Appeals court rules in favor of city of Santa Cruz in Robert No...

i say we all get together and throw that scum into a hot bath with lots of soap and shave off his yucky beard... dat old guy needs a shower and shave... nasttttyyyyyyy so called activist. NOTTTTTTTTT

i wish robert and becky got hit by a stray metro bus at the same time.

Consider how many homeless services could be funded by the money the city spent on this case. There comes a point when people can be counterproductive to their own cause.

Careful what you wish for people. When they came for those who protested a government that was non-responsive....I did nothing because I did not have an issue with THAT decision " my " government made.

While I agree there needs to be a certain level of decorum and respect shown by both sides in these public matters of discourse....it is a extremely slippery slope to permit the arrest and removal of those who are not in agreement with the majority.

Sure it feels good when you are in the majority and your side " wins "....but God help you if " your " government goes against " your " wishes and decides it is YOU who needs to be arrested and detained.

History has shown us countless examples of governments drunk with power abusing the very privileges we have allowed them to accumulate.

I do believe it is appropriate to remove protesters from public forums that behave like children and attempt to shout down their opposition.

I have long felt that your right to freedom of speech does not supersede my right to free speech.

That is to say....in a public forum it is not acceptable to have one person or group of people act in unison to drown out what another has to say,regardless of what it is that person is attempting to say.

We need to be able to agree to disagree for our Republic to function properly.

I have attended many a public rally in my day only to hear a vocal minority disrupt the meeting due to the minorities determination to make the decision for all of us in attendance that the speaker should not be permitted to put forth their opinion.

They believe they are exercising their freedom of speech when confronted. However, they seem to have no problem denying their opposition the same rights.

And yes, I have noticed this phenomenon to occur far more often with the " left " shouting down anyone who dares disagree with their perspective.

I'm sad to say that most of the time it is those on the " right " ( often portrayed as Nazi's by those on the left ) who are victimized by zealous lefties who actually are the most egregious violators of this principle of permitting your opposition equal time to espouse their views.

Please pay back the city what what it cost to defend this case. Or city, please go after him to get the money back.

Now that the suit is settled, will he be prosecuted for his transgression?

Could this loss mean the tide is finally changing and his power has evaporated..hmmmm

SUE NORSEMAN.

BWAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

Now it's time for the City to go after Norse for all of the expenses incurred for his spoiled brat stunt.

Or better yet, make him WORK to pay it off.

AlwaysLearning wrote:

Consider how many homeless services could be funded by the money the city spent on this case. There comes a point when people can be counterproductive to their own cause.

__________
Always been something I've noticed about Mr. Norse is that all though he says and in fact does sometime help out in support of the homeless,

He in fact appears to do more damage than good at most times . Can you imagine how far that $112,000 would have gone for instance at the Rebele Family Shelter ?

I wonder if the general public opinion of the homeless population in Santa Cruz would in fact be taken in brighter light had Mr. Norse not ever been associated with that population?

RICHINRIO WRITES:"That is to say....in a public forum it is not acceptable to have one person or group of people act in unison to drown out what another has to say,regardless of what it is that person is attempting to say."

BECKY: Norse, of course didn't do so. Nor did he intend to disrupt either meeting. To see a REAL disruption view the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Lets see if Scott Kennedy disapproves of these disrupters of a public meeting.

Becky Johnson wrote:

RICHINRIO WRITES:"That is to say....in a public forum it is not acceptable to have one person or group of people act in unison to drown out what another has to say,regardless of what it is that person is attempting to say."
BECKY: Norse, of course didn't do so. Nor did he intend to disrupt either meeting. To see a REAL disruption view the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Lets see if Scott Kennedy disapproves of these disrupters of a public meeting.

Whatever the intentions of Norse and his perception of the "crimes" of the city council, their actions were hardly in line with the actions of Nazi Germany. Or just perhaps... Norse is a Nazi and was trying to extend a sign of respect.

he acted like the tea partiers.

Robert Norse is not a smart human. He is the type of person who can be held up as an example of what is wrong with SC

This is great. I am so pleased the worst of the federal courts aka the 9th circ. Was able to determine Robert's child like antics were utter crap and not a constitutional issue.
How does it feel Robert? You had the worst city council in Santa Cruz's history throw you out. Then have the most inept appellate court find against you.

I am patiently awaiting Becky's rational and hyperbole regarding why you lost your case.

SUM DIM where are you........

All of you who are critical of the lawsuit just don't get it. Wait until YOU want to silently express your disagreement with the council, whether by gesture or sign, and they throw you to the curb or arrest you. You'd be squealing like a stuffed pig. If you view the videotape, you will see that Norse did not cause a disruption, Fitzmaurice did and then they blamed it on Norse. Try to get past your disdain for Norse and understand the horrific precedent set by this case. First amendment rights must be protected regardless of the message - subject to a few very narrow exceptions. The point is not whether or not you agree with what Norse had to say by his silent gesture. The point is if they can limit Norse's speech, they can limit yours ! Get it ?

Mr. Kahn, please leave Santa Cruz alone. Nobody wants you here. Stay in Felton or move far away. How about Berkeley?

Juan Tabonia wrote:

This is great. I am so pleased the worst of the federal courts aka the 9th circ. Was able to determine Robert's child like antics were utter crap and not a constitutional issue.
How does it feel Robert? You had the worst city council in Santa Cruz's history throw you out. Then have the most inept appellate court find against you.
I am patiently awaiting Becky's rational and hyperbole regarding why you lost your case.
SUM DIM where are you........

Your friend Sum Dim is over on another thread making "rational" and "hyperbole" comments like this ,,,,,,

Sum Dim wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnson, you fat hag. You lost this one.

Is that what you support ???? Just wondering

No no no. Nice try. If a child acts up and he or she is disciplined it's not a first amendment issue. The courts have spoken...you and your merry band of losers lost!
Keep up the great fight Kate! You should stick to muni code defense. It's better suited for your legal skill set.

jimi doss wrote:

<quoted text>
Your friend Sum Dim is over on another thread making "rational" and "hyperbole" comments like this ,,,,,,
Sum Dim wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnson, you fat hag. You lost this one.
Is that what you support ???? Just wondering

Si

No matter what you think of some one else , if you in fact lower yourself to their standards and behaviors as indeed Sum Dim apprears to do in his communication with Becky as shown above .

Isnt Sum Dim in fact acting and behaving in the exact manner he puts Becky down for as well ?

Thus making himself no better but in fact equal in behavior to the person he condemns ????

Just wondering ??

I just wish there was some way to control the council allies, supporters and non-profit dependents who eat up so much meeting time heaping undeserved praise and fannie kisses for the stuffed shirts on the council dais. And how about controlling endless lines of victims all making the same plea, like at a recent supervisors meeting? There were over a dozen people pleading for the board not to cut their home care provider checks when it was actually the state cutting them. And Tony Madrigal was there doubling the time by translating both English to Spanish and Spanish to English. Hey, Tony, limit yourself to boring people at your city council meetings.