Dancing at Jefferson Memorial

[mightymoose]

Is anyone monitoring this fiasco in DC about the people dancing at the Jefferson Memorial?

The skinny of it- park regulations prohibit demonstrating at certain locations including the Jefferson Memorial. A woman was arrested for dancing at the memorial (charge ultimately dropped on some procedural technicality) and she sued for violation of 1st and 4th Amendment rights- freedom of expression and unlwful seizure/arrest.
The trial court and appellate court rejected the 1st/4th Amendment claims. The appellate court ruled that dancing meets the definition of demonstrations in the regulation and ruled that the Jefferson Memorial, though a public place, is not a public forum in which a person has a right to demonstrate or be heard- that the regulation has a valid purpose to maintain a certain decorum and conduct within the confines of the memorial.

This past weekend a group decided to protest the court's ruling and danced at the Jefferson Memorial. They were promptly arrested by police, but not before things went nuts and the police had to use a certain amount of force to make the arrests.

A silly law? Perhaps, but the courts ruled it valid.

People are all up in arms about "police brutality" and 1st Amendment freedoms. I have been watching some rather kooky comments from both ends of the spectrum in a couple different forums... I am curious what opinions might come out of a legal forum on this issue.

Anyone care to chime in? Did the court get it right? Was the police action reasonable?

Please review:

The court ruling in Oberwetter v Hilliard

Video from the Jefferson Memorial this past weekend.

 

[charlesc]

Is anyone monitoring this fiasco in DC about the people dancing at the Jefferson Memorial?

The skinny of it- park regulations prohibit demonstrating at certain locations including the Jefferson Memorial. A woman was arrested for dancing at the memorial (charge ultimately dropped on some procedural technicality) and she sued for violation of 1st and 4th Amendment rights- freedom of expression and unlwful seizure/arrest.
The trial court and appellate court rejected the 1st/4th Amendment claims. The appellate court ruled that dancing meets the definition of demonstrations in the regulation and ruled that the Jefferson Memorial, though a public place, is not a public forum in which a person has a right to demonstrate or be heard- that the regulation has a valid purpose to maintain a certain decorum and conduct within the confines of the memorial.

This past weekend a group decided to protest the court's ruling and danced at the Jefferson Memorial. They were promptly arrested by police, but not before things went nuts and the police had to use a certain amount of force to make the arrests.

A silly law? Perhaps, but the courts ruled it valid.

People are all up in arms about "police brutality" and 1st Amendment freedoms. I have been watching some rather kooky comments from both ends of the spectrum in a couple different forums... I am curious what opinions might come out of a legal forum on this issue.

Anyone care to chime in? Did the court get it right? Was the police action reasonable?

couldnt the judgment of this appellate court be vacated for no damages stated on the record of the court.

its my understanding, this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

 

[mightymoose]

I don't think there is any dispute over jurisdiction.
There is not really anything to be vacated here. The court simply issued a ruling that stated the law is valid. This court was the end of the line on this issue.
If the law is changed then the ruling may change.

 

[charlesc]

I don't think there is any dispute over jurisdiction.
There is no really nothing to be vacated here. The court simply issued a ruling that stated the law is valid. This court was the end of the line on this issue.
If the law is changed then the ruling may change.

a cause of action is a recognized kind of legal claim that a plaintiff pleads or alleges in a complaint to start a lawsuit. Examples are: breach of contract; torts such as injury, damages, fraud, slander; suits at equity. - (people cant be forced into courts or equity)

"Cause of action" encompasses both the legal theory of what legal rights of the plaintiff (in this case the government) were violated and the remedy to compensate the plaintiff for that wrong.

The points a plaintiff (the State) must prove to win a given type of case are called the "elements" of that cause of action. For the cause of action of negligence, for example, the elements are (existence of a) duty, breach (of that duty), causation (by that breach), and damages (incurred by the plaintiff). If a complaint does not allege facts to support every element of the cause of action it describes, the court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, for which relief can be granted.

The respondent to a cause of action may plead denials or affirmative defenses. Most defenses must be raised in the pleadings or by motion or are waived at trial. A few defenses,

in particular a court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, need not be pleaded and may be raised at any time.


research the subjects of legal standing and cause of action (cause of action civil or criminal)


FYI - any case can be argued incorrectly (focused on the wrong issues)


its my understanding that if, no damages to the government are stated on the record, it means no controversy for any court to hear or for the court to remedy...

its simple, its like hitting a homerun and failing to touch first base?

Good Luck to you !

 

[mightymoose]

Charles- I think you have it a bit backwards.

In this case the plaintiff was a woman who was arrested in 2008 for violating a local statute regarding demonstrations. She sued the government alleging violations of 1st and 4th Amendment rights. The initial court dismissed her claim, she appealed, and the appellate court also dismissed the claim.

The government was actually the defendant. It seems you are under the impression the government brought the action?

I think the reasons you are giving are very much why the court dismissed the action brought by Oberwetter. She failed to prove a violation of her rights and the court additionally found a legitimate purpose for the statute.

My primary concern is regarding the alleged police "brutality". I'm just wondering how people feel about the police response they see in the video considering the petty offense, the court ruling, and the demeanor of the demonstrators.

 

[charlesc]

Charles- I think the reasons you are giving are very much why the court dismissed the action brought by Oberwetter. She failed to prove a violation of her rights and the court additionally found a legitimate purpose for the statute.

My primary concern is regarding the alleged police "brutality". I'm just wondering how people feel about the police response they see in the video considering the petty offense, the court ruling, and the demeanor of the demonstrators.

--------------------

its my understanding, she would have to dance again, and this time the local government will not drop the charges, then the judgment against her can be vacated with damages for the violation of her 1st and 4th amendment rights.

in the new action brought against her, the government will not state any damages to it on the court record, (there aren't any) and therefore the government (and the police) will lack legal standing / SMJ - you get it ...

--------------------------

its my understanding, she lost because the local government dropped the original charges and apparently its harder to prove the violation of her rights to a jury. (juries tend not to question the laws)

-------------------------

after the judgment is vacated, the police brutality issue could be proved by a new video, showing she had damages againist her by the police, (its my understanding, she can only win after dancing and being arrested by co-operating with the police. (dont assault the police by accident)

consider the first time she lost in court as a dry run or a rehearsal to get the kinks worked out.....

--------------------------


my posting is not legal advice but for educational purposes. good luck to you.

 

[mightymoose]

No- there was no judgment against Oberwetter. She had no damages either.
She was only arrested the one time. I'm not sure why you would suggest that a violation of the statute does not result in any harm to the government- though it is petty, a violation of such a statute is a public offense against the people. At any rate, it seems you are proposing a hypothetical that has nothing to do with the situation.

Oberwetter's loss in both courts has nothing to do with the initial charge being dropped. Her claim under the 1st Amendment was about the police action preventing her from dancing (a free speech argument) and 4th Amendment regarding her arrest (which she believed was an unlawful seizure). The outcome of the initial charge against her did not at all change the facts regarding the circumstances of her arrest. Also, I do not believe her case ever got in front of a jury- it was dismissed by judges who found no basis in her claims.

The brutality issue is not regarding Oberwetter. Her case is from 2008 and she never alleged excessive force. The brutality argument comes from the recent arrest of protesters in the above linked video.

Some people watch that video and believe the police overreacted since the protesters were only dancing. However, the police first warned the protesters and used verbal commands before they opted to make the arrests. When the police finally took action to make the arrests the protesters resisted, although for the most part passively. It was the resistance that caused the police to escalate force, still using a minimum amount to overcome that resistance. In my opinion, the police use of force was objectively reasonable and does not rise to the level that would be considered excessive.

The police are allowed to use force to make an arrest. The question is whether their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. How we feel about the law prohibiting demonstration is not important- what matters is that the court upheld the law as valid and the police have a duty to enforce it. Granted, the severity of the offense does have a relation to the amount of force the police should reasonably use, but again, the force was not used so much for the demonstrating as it was for resisting arrest.

 

[charlesc]

No- there was no judgment against Oberwetter. She had no damages either.
She was only arrested the one time. I'm not sure why you would suggest that a violation of the statute does not result in any harm to the government- though it is petty, a violation of such a statute is a public offense against the people. At any rate, it seems you are proposing a hypothetical that has nothing to do with the situation.

Oberwetter's loss in both courts has nothing to do with the initial charge being dropped. Her claim under the 1st Amendment was about the police action preventing her from dancing (a free speech argument) and 4th Amendment regarding her arrest (which she believed was an unlawful seizure). The outcome of the initial charge against her did not at all change the facts regarding the circumstances of her arrest. Also, I do not believe her case ever got in front of a jury- it was dismissed by judges who found no basis in her claims.


In my opinion, the police use of force was objectively rasonable and does not rise to the level that would be considered excessive.

she could have lost in the local court if the charges were not dropped, costing her money to defend herself plus her fundamental rights were violated, those are real suffered damages. (and then she could have vacated the judgment with damages suffered, for no stated damages suffered by the plaintiff on the court record)

the government was not damaged, as it is a legal fiction like mickey mouse, (not real like you and me).

when she went to other courts, about her rights being violated, then the burden was on her to prove (hard to do, but, not impossible.

if the case had taken place in the local court, the burden would have been on the local governemt to prove ,which is impossible to prove when the government had no real damages or injury. (remember no actual damagers or injury means no controversy for a court to hear)

No one other-than the government would have filed a complaint in the local court. (a complaint where no one was injured or damaged by the dancing.)

FYI, the government holds the Jefferson Memorial's property in trust for the benefit of the People. you might say she was dancing on her property held in common with the people.

also a judge only deciding the case and payed by plaintiff (the government) would be a huge conflicted of interest. (its trial by jury not trial by government)

----------------------

STANDING
The legal right to initiate an action. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected rights that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury/damage and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury/damage fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury/damages will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury/damage as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party (plaintiff) (the government) invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each and every one of these elements. Id.

--------------------

In my opinion, the police use of force was objectively rasonable. i agree with that for the most part.

good luck to you,

not legal advice