Legal Beagle input needed...UPDATE POST 145 - Page 5

[moondiapers]

Could your neighborhood vote to become a gated community, and put up gates to prevent him from entering?

[ccohenou]

I really can't imagine any major journalistic outlet covering a story like that without mentioning what the other side was all about. Just saying.

[SleeplessMommy]

As Fex and Fuzz mentioned, anti-cruising laws are the way to go. They are instituted for safety in many college towns to keep dumb inebriated college kids from circling the main drag. Get the anti-cruising law first, for *safety* then worry about getting it enforced.

You could also try lowering the speed limit on your street - there could be fewer passes of the truck during daylight hours. I assume he obeys the speed limit and has a valid commercial drivers license?

How much have you been in contact with state representatives? You have dozens or hundreds of affected families, and dozens of kids in therapy. Your state lawmakers may be able to help or to direct you to someone who can. It is not about the "political issue", it is about harm to your kids. Even the lawmakers on "that side" of the issue will understand that kids are being harmed.

I think a Twitter feed (sent to cell phones!) could be used to keep track of the truck - at a national level. You could have a private Yahoo or Google group to track sightings and coordinate legal efforts across state lines. That group could also coordinate fund raising efforts on a multi-state basis, though you can't directly disclose your legal strategy because you can expect to get "moles".

Have you talked with anyone from the major national non-profit they are protesting? I am sure that non-profit has a pretty big legal team to deal with protesters and make strategies.

Has anyone tried taking the truck driver to small claims court for the therapy costs? The cause and effect sounds pretty definite. Of course the truck driver will never pay, but the court ruling would be one more evidence of harm caused by the truck. If you could get the truck confiscated to pay for the therapy, that would be super

If you can find a sympathetic local judge, you may be able to get a restraining order against the truck driver. Bring testimony from the therapist. Get the restraining order first, THEN worry about getting it enforced.

If you can find out which insurance company covers the truck, they may be interested to hear how it is being used. Driving near schools while kids are outside is more likely to have costly accidents than "normal" use of a moving truck.

If you look a the recent Iowa decision to allow gay marriage, big changes are made by a combination of local and national groups, working mostly in secret until the big day comes. You will need the national group, a local group, and your state legislators all working together.

I am sorry you have to deal with all this!

[marimara]

I didn't see it mentioned at all but some neighborhoods have "no Through traffic" and "no trucks" in them. idk if that's an option for you though.

[New_Natural_Mom]

I have encountered this group before, unfortunately, and ran up against the SAME 'police impotence.' This group bothers me on so many levels, mainly though the negativity and hypocritical hate that contributes to a polarizing dialog rather than a positive, peaceful discussion.

Sorry, had to say that, on to my probably illogical idea. This group has to be funded somehow. Obviously they encourage donations from like minded people to help pay for gas, truck maintenance, legal issues, etc. Might there be a way to legally classify this as advertising? Don't you technically need a permit to put up an advertisement or drive through a community or go door to door? There should be a restriction against advertising...not violating free speech. I just don't understand how this can be legal. And I totally support discovering who the judge is and exposing him.

: This is not an exercise of free speech, it is a blatant assault on others.

[AdinaL]

Hey folks, this is now in Activism. Please remember that there is no debate in Activism. If you don't agree with a cause, scroll on by. If you have a valid counter cause, please post a new thread to Activism.

Thanks for keeping this thread as civil as it has been

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by moondiapers

Could your neighborhood vote to become a gated community, and put up gates to prevent him from entering?

I believe that the OP was asking earlier in the thread how to do this. (It’s OK if you missed it. It’s a long thread!)

If the OP lives in an HOA-run subdivision, it sounds like she would be successful rallying her neighbors to put up the gate. It would involve increasing annual dues to pay for it, but it sounds like there would be enough support.

If she is NOT in an HOA, unfortunately I don’t think it would be possible. Traditional neighborhoods have public parks and sidewalks with grassy “buffer zones” and trees for the city to maintain. So the city would need immediate access to it.

Originally Posted by New_Natural_Mom

I have encountered this group before, unfortunately, and ran up against the SAME 'police impotence.'

Theoretica, for clarification, is this a group? Or some nutcase acting alone?

You might also have success in rallying people together who agree with him on the surface of the issue but wouldn’t dare resort to such horrid tactics. You’d be surprised how many you could get on board. On any side of any issue, MOST people are pretty level-headed and not extremists. Their voice could be a compelling one.

I'm so sorry you're having to go through this! I can't even imagine answering the questions that the children must have. This is no way to broach a sensitive topic with them!

[Court]

How about suing the city for not enforcing it's laws? Or suing the city for emotional distress after getting it all documented. The street in front of the house is where the nuisance and assault is occuring...the street belongs to the city...the city refuses to do anything about it, like update and enforce it's laws...therefore...city responsible for emotional distress...
crazy?

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by Turquesa

Theoretica, for clarification, is this a group? Or some nutcase acting alone?

It is a group. The group has large numbers of contributors and very small number of people who do the truck driving and other actions. The people doing the driving are lifelong activists. They may have criminal records from various protests or actions, but it does not matter - members of the larger group will keep them fed or employed. Jail time, when it comes to that, actually helps with the fund raising.

I am wondering is a criminal record is a problem with a commercial drivers license in any midwestern states?

I think the fix will be legislation at a state level (public decency laws) combined with the legal battle at the federal level - group X has a right to free speech, but not a right to traumatize children so that they need therapy.

[sapphire_chan]

Is a CDL even needed though? The truck was described as a "moving truck."

[New_Natural_Mom]

I thought more about this last night. Could this be classified as hate speech? They couldn't go around with pictures of gay/lesbian couples or black individuals on the truck and have it be protected as free speech...I wonder if it could fall under hate speech?

[ccohenou]

My lawyer-in-the-house says that a local ordinance would be the way to go - and it needs to be content neutral as much as possible. Cruising could be one - also some areas have prohibitions on driving trucks for the purpose of advertising *anything* d/t the street wear and environmental costs - or could go for no graphic bloody sexual or disturbing images over so many inches to be displayed in public or in residential areas. But the more specific it is to the issue at hand, the more likely it would lead to extensive litigation I think. It needs to have a very clear and reasonable purpose outside of suppressing this group's expression of its particular views.

[PudnHead]

Exceptions to Freedom of Expression
Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from England that was the basis of our American legal system.

Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. (2) This is narrowly limited to situations in which a reasonable person would know that it was very likely that his or her speech would really cause harm to others.
Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

Wow, I didn't know people were doing this. I did a quick search and one of the exceptions of freedom of speech is causing panic. I bolded the most interesting part. Would this extend to pictures? I can't remember if you said you had a lawyer. Could you document the time he is coming by to show that he is intentionally driving by at times when children are out of school and intentionally inflicting harm on children?

[sapphire_chan]

Are pictures speech?

Not that them yelling things to kids would be any better, but wouldn't it be lovely if they could only cover the truck with words?

"hey kids, read this!"

[StoriesInTheSoil]

Theoretica, I wanted to let you know I'm still following this and still asking around. My dad said that you should try to pass cruising laws but could police even enforce them with this guy?

I think that when (if) you go to the media it should remain non-specific and focus only on the fact that 1) Children are being traumatized and are terrified and 2) a federal judge is allowing it to go on.

What was the case that brought this in front of a judge in the first place (you can PM me on this one if you want.)

I am horrified by the situation you are in right now and I'm sending you and your neighborhood good thoughts and peaceful vibes.

[2cutiekitties]

Is moving out of the neighborhood an option? I mean it seems like except a gate (which you cant do) there is nothing. We have an HOA and the sign says not to solicit ... stops no one!!

I am dying to know why he is targeting your neighborhood. I am going to be house hunting soon and I really dont want to end up in this situation. The unknown is so scary

Hugs to you. No one should have to deal with crap like this in neighborhoods.

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by 2cutiekitties

I am dying to know why he is targeting your neighborhood.

I don't know her specific situation, but there are two obvious possible reasons: 1) a person in her neighborhood works for the non-profit organization that the "truck" group is targeting. The non-profit probably has dozens of employees, all whose names are known get targeted with the truck, death threats, etc - as do their children's schools. 2) there is a middle school or high school nearby.

[Theoretica]

Sorry I haven't had a chance to sit and reply to everyone, thanks so much for the continued support and interest. The 'out of the box' ideas are exactly what we need to get around this guy.

Originally Posted by cristeen

approach it from the angle of a Federal judge violating your rights for a special interest group. That the local police force has been ordered that they're not allowed to enforce the laws against this one person, but they're still expected to enforce them against everyone else. By all means include the trauma to the children, but avoid the subject matter entirely if at all possible. *That* tact may very well start a furor going that invoking the subject matter won't. There's such a distrust of politicians (and judges are politicians too), that this approach may get you further.

That's what I was thinking too. I'm going to detail this to the neighborhood as it makes the most sense. We can't get the order vacated, but as far as the media route this is the best chance we've got.

Originally Posted by Treasuremapper

Common law causes of action do not require you to change statutory law or city ordinances or regulations. This is CIVIL, not criminal, at this point in time, so the police cannot help you without a statuory change.You need to find a local lawyer who can help you with this.

We're definitely going the route of changing the laws, but the civil route is a definite as well. The key is finding the lawyer...that's where we keep running dry as no one wants to touch it.

Originally Posted by Ironica

This finally occurred to me, too. See if you can get a journalist to cover the story of someone deliberately and maliciously flaunting violent, graphic images at your children, causing them emotional harm, and hiding under the cover of "free speech," without ever mentioning what the subject matter is, what the agenda is, or what organization is behind it. Focus on this one guy, your neighborhood, the lengths you've gone to, this Federal judge who doesn't have to wake up in the night to your children's nightmares and has decided this guy has a right to do this. Give them NO PUBLICITY. Just tell *your* story. What you'd want to do is develop a personal contact who's a journalist, and make the release you all sign conditional upon this point. If they want to cover the story including that information, they can... but they can't use the images of anyone in the neighborhood, or any quotes from them, to do it. It will take some time, and you might do best finding an independent journalist who will submit the article to the New Yorker or something like that, rather than a conventional newspaper. (And I think print is probably a better medium for this than TV.)

ITA, the thing is the pictures are what sell the papers, and unfortunately the intensity of the graphics is what gets the journalistic furor all a flutter. Otherwise it's not that interesting of a story, AND it doesn't affect the national audience. It's when the 'rest of the story' is added that people realize how much it affects them.

Originally Posted by moondiapers

Could your neighborhood vote to become a gated community, and put up gates to prevent him from entering?

Yeahhhhhh I doubt it. We don't have a layout conducive to that anyways. I wish.

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

As Fex and Fuzz mentioned, anti-cruising laws are the way to go. They are instituted for safety in many college towns to keep dumb inebriated college kids from circling the main drag. Get the anti-cruising law first, for *safety* then worry about getting it enforced.

You could also try lowering the speed limit on your street - there could be fewer passes of the truck during daylight hours. I assume he obeys the speed limit and has a valid commercial drivers license?

How much have you been in contact with state representatives? You have dozens or hundreds of affected families, and dozens of kids in therapy. Your state lawmakers may be able to help or to direct you to someone who can. It is not about the "political issue", it is about harm to your kids. Even the lawmakers on "that side" of the issue will understand that kids are being harmed.

I think a Twitter feed (sent to cell phones!) could be used to keep track of the truck - at a national level. You could have a private Yahoo or Google group to track sightings and coordinate legal efforts across state lines. That group could also coordinate fund raising efforts on a multi-state basis, though you can't directly disclose your legal strategy because you can expect to get "moles".

Have you talked with anyone from the major national non-profit they are protesting? I am sure that non-profit has a pretty big legal team to deal with protesters and make strategies.

Has anyone tried taking the truck driver to small claims court for the therapy costs? The cause and effect sounds pretty definite. Of course the truck driver will never pay, but the court ruling would be one more evidence of harm caused by the truck. If you could get the truck confiscated to pay for the therapy, that would be super

If you can find a sympathetic local judge, you may be able to get a restraining order against the truck driver. Bring testimony from the therapist. Get the restraining order first, THEN worry about getting it enforced.

If you can find out which insurance company covers the truck, they may be interested to hear how it is being used. Driving near schools while kids are outside is more likely to have costly accidents than "normal" use of a moving truck.

If you look a the recent Iowa decision to allow gay marriage, big changes are made by a combination of local and national groups, working mostly in secret until the big day comes. You will need the national group, a local group, and your state legislators all working together.

I'll look into the anti-cruising laws. The thing is, we already have it in the original law that patrolling an area where they aren't wanted is illegal. They just can't enforce it now. Restraining orders have been tried and the driver's legal team has appealed until they are vacated. State representatives are 'concerned' about our 'situation' but have stressed that they can do nothing other than listen because they don't want to give the impression they are 'taking sides'. That should tell you how powerful the group is that funds this driver. Not sure how we'd find the insurance company of the truck, but that's an interesting idea for sure and I'll do some digging. We have a private yahoo group, that was one of the first things I got going, ITA about that one.

And, he isn't protesting a national non profit. He's protesting a topic. So there's no legal team to back us up. I am in contact with some national groups that advocate for that topic, but they aren't directly connected or involved. Interestingly, they knew his name as soon as I mentioned it and I did get patched through to their legal team within seconds...:

Originally Posted by marimara

I didn't see it mentioned at all but some neighborhoods have "no Through traffic" and "no trucks" in them. idk if that's an option for you though.

I think he'd wriggle out under 'free speech', or just get bigger picket signs for walking the neighborhood, but it's worth looking into and I put it on the list

Originally Posted by New_Natural_Mom

This group has to be funded somehow. Obviously they encourage donations from like minded people to help pay for gas, truck maintenance, legal issues, etc. Might there be a way to legally classify this as advertising? Don't you technically need a permit to put up an advertisement or drive through a community or go door to door? There should be a restriction against advertising...not violating free speech. I just don't understand how this can be legal. And I totally support discovering who the judge is and exposing him.

It's not advertising, it's protesting. There's no product involved. I know who the judge is that signed the federal order. Until we get a lawyer there's nothing we can do about that end of it.

Originally Posted by AdinaL

Hey folks, this is now in Activism. Please remember that there is no debate in Activism. If you don't agree with a cause, scroll on by. If you have a valid counter cause, please post a new thread to Activism.

Thanks for keeping this thread as civil as it has been

Yeayyyyyy! Thanks so much!

Originally Posted by Turquesa

If the OP lives in an HOA-run subdivision, it sounds like she would be successful rallying her neighbors to put up the gate. It would involve increasing annual dues to pay for it, but it sounds like there would be enough support.

If she is NOT in an HOA, unfortunately I don’t think it would be possible. Traditional neighborhoods have public parks and sidewalks with grassy “buffer zones” and trees for the city to maintain. So the city would need immediate access to it.

Theoretica, for clarification, is this a group? Or some nutcase acting alone?

You might also have success in rallying people together who agree with him on the surface of the issue but wouldn’t dare resort to such horrid tactics. You’d be surprised how many you could get on board. On any side of any issue, MOST people are pretty level-headed and not extremists. Their voice could be a compelling one.

We're not in an HOA.

It's an individual who is funded by a national group. It's done very carefully so there's no 'official' connection, but the national group donates all funds to him to support what he does.

Originally Posted by Court

How about suing the city for not enforcing it's laws? Or suing the city for emotional distress after getting it all documented. The street in front of the house is where the nuisance and assault is occuring...the street belongs to the city...the city refuses to do anything about it, like update and enforce it's laws...therefore...city responsible for emotional distress...
crazy?

ITA...working on the lawyer aspect.

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

It is a group. The group has large numbers of contributors and very small number of people who do the truck driving and other actions. The people doing the driving are lifelong activists. They may have criminal records from various protests or actions, but it does not matter - members of the larger group will keep them fed or employed. Jail time, when it comes to that, actually helps with the fund raising.

I am wondering is a criminal record is a problem with a commercial drivers license in any midwestern states?

I think the fix will be legislation at a state level (public decency laws) combined with the legal battle at the federal level - group X has a right to free speech, but not a right to traumatize children so that they need therapy.

Your description of the workings of this group are very accurate.

ITA re: decency law definitions

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

Is a CDL even needed though? The truck was described as a "moving truck."

Exactly. It's the largest one allowed without a CDL.

Originally Posted by New_Natural_Mom

I thought more about this last night. Could this be classified as hate speech? They couldn't go around with pictures of gay/lesbian couples or black individuals on the truck and have it be protected as free speech...I wonder if it could fall under hate speech?

Nope. Not here at least.

Originally Posted by ccohenou

My lawyer-in-the-house says that a local ordinance would be the way to go - and it needs to be content neutral as much as possible. Cruising could be one - also some areas have prohibitions on driving trucks for the purpose of advertising *anything* d/t the street wear and environmental costs - or could go for no graphic bloody sexual or disturbing images over so many inches to be displayed in public or in residential areas. But the more specific it is to the issue at hand, the more likely it would lead to extensive litigation I think. It needs to have a very clear and reasonable purpose outside of suppressing this group's expression of its particular views.

Yep we're pushing the city council to redefine their obscenity laws.

Originally Posted by PudnHead

Exceptions to Freedom of Expression
Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from England that was the basis of our American legal system.

Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. (2) This is narrowly limited to situations in which a reasonable person would know that it was very likely that his or her speech would really cause harm to others.
Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

Wow, I didn't know people were doing this. I did a quick search and one of the exceptions of freedom of speech is causing panic. I bolded the most interesting part. Would this extend to pictures? I can't remember if you said you had a lawyer. Could you document the time he is coming by to show that he is intentionally driving by at times when children are out of school and intentionally inflicting harm on children?

I think this is a good angle for when we are able to head to court.

Originally Posted by tinyactsofcharity

Theoretica, I wanted to let you know I'm still following this and still asking around. My dad said that you should try to pass cruising laws but could police even enforce them with this guy?

I think that when (if) you go to the media it should remain non-specific and focus only on the fact that 1) Children are being traumatized and are terrified and 2) a federal judge is allowing it to go on.

What was the case that brought this in front of a judge in the first place (you can PM me on this one if you want.)

See that's the thing, we can change the laws all we want, but if the police are ordered not to enforce them...what the @$#*(&#$ do we do about it???

Originally Posted by 2cutiekitties

Is moving out of the neighborhood an option?

No. It would solve the problem for us, but not anyone else.

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

I don't know her specific situation, but there are two obvious possible reasons: 1) a person in her neighborhood works for the non-profit organization that the "truck" group is targeting. The non-profit probably has dozens of employees, all whose names are known get targeted with the truck, death threats, etc - as do their children's schools. 2) there is a middle school or high school nearby.

Try elementary school. And there's an opponent to their 'cause' in our neighborhood who, BTW is one of the nicest and kindest people I've ever encountered. With the exception of a few folks, the entire neighborhood has rallied around the 'opponent' and made it clear 'the driver' isn't going to run them out of the neighborhood, it'll be the other way around thankyouverykindly

Wish me luck, I'm returning calls to the media and several legal organizations...I'll keep everyone posted

[ccohenou]

The thing is that it is *really hard* to make an obscenity charge stick to political speech. Usually it would have to be a direct incitement to violence with a reasonable chance that violence or other threat to life or limb will imminently occur to count under the panic/incitement exceptions. It's really, really hard to win a stand-alone claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress - in some places it is actually legally impossible. Political speech, even the ugly and disturbing kind, has a very high level of constitutional protection and anything that affects it is likely to be heavily scrutinized in court. I think that ordinances dealing with repeatedly driving around period, with a totally non-speech-related purpose ie safety or street wear, might be the best option.

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

... with a totally non-speech-related purpose ie safety or street wear, might be the best option.

I would go with safety on this one. Then the federal judge will be choosing between the safety of kids playing in or near the street (get some photos!) and the "free speech rights" of the group in question.