State Attorney sent a letter to the city advising them that due to budgetary constraints, his office could no longer prosecute the city's cases. He continues on to say he would swear in a city paid prosecutor as an Asst. State Attorney to assist the city's prosecution of ordinance violations.

15. The State's prosecutor in this Appeal is the same one appointed and paid by the city but designated as a State Attorney. This appointment allows the practice of using state criminal procedures for non-criminal ordinance violations to continue. The State is not a party to these proceedings, neither inn the lower court nor this court. For this reason alone, this court could reverse the lower court and dismiss the case.

16. In addition, the conditions under which the State had previously prosecuted on behalf of the City of St. Augustine never required that the State prosecute city ordinances, but that the State Attorney would prosecute for the City, in addition to his or her responsibilities under Section § 27.02, Fla. Sta. (2000).

17. The Charging Affidavit's were clearly marked and checked by the charging Officers as Ord., or Ordinance. Nonetheless, the magistrates Tinlin and Alexander overlooked that designation in favor of the State's designation of criminal charges under the misdemeanor procedures.

18. The lower court compounded error within the oral arguments for the motion to dismiss. On page 90 of the Record on Appeal (page 12 of the transcript), the court states, "But the ordinance says that a violation of this particular statute constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree punishable by up to 160 days in jail."

19. The municipal ordinance is not a state statute, nor does the municipality have the authority to usurp the State Legislative authority and designate a violation of its municipal ordinances as a State criminal offense. The city's use of the misdemeanor punishment within it's ordinance, coupled with the State's unlawful prosecution and the designation of the civil ordinance violation with a misdemeanor code misled the court and explains how the error was introduced into these proceedings.

20. The lower court erred by failing to dismiss the charges and suppress the information on the basis that the warrant was falsely obtained, invalid, and contrary to procedure, an obvious violation of appellants rights to due process of law and equal protection/enforcement of law as provided by the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 1, which states, " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."

21. Appellant provided evidence during the oral argument that material information was kept from the magistrate issuing the warrants that might have dissuaded said magistrate from signing those warrants. Explicitly, appellant was engaged in political speech with his music, protesting criminal misconduct by the same SAPD Officers bringing the charges. The officers knew of the political nature of the alleged infraction but kept that information from the court prior to the issuance of the warrants, and that dismissing or suppressing the information supplied by the State was reasonable for their lie by omission.

22. Further, since the court hearing the case participated inadvertently in the use of the color of state law which violated Appellant's rights for Due Process of law by issuing an invalid warrant, the Court should have recused itself and turned the case over to another court or jurisdiction.

II. Errors in ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance.

23. The court further erred in its order qualifying the designated city ordinance as 'content neutral.' Testimony given by the two arresting officers showed that Jugglers, costumed ghost tour operators and indeed, some musicians were allowed to operate and perform without police intervention, that the enforcement of the ordinance was selectively done.

24. In addition, though the appellant was charged with violating the 'street performer' ordinance, that ordinance defined an artist creating and selling his wares as a "performer." The ordinance states that any performer may perform anywhere in the city other than the designated four blocks, or fifty feet away from the prohibited area.

25. The city commission, in an attempt to use clever law enforcement strategies to avoid judicial censor, wrote a second ordinance and passed it the same day they passed the street performer ordinance. The vendor ordinance defines an artist creating and selling his wares as a vendor and prohibits said vending anywhere in the Historic District except for the plaza, requiring an expensive permit and regulations subject to arbitrary changes at the discretion of the city manager.

26. According to testimony during the trial by SAPD Officer Barry Fox, an artist performer could not 'perform' fifty feet from the prohibited area because of the conjoined enforcement of the vendor ordinance. He testified that his discretion allows him to arrest an offender artist in an area allowed to a musical performer, because of this second ordinance.

27. Thus, the city is regulating content, allowing Jugglers and ghost tours to perform; allowing costumed city employees to pose for pictures and perform within the prohibited area; and allowing one class of performer (musicians) to perform fifty feet away from the prohibited area, but not allowing an artist creating and selling his wares (performer as defined by the street performer ordinance) to perform in the same place.

28. Since the city is regulating content, the lower court erred in its finding the ordinance content neutral and should have ruled the ordinance unconstitutional on its face, and as applied.

III. Legal Allegations as to all claims and arguments contained in this brief.

29. All actions referenced above and taken by City and State were under the color of state law.

30. The artistic and political expression engaged in by Appellant Jolley is constitutionally protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

31. The action of the city as argued by appellant in enacting and the city and state's enforcing ordinance 2000-41 have intentionally caused or permitted the appellant, a citizen of the United States, to be deprived of his rights, privileges and immunities secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as protected by Congress under 42 U.S.C.§1983.

32. Ordinance No. 2000-41 on it's face and/or as applied violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in that:

a) it is unconstitutionally vague in that it allows unbridled discretion in every instance;

b) It is not content neutral, it is a content-based prohibition on constitutionally protected speech and expression, which contains no appropriate constitutional safeguards to guide its enforcement thereby allowing a complete though selectively enforced prohibition on protected speech and activities;

c) It is a content-based prohibition on constitutionally protected speech and expression, which contains inadequate standards for the exercise of discretion in its enforcement and allows the complete prohibition of protected activity for one class of performer while allowing another class of performer free reign in the same 'prohibited' area;

d) It is unconstitutionally overbroad in that it encompasses within its scope activity such as political expression which is clearly protected by the guarantees of free speech and assembly and freedom of religion protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United states;

e) It is constitutionally vague in that it fails to establish any ascertainable standard of guilt;

f) It is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that it is susceptible of sweeping and improper application and it is not narrowly tailored to support any substantial governmental interest;

g) To the extent that it incorporates statutes or ordinances that are unconstitutional it is pro tonto unconstitutional;

h) Ordinance 2000-41 was adopted with a predominately censorial purpose making it an unconstitutional restraint on protected activity. The ordinance was enforced and prosecuted against musician/politician appellant without a legitimate constitutional purpose in an attempt to chase street performers away from the St. George Street Historical Area.

33. The enforcement of the ordinance against protesters, musicians and visual artists has had and will continue to have a chilling effect on the constitutionally protected activities of the Appellant.

34. Ordinance 2000-41 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution on its face.

35. Enforcement of Ordinance 2000-41 violates 42 U.S.C.§1982.

36. Appellant request of the court that the lower court be reversed in its findings on the constitutionality of the ordinance, both on its face and as applied; and that the guilty verdict be reversed and vacated.
ROGER JOLLEY
APPELLANT

By: ____________________________

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY JAMES WHITEHOUSE, OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY, St. Johns County Courthouse, 4010 Lewis Speedway, St. Augustine, Florida, 32095, via facsimile machine this 30th day of November, 2002.

ROGER JOLLEY
APPELLANT

By: _____________________________
82 Kingsferry Way
St. Augustine, Florida 32084

Saint Aug Dog Publisher Submits BOYCOTT Proposal To ACLU
 
Called Pocket Power™, this value based spending program seeks to eliminate protectionist laws.
The Publisher of the BANNED 'Saint Aug Dog' Newspaper has proposed a BOYCOTT plan to the ACLU: Called 'Pocket Power™' this BOYCOTT plan is the result of frustration with non responsive government. Highly focused 'Pocket Power™' BOYCOTTS will restore power to the average citizen and make government more responsive.
The concept is to create awareness of the power of value based spending and to condition people to thinking of every penny they spend as a 'vote'. Appealing to patriotism, "Vote' with your money every day!" is the key slogan. "You don't have to buy from those who deny you your Civil Liberties!" said the publisher, "It is very patriotic and you don't have to wait until the next election or for a crooked judiciary that is slower than a snail's ass!

READ & HEED!

Power concedes nothing without demand! Those who have neglected the duties of good citizenship, for what ever reason, bear full responsibility, for the incremental loss of our freedoms and the theft of the fruits of our labors that is going on in America today.

Those simple duties of good citizenship ignored in the past have now become the struggle of today.

This struggle ignored today, can and will, become the more tyrannical enslavement of your future!

By not fulfilling your patriotic obligation to the politics of America in the past you have allowed those criminals who have hijacked our government for there own selfish ends to attain great power. Left unchecked, this power will only become more tyrannical. That criminal power must be eliminated. Those who malinger and hope and dream of change without involvement are fools.

It never did and it never will . . . . Consider these words of Frederick Douglas, a former slave, spoken in 1857:

Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reforms. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of struggle . . . . . If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will . . . .
 

And this from the poet Shelly . . .

Rise like lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number!

Shake your chains to earth, like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you-

Ye are many; they are few!

 

Get to work America, make the links, send your protests, let them know we are awake and we are out here!

Warren Celli,

Publisher BANNED 'Saint Aug Dog'

 

 © WC&A 2002

E-Bits!

Coming soon, that long promised Fountain Of Baloney™ song.

Meanwhile, you can . . .

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!

 

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!

BOYCOTT!

You do not have to support the businesses that are responsible for enacting and maintaining these unfair and oppressive laws that ban art, music, and newspapers.

Use your Pocket Power™, the power of the money in your pocket, to stop tyranny!

It is called value based spending!

You can choose to BOYCOTT those who do not share your American values!