Suit questions legality of ethics panel

Section 161.205

18. Section 161.205 provisions; ‘Frivolous Complaints’ violates Plaintiffs First Amendment and
14th Amendment rights as it creates a new ‘civil tort remedy statute’[beyond constitutionally
established tort remedy laws already in place for redress] and imposes $4,000 civil liability on
complainants and also in absence of “Actual Malice” standard.

Stilp v. Contino , 629 F. Supp. 2d 449, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54547 (M.D. Pa. 2009)Unrestricted Shepard's Summary No subsequent appellate history... Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 273. When an individual [*28] levies charges of ethical improprieties with no other purpose than to harass, a public official must demonstrate that he or she is without civil tort remedies before repression of speech is constitutionally permissible. See generally id.; see also Lind v. Grimmer, 30 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1994)

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964)(doctrine of fair comment requires public official bringing libel action to prove false statements were made with actual malice) Providence Journal, 723 F. Supp 846 (rule which serves to black out all public discussion of the existence and contents of a complaint and punishing disclosure is a ‘prototypical content based regulation of speech’ that ‘attempts to apply the test of truth to the public airing of grievances’-‘the essence of unconstitutional censorship’.

Dehne v. Avanino , 219 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24529 Unrestricted Shepard's Summary: No negative subsequent appellate history. A statute that regulates speech critical of public officials and which implicitly requires the critic to guarantee the truth of every factual assertion made to the Commission on pain of statutorily imposed civil liability (and potential criminal liability) results in self-censorship and discourages public debate. These statutes are not content-neutral laws of general applicability, but are, like the [**20] campaign spending statutes in Lind v. Grimmer, "intended to impose direct and significant restrictions on speech." 30 F.3d 1115 at 1118. The underlying principle of the New York Times standard is the protection of open public debate critical of official conduct, and it applies with equal force when the legislative branch attempts to regulate citizens' comments through a legislatively-created commission. This court finds that N.R.S.§§ 281.525(1) and 281.551(2)(a) regulate protected speech, and that the New York Times standard governs consideration of the constitutionality of the statutes.

What's up Carl? hope you're doing well. I am glad you don't allow the stupid statements people make affect you. You are one in a very few, who are not intimidated by the City. Clearly there is a violation of Constitutional Law, the unfortunate part is that Cardone has this case, and it is quite possible she will find some reason not to abide by constitutional law

thanks license to kill, Cardone will be ok, the other judges maybe too close having ruled on corruption issues...law for all

Well, it seems like eptimes has filtered the word id-io-t .. so, Carl Starr, you're still not the sharpest tool in the shed.

There needs to be an ethics panel. Eliminate a fine (which is really stupid anyway) for ethics filers. And while their at it why not fine the elected officials who are found to be violating ethics. Put some teeth into the public office holders who seem to be able to get into office and racketeering. What idiot fines those who are trying to enforce ethical conduct!

Those fines are directed at the wrong people and are meant to intimidate legitimate filers from coming forward. County Attorney Rodriguez has a good reputation and if I remember correctly was one who thought about bringing this together. There may be a good reason that some fines may be in place for frivolous filers who may abuse that right just to harras ethical office holders.

Texas was considered to be the bible belt but now it is the home of Satan.

If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502592/James-Broa...

National Whistleblower wrote:

Texas was considered to be the bible belt but now it is the home of Satan.
If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502592/James-Broa...

Yes we see you have moved to TX Beelzebub. TX has long been the home to major representatives of the state laws who broke them with abandon.......Bush, Perry, in recent memory.......oh.....Cornyn too.

Seems like you have become the mascot for the Republican party.

clorox wrote:

There needs to be an ethics panel. Eliminate a fine (which is really stupid anyway) for ethics filers. And while their at it why not fine the elected officials who are found to be violating ethics. Put some teeth into the public office holders who seem to be able to get into office and racketeering. What idiot fines those who are trying to enforce ethical conduct!
Those fines are directed at the wrong people and are meant to intimidate legitimate filers from coming forward. County Attorney Rodriguez has a good reputation and if I remember correctly was one who thought about bringing this together. There may be a good reason that some fines may be in place for frivolous filers who may abuse that right just to harras ethical office holders.

There needs to be some sort of ruling that will prevent someone from filing a grudge ethics complaint (Lozano/Acosta, Rachal Quintana or Melina Castro) ring a bell) because that is what has happened repeatedly here.

The Ethics commission should be made up of randomly selected citizens like a jury panel to rule on any charges with lawyers who are also selected at random. 1 year should be the length of term. Political activists should be barred from serving on the panels as should anyone ever connected with an ethics case in the County.