SWAINSBORO GEORGIA WHERE THE CONSTITUTION CAME TO DIE & VETS THAT FOUGHT FOR IT DISHONORED BY MAYOR, AL LAWSON & CITY COUNCIL

Today as I celebrate Veterans day in a town that dishonors all Vets and Mocks the blood of all Soldiers who died for the Constitution in Swainsboro Georgia by making unconstitutional ordinances taking 4 of the God Given Rights away I thought I will send all the numerous emails, Supreme Court Rulings both US and Georgia Constitution trying to get these unhonorable Mayor Schwabe, Al Lawson the worse and unhonorable City Council that I have tried and tried to get them to Honor Vets by giving all of us back our God Given Rights they took away, but no matter how much law I send or emails I send they don't give a dam enough about Vets or the people of this town to give us our rights all Vets fought for,
SHAME ON YOU MAYOR SCHWABE, AL LAWSON, CITY COUNCIL FOR U HAVE NO HONOR AND IF U DON'T GIVE US OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS BACK, I WILL BLOG YOUR CORRUPT, UNCONSTITUTIONAL CITY AND U INTO OBLIVION ALL OVER THE NET AND WORLD AND ASK NO ONE TO COME TO THIS TOWN THAT CARE ABOUT AMERICA, THE CONSTITUTION OR VETS THAT GAVE THEIR ALL FOR U TO TAKE ALL FROM US, SHAME ON YOU

HERE ARE SOME OF THE MANY EMAILS ON SUPREME COURT RULINGS SHOWING THIS TOWN JUST HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEY ARE, BUT AS I SAID THEY HAVE NO HONOR SO THEY DON'T CARE WHAT SUPREME COURT SAYS, THEY MUST THINK THEY ARE GOD HERE IN SWAINSBORO AND THEREFOR CAN TAKE THE RIGHTS GIVEN TO US BY GOD AND FOUGHT FOR BY VET'S

I also sent this Supreme court law and what happened to me, to Swainsboro Chief of Police, so I can do at VA lady on hotline advised me to do and have ACLU, take this as a violation of my constitutional right and to put a stop to the police terrorising, harrassing, threatening a 61 Year old vet with severe PTSD, and two rare deadly diseases both set off by police officers on July 3rd and July 6th,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Betty RoundHead Native American and Veteran FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNHONORABLE MAYOR SCHWABE, AL LAWSON AND SWAINSBORO GEORGIA CITY COUNCIL SHAME ON YOU

 

Belovw are the numerous cases brought and won, because cussing or giving cops the fnger and even other stuff are protected under constitution as my freedom of speech and expression

I really do hope that as officers you are sworn to uphold and protect the United States Constitution and since you said you where unaware that your officers violated my constitutional rights, I as a Veteran fought for, I am sending you multiple cases in which cussing, giving finger to, arqueing with and questioning cops in loud tone as to the violation of my rights and cussing and giving up finger, not being ugly as you told me, but it is my freedom of speech and freedom of expression and it is uncontitutional for u to threaten me, harass me, for exercising the rights of the constitution I fought for and only happened because your officers first raised their voices and threatened me in aggressive manner which not only set off my military  relates severe PTSD but endangered my life, by setting off my mast cells, that not only send me into a total state of medical psychosis, but allergic shock that almost killed me, for when you or your officers threaten to take me to jail, that is the same as giving me a death sentence as if I went to jail I would die from the numerous psychosis and resultiing allergic reactions and shock as I cannot eat, smell, breathe or be around any thing unatural, chemical, fumes, pesticide, household cleaners anything and stress is the major aggregator of mast cells and that one will send me into medical psychosis and could instantly kill me
So now that I am sending you this, I ask only that you take into consideration that I am a very sick 61 year old woman veteran with severe PTSD because of aggressive men and have two very rare disease, one causing my blood not to clot and I will bleed all over and I have Heptitis B and C, and my other very rare disease Systemic mastocytosis, which can cause me psychosis or death, which as now caused me to be terrified to live here or even to go outside my door and has caused me to be very sick and in total state of depression

 

 

Introduction Under what circumstances, if at all, can police officers arrest citizens for ¡°contempt of cop,¡± verbal challenges, profanity, or disrespect? Under what circumstances is criticism of police, even if couched in abusive or profane terms, constitutionally protected free speech? This article briefly looks at some key U.S. Supreme Court cases on the topic. It then examines lower court decisions in which a broad right of freedom of expression to criticize police was found. That is followed by a presentation of some cases in which courts have upheld arrests that were arguably speech-related because the arrestee.s conduct crossed the line from pure advocacy of ideas to fighting words, active obstruction of officers, or incitement to imminent unlawful actions, including violence.

 

 

302
ľ Supreme Court Rulings
An important decision establishing a dividing line concerning what words alone can be criminalized is Brandenburg v. Ohio, #492, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), setting forth the legal standard that even advocacy of unlawful acts may not be criminally punished unless they amount to ¡§incitement to imminent lawless action.¡¨ This was distinguished from ¡§mere advocacy¡¨ of unlawful conduct, including violence.

 

In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, #70-5323, 415 U.S. 130 (1974), a woman yelled obscenities and threats at an officer who had asked her husband to show his driver.s license. She was convicted of violating an ordinance making it a crime ¡°for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.¡± The U.S. Supreme Court held that such an ordinance was overbroad and vacated the conviction, commenting that ¡°a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint¡± than an average private person, and therefore be less likely ¡°to respond belligerently¡± to fighting words.
The leading modern U.S. Supreme Court case on the right of members of the public to express criticism of the police is Houston v. Hill, #86-243, 482 U.S. 451 (1987). In this case, a man shouted at police officers to try to divert their attention from his friend during a confrontation. He was then arrested for willfully interrupting an officer by verbal challenge during an investigation. The arresting officers claimed that this violated an ordinance making it unlawful to ¡°to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty.¡± The arrestee was acquitted of the charges, and sued, claiming that the ordinance was unconstitutional and violative of his First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. Taken literally, it criminalized a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, the Court stated. It further provided officers with unbridled discretion as to who to arrest for purported violations.

 

“The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state,” the Court concluded. In a myriad of cases, the lower courts have applied these principles, allowing members of the public broad freedom of expression to criticize police, even very harshly, while drawing the line at speech, or speech joined with conduct, that involves the utterance of fighting words, active obstruction of officers performing their duties, or incitement to imminent acts of violence or other unlawful acts.

 

Broad freedom of expression Criticism of police officers, cursing at them, and even making disrespectful or profane gestures towards them, such as ¡°giving them the finger¡± have been held to be protected First Amendment speech by many courts.
In Kennedy v. City of Villa Hills, #09-6442, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5985 (6th Cir.), the court ruled that an officer who arrested a man for disorderly conduct after he called the officer an ¡°SOB¡± and a ¡°flat slob¡± was not entitled to qualified immunity from a federal civil rights claim. The arrestee.s voice may not have been loud enough to be unreasonable, and the officer.s decision to arrest him may have been motivated by retaliation against the arrestee for exercising his First Amendment rights.
Similarly, in Duran v. City of Douglas, Arizona, #89-15236, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990), a federal appeals court held that profanities and obscene gestures directed at ao

police officer by a car passenger were speech and conduct protected by the First Amendment.

See also Nichols v. Chacon, #99-5180, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (W.D. Ark. 2000), in which a federal trial court ruled that a motorist.s gesture of displaying his middle finger to an officer driving by was protected First Amendment speech. The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity and could be held liable for arresting the motorist for disorderly conduct.
General criticism of police, even if expressed in abusive terms, is generally protected free speech. In Resek v. City of Huntington Beach, #01-56029, 41 Fed. Appx. 57 (9th Cir. 2002), the court found that a police officer did not act reasonably in arresting a man for shouting abusive comments at officers and answering them with sarcasm, which ¡°amounted to no more than criticism of the police¡± and did not constitute either fighting words or incitement of others to imminent unlawful violence.
See also, Johnson v. Campbell, #02-3580, 332 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2003), in which a federal appeals court granted judgment as a matter of law to an African-American high school basketball coach arrested by a police officer solely for calling him a ¡°son of a bitch.¡± The arrestee.s statement did not constitute ¡°fighting words,¡± and were therefore protected by the First Amendment.
In Greene v. Barber, #01-1247, 310 F.3d 889 (6th Cir. 2002), the court held that an arrestee, in characterizing an officer as an ¡°asshole,¡± did not say anything sufficient to place the statement outside the protection of the First Amendment as ¡°fighting words.¡± Additionally, even if the officer had probable cause to make an arrest for violation of the city.s civil disturbance ordinance, there would be no justification for the arrest if the officer actually was motivated by retaliation for the arrestee.s statements prior to the arrest.
In Gulliford v. Pierce County, #96-35614, 136 F.3d 1345 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 1998 U.S. Lexis 4989, the court ruled that verbal protests or challenges to the police are permitted, even if they knowingly hinder, delay or obstruct the police. The appeals court ruled that, to be criminal, the words must be fighting words.

 

305
Incitement of imminent lawless action was required in Spier v. Elaesser, #C-l-01-054, 267 F. Supp. 2d 806 (S.D. Ohio 2003), before First Amendment protection could be lost for harsh criticism of the police. The court found that an arrestee.s chanting of words in protest of the police requirement that persons seeking to attend a protest rally submit to a pat down search, including ¡°two, four, six, eight, fuck the police state,¡± was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment for which he could not face arrest for disorderly conduct in the absence of any evidence that his words presented a ¡°clear and present danger¡± of a violent reaction by the crowd. The arresting officer, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, since he believed that the arrestee was trying to incite the crowd, which had become disorderly the previous day.
Mere distraction is insufficient for speech to constitute interference with or obstructing an officer. In DeRosa v. Sheriff of Collier County, Florida, #10-14046, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4057 (Unplub. 11th Cir.), after a deputy stopped her husband.s car, in which she was a passenger, and ticketed him for failing to dim its high beam lights, a woman called 911 to express her fears of the deputy, who she described as ¡°shaking, agitated, and nervous,¡± and requested that other officers meet the couple at a local gas station, because the deputy had activated his lights and siren and was following them. She had criticized him during the stop and been told to ¡°shut up.¡± At the gas station, the deputy instructed another officer to arrest the woman for obstructing an officer without violence. The other officer did so, grabbing her arm as she climbed out of the vehicle, dragging her to his patrol car, pushing her against the hood to handcuff her, and then shoving her inside. A federal appeals court found that the deputy did not have probable cause to order the woman.s arrest under these circumstances. Her criticisms of the deputy during and after the traffic stop, even if distracting, did not incite others against, interfere with, or impede the deputy from citing her husband for his traffic infraction.ýïýïý

 

Similarly, in Copeland v. Locke, #09-2485, 613 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2010), a police chief was not entitled to summary judgment in a false arrest lawsuit filed by a man taken into custody for allegedly interfering with official police conduct. The record in the case showed that the arrestee cursed at and “distracted” the police chief, whose car was blocking access to his business. This conduct did indicate that the arrestee intended to

Similarly, in Copeland v. Locke, #09-2485, 613 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2010), a police chief was not entitled to summary judgment in a false arrest lawsuit filed by a man taken into custody for allegedly interfering with official police conduct. The record in the case showed that the arrestee cursed at and ¡°distracted¡± the police chief, whose car was blocking access to his business. This conduct did indicate that the arrestee intended to
306
prevent the chief from completing the traffic stop he was engaged in, but purely expressive conduct, even if distracting, is protected under the First Amendment.
Arrests based solely or largely on the content of speech critical of officers can lead to federal civil rights liability. In Lowe v. Spears, #07-1497, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29488 (Unpub. 4th Cir.), a police officer who allegedly arrested the plaintiff for criticizing him for writing tickets, rather than for illegal parking, was not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit over alleged violation of First Amendment rights. The officer was writing parking tickets, and wrote one for the plaintiff, who tried to explain he was only parking on the sidewalk temporarily in front of his apartment building to unload, and that he was handicapped, with a handicap parking permit. When the plaintiff stepped into the building and warned his employees working at the apartment building that they should move their vehicles because the officer was writing tickets, the officer allegedly stated that he was ¡°tired¡± of the plaintiff.s ¡°mouth,¡± so that the plaintiff was going to jail, grabbing him by the arm and attempting to pull him out of the building. Other officers arrived on the scene and told the officer to leave the plaintiff alone. Making an arrest that was based entirely on an arrestee.s speech opposing or questioning police actions violated the First Amendment.

 

 

Conclusion Making inappropriate arrests of individuals for “contempt of cop” in circumstances where courts will find their actions to be merely the exercise of their First Amendment rights of free speech can be counter-productive, both in terms of community relations and potential civil liability. On the other hand, the right of free speech, which is part of the law and guaranteed freedoms that law enforcement officers are sworn to protect,

 

 

Resources The following are some useful resources related to the subject of this article. Contempt of Cop. Wikipedia article. First Amendment. Case summaries from AELE's Law Enforcement Liability Reporter. ¡°The Importance of Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Protections in American Law Enforcement and Public Safety.¡± a training video developed by the U.S. Department of Justice.s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative.s Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council.õâ