Legal Search Engine Directory News

September 8, 2003

2nd FEDERAL SUIT FILED OVER MAY 3 CRAWFORD PROTESTS AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH
--------------------------------------

Three community activists threatened with arrest for violating the City of Crawford’s clearly political anti-protestor ordinance on May 3, 2003, today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Austin, alleging violation of the their rights under First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Bill of Rights. Named as Defendants are the Texas Department of Public Safety, the City of Crawford, Crawford Police Chief Donnie Tidmore, McLennan County Sheriff Larry Lynch, and McLennan County Chief Deputy Sheriff Randy Plemons.

The three activists, Marie Pugh, Victoria Rectenwald, and Martin Wallace, were on their way to demonstrate at President George Bush’s ranch against the war in Iraq and were threatened with arrest by the Crawford Chief of Police as they drove through Crawford on the way to the ranch. The suit alleges that some twenty Department of Public Safety officers and a number of McLennan County sheriff’s deputies also barricaded the road so they could not past, and supported the Police Chief’s order, prohibiting them from protesting under threat of arrest.

After participating in protests in Austin on Saturday, May 3, the three individuals traveled to Crawford, with a group of protesters, with the intent to demonstrate at the Bush ranch, taking advantage of the media presence there due to President Bush’s meeting with the Australian Prime Minister.

When the protestors’ cars turned onto Route 317 on their way to the ranch, they met a blockade by Crawford city police and McLennan County sheriff deputies. Police Chief Donnie Tidmore announced from his vehicle that "we have a city ordinance here against protesting" and gave people three minutes to get out of the area. When questioned by one would-be protestor, Tidmore responded to her question as to whether the group could build a makeshift monument (symbolizing the futility of war) that, if any signs were left by the group, they would all be issued tickets for littering.

Rather than being arrested, the three Plaintiffs in today’s suit left.

Five other persons, however, members of the protesters’ legal observer team, were actually arrested in the incident for violation of the Crawford Parades and Processions ordinance and held overnight in the McLennan County jail.

Today’s suit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against Defendants’ inference with the three Plaintiffs’ free speech rights in future demonstrations at the Bush ranch, and asks the judge to declare the Crawford ordinance unconstitutional.

TCRP Director Jim Harrington, who filed the case today, called the ordinance “a shameless attempt to ban any adverse political protest near President Bush’s ranch. The Crawford ordinance illegally curbs constitutionally protected expression of political views. The ordinance gives unfettered discretion to the police chief to decide who can and cannot protest and impermissibly discriminates on the basis of the content of the speech. In effect, the city ordinance means that there can never be political protest near the Bush ranch or near Crawford, when the President is there. This is un-American, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional.”

For further information, please contact Jim Harrington at 512.474.5073.

July 10, 2003

UT STUDENT FILES CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT AGAINST POLICE FOR PRE-IRAQ-PROTEST VIOLENCE; ALLEGES POLITICAL MOTIVATION

Today, University of Texas Ph.D. candidate Jonathan Bougie filed a civil rights claim in Travis County District Court against University of Texas Police Officer Wayne Coffey and the UT-Austin Police Department.

The case arises out of an incident that occurred on March 19 of this year, the evening before the war in Iraq officially began. On this evening, Mr. Bougie and several other members of the Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice, a UT student group, were writing slogans with sidewalk chalk on UT campus sidewalks, announcing a war protest the next day.

Although sidewalk chalking for events and activities is a very common occurrence on the campus, Bougie and two others were quickly arrested for their activities. While the other two suspects were peacefully apprehended, Mr. Bougie suffered a more violent fate. He was detained only after Officer Coffey crept up behind Mr. Bougie and slammed his face into a retainer wall while Mr. Bougie was kneeling on the ground and writing. The incident resulted in Mr. Bougie’s glasses being shattered and his face being cut. Bougie later received four stitches at Brackenridge Hospital.

The suit alleges violations of Mr. Bougie’s First Amendment right to free speech and Fourth Amendment rights to be free of excessive use of force, and unreasonable seizure, as well as assault by Officer Coffey. Bougie also challenges the criminal mischief statute under which he was cited as being unconstitutional on its face and in its application as too broadly sweeping constitutionally-protected speech within its ambit. The suit claims as well that the only time the police have applied the anti-chalking regulation in recent years has only been with regard to protests against the Iraq War, and thus their use of the regulation was politically motivated, and selectively enforced.

Jim Harrington, Bougie’s attorney and Director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said, “This incident shows how free speech is being systematically undermined on campus, and students are being prevented from voicing their dissent on important issues. The University is a place for free thought and speech. Students should not have to live in fear of violent retribution by law enforcement officials for exercising their Constitutional rights.”

Mr. Bougie says he is filing the suit because, “The University is really clamping down on dissent right now . . . .UT Police officers are threatening people for exercising their right to free speech, especially when they disagree with it. I hope the suit will hold the offending officer and the department liable for their actions and dissuade similar conduct in the future.”

For more information, please contact the Texas Civil Rights Project at (512) 474-5073.

July 3, 2003

TEXAS SUPREME COURT LIMITS POLITICAL FREE SPEECH ON EVE OF INDEPENDENCE DAY

On the day before Independence Day, the Texas Supreme Court handed down a decision that poses a serious threat to Texans’ right to political free speech, and to the Constitutional guarantees of freedom that the 4th of July is intended to celebrate. The case, Barber v. Texas Department of Transportation, revolved around a billboard that Pat Barber had posted on his property. Mr. Barber decided to put up the sign because of his concern about illegal vehicle searches, which were occurring with some frequency along Highway I-10, near Colorado City in West Texas, which his property bordered. The billboard read “Just Say NO To Searches,” and provided a phone number that connected the caller to a recorded message containing information about the constitutional right to refuse unreasonable searches.

After a story about the billboard appeared in the Abilene Reporter News, a local sheriff contacted the Texas Department of Transportation to report the situation. The Department of Transportation then demanded that Mr. Barber take down the sign, claiming that it did not comply with the Texas Highway Beautification Act. The decision to compel Mr. Barber to take down his sign was clearly based on the message the billboard contained, as multiple billboards all over Texas violate the Act. Mr. Barber was finally forced to take down the sign from his property.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals, and held that Mr. Barber’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech was not violated. The Court ruled in favor of the Highway Beautification Act in spite of the fact that it prohibited Mr. Barber from displaying political speech on his own property.

Jim Harrington, Director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, which is representing Barber, said, “The implications of this decision are frightening. The ruling means that no matter your political beliefs, Democrat or Republican, if the Texas Department of Transportation is offended by the content of your message, you have no right to put up a highway billboard on your own property. The ironic timing of the decision only underscores the problem with the ruling: the right of Americans to speak freely about their beliefs, a right which is guaranteed by both the Texas and the United States Constitution, is being eroded on a day on which those freedoms are supposed to be celebrated.”

Harrington said that TCRP would seek U. S. Supreme Court review.

For further information, please call the Texas Civil Rights Project at (512) 474-5073 or Jim Harrington at (512) 771-1759.

June 17, 2003

CRAWFORD PROTESTORS FILE FIRST AMENDMENT CASE IN FEDERAL COURT IN CRAWFORD RANCH CASE
--------------------------------------

Five community activists arrested for violating the City of Crawford’s clearly political anti-protestor ordinance on May 3 and the Texas Civil Rights Project announced today the filing of a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Waco, alleging violation of their rights under First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Bill of Rights.

The activists were on their way to demonstrate at President George Bush’s ranch against the war in Iraq and were arrested by the Chief of Police as they drove through Crawford on the way to the ranch. After participating in protests in Austin on Saturday, May 3, the five individuals traveled to Crawford with the intent to protest at the ranch, taking advantage of the media presence there due to President Bush’s meeting there with the Australian Prime Minister.

The five persons who were charged and who brought today’s suit are: Tricia Major (Dallas church secretary), Amara Malizewski (AmeriCorps volunteer in Austin), Ken Zarifis (Austin 8th grade school teacher), Amanda Jack (volunteer with Austin refugee house), and Michael Mashicek (Crawford peace activist). All five were arrested for violation of the Parades and Processions ordinance and held overnight in the McLennan County jail.

When the protestors’ cars turned onto Route 317 on their way to the ranch, they met a blockade by Crawford city police and McLennan County sheriff deputies. Police Chief Donnie Tidmore announced from his vehicle that "we have a city ordinance here against protesting" and gave people three minutes to get out of the area. When questioned by one would-be protestor, Tidmore responded to her question as to whether the group could build a makeshift monument (symbolizing the futility of war) that, if any signs were left by the group, they would all be issued tickets for littering.

While most of the group managed to leave within the allotted three minutes, some still remained outside of their cars, reloading signs, but preparing to leave.

Tricia Major was approached by two officers and told to put down her sign. She hesitated, remembering Chief Tidmore's admonition concerning littering minutes earlier, but then put the sign down. The officers immediately turned her around, cuffed her, and led her away.

Legal observers Amara Malezewski and Amanda Jack were arrested next after asking the officers where Tricia Major was being taken and why. Ken Zarifis, the third legal observer, was arrested next after attempting to find out why the officers had arrested the other legal observers, Ms. Malezewski and Ms. Jack. About fifteen to twenty minutes later, the officers made a fifth arrest, that of Michael Mashicek, a Crawford peace activist, when he arrived on the scene to see what was happening.

TCRP Director Jim Harrington called the ordinance "a shameless attempt to ban any adverse political protest near President Bush’s ranch. The Crawford ordinance illegally curbs constitutionally protected expression of political views. The ordinance gives unfettered discretion to the police chief to decide who can and cannot protest and impermissibly discriminates on the basis of the content of the speech. In effect, the city ordinance means that there can never be political protest near the Bush ranch or near Crawford, when the President is there. This is un-American, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional."

August 12, 2002

Court Hearing Set on Cornyn's Refusal to Disclose Legislators' Attorneys' Tobacco Litigation Records

On August 19, 2002, at 2 pm, a Travis County District Court will hear a motion to compel six State Senators and Representatives to produce the records of who paid their attorneys to fight the state-appointed attorneys' claims for fees in the successful Tobacco litigation in Beaumont federal court.

Austin journalist and author Lou Dubose has sought these records for a book he is writing, A Public Affairs press book on tobacco.

Dubose filed suit after Sen. Troy Fraser, Sen. Kenneth Armbrister, Sen. Jane Nelson, Rep. Tom Craddick, Rep. Dianne Delisi, and Rep. Kyle Janek all refused to produce records under the Public Information Act of who paid for their attorneys when they challenged the award of attorneys' fees to the successful plaintiffs' lawyers who represented the State of Texas. "Six officials elected by the public used their public offices and money from private donors to intervene in a trial in federal court, " Dubose said. "Taxpayers and voters have a right to know who provided the money these legislators paid to an Austin law firm. If private donors were funding this work, who were these legislators working for?"

Among other things, Dubose is asking for invoices and documents to and from "Texans for Lawsuit Reform," "Texans for Reasonable Legal Fees," Attorney General John Cornyn, Karl Rove, then Secretary of State (and now White House Counsel) Al Gonzales, Joe Allbaugh, Andy Taylor, Hugh Rice Kelly, Richard "Dick" Weekley, Louis Beecherl, Jr., and James Francis, relating to the Texas Tobacco Litigation.

The six legislators sought an Open Records opinion from Cornyn, who, in turn, ruled that most of what Dubose sought was protected from disclosure. Dubose had objected to Cornyn ruling on the documents request because he had a conflict of interest in that he had allowed the senators and representatives to go ahead and intervene in the litigation, and publicly supported their move.

The legislators' intervention in the tobacco litigation has since been dismissed (May 16, 2000).

"It is particularly ironic that Cornyn spends so much effort trying to get at the records of the successful attorneys in the tobacco litigation who did so much good for the health and welfare of the nation, and Texas, and then he himself turns around takes every step to prevent the public from knowing who funded the six legislators' efforts to undermine that settlement," said Jim Harrington, Director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who is handling the lawsuit for Dubose.

For further information, please call Jim Harrington (512-474-5073).

May 17, 2002

FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REINSTATES CASE OF TEXAS CHARITABLE CHOICE PROGRAM "PERMEATED WITH CHRISTIANITY"

Victory for Objectors to Charitable Choice: Case Has Profound Impact for Federal Program

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed the American Jewish Congress and the Texas Civil Rights Project a partial victory on May 15, and reinstated their constitutional challenge filed against the Texas Department of Human Services and the Jobs Partnership of Washington County in Brenham.

The case, American Jewish Congress & Texas Civil Rights Project vs. Bost, et al., should have profound implications for President Bush's charitable choice program. The lawsuit was brought by AJC and TCRP against the Department of Human Services and Jobs Partnership on the ground that "Protestant evangelical Christianity permeates" the program. For example, the program maintains that "change ... can only be accomplished through a relationship with Jesus Christ."

The suit claimed that proselytizing played a major role in the session, the American Jewish Congress and the Texas Civil Rights Project note in their complaint, charging that Jobs Partnership used tax dollars to convince students of the need to practice Evangelical religion. The lawsuit also notes that one third of the participants surveyed by DHS reported "pressure" from the program "to join a church or change your beliefs?"

Austin Federal Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the case as moot because the Jobs Partnership no longer held a charitable choice contract. The Court of Appeals, while agreeing that no injunction was needed against the two defendants because the contract was over, did remand the case back to Sparks to determine what kind of damages there were, that is, how much money should be repaid to the taxpayers.

DHS awarded Jobs Partnership $8,000. The American Jewish Congress and Texas Civil Rights Project

argue that the $8,000 should be returned to the taxpayers for use in non-proselytizing programs.

Jim Harrington, TCRP Director, hailed the 5th Circuit decision as a "very important step forward in restricting the misuse of taxpayersí money to support sectarian proselytizing and religious practices.

CONTACTS:

-Jim Harrington, Texas Civil Rights Project, Director, 512-474-5073 (512-771-1759 cell)

- Marc Stern or Stan Steiner, American Jewish Congress, Director of Communications, 212-360-1540

Case Has Profound Impact for Federal Charitable Choice Program

AJCONGRESS TO ASK FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REINSTATE CASE OF TEXAS CHARITABLE CHOICE PROGRAM "PERMEATED WITH CHRISTIANITY"

May 6, 2002 -- The American Jewish Congress, which together with the Texas Civil Rights Project brought the first constitutional challenge filed against a charitable choice contract, will argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that the case, dismissed by a lower court in February 2001, be reinstated.

Marc Stern, AJCongress' Legal Director, will appear before a three_judge panel on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 at 9:00 am, in New Orleans (600 Camp Street), along with TCRP Director Jim Harrington..

The case, American Jewish Congress & Texas Civil Rights Project vs. Bost, et al., would have profound implications for President Bush's charitable choice program. The lawsuit was originally brought by the two organizations against the Texas Department of Human Services and the Jobs Partnership of Washington County on the ground that "Protestant evangelical Christianity permeates" the program. For example, the program maintains that "change . . . can only be accomplished through a relationship with Jesus Christ." The original complaint calls on the court to invalidate the rules under which Texas has operated its program.

CONTACTS:

Jim Harrington, Texas Civil Rights Project, Director, 512-474-5073

Stephen Steiner, American Jewish Congress, Director of Communications, 212_360_1540.

February 2, 2001

Major 'Charitable Choice' Lawsuit Dismissed Decision a Boost to President Bush's New Faith-Based Initiative

A major lawsuit filed in July by "separation of church and state" groups, the American Jewish Congress (AJC) and Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), against Jobs Partnership of Washington County (17 "charitable choice" businesses and churches participating in a welfare-to-work job training program) has just been dismissed by a federal judge.

The AJC and TCRP had filed the suit against the State of Texas in federal district court for giving state funds to "charitable choice" organizations, specifically Jobs Partnership. The suit demanded that the faith-based group be forced to repay all of the state funds received in the program and that the courts strike down all programs across the country that allow faith-based groups to participate in welfare and other reforms.

"Faith-based groups have the same right as any other group to participate in these programs," said Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel of Liberty Legal Institute. "Jobs Partnership has every right to equally participate in a government program to help people get off the welfare role and into paying jobs. We will continue to stand strongly against attempts to discriminate against faith-based groups."

Jobs Partnership just entered into its ninth class season and has an 80% success rate from program graduates who are now in paying jobs and off welfare. A number of programs are available to recipients of welfare, one of which is the faith-based program. Participants who elect the "charitable choice" program are offered the same tools and training, but from a spiritual perspective.

Earlier this week President Bush announced his own faith-based initiative for the country, to extend Texas' approach to the nation. Mike Jones, a spokesman for Mr. Bush, said earlier, "Faith-based organizations provide a wide range of services, everything from nursing home care to child care."

Reverend Keith Kallie, spokesman for the 17 "charitable choice" businesses and churches which make up Jobs Partnership said, "We are very pleased with this ruling. Now we will be able to continue helping people who are less fortunate get the kind of training and tools they need to be successful and joyful participants in this great nation."

The Liberty Legal Institute is a legal organization specializing in the defense of religious freedoms and First Amendment rights. To speak with an attorney concerning this case, please call one of the numbers listed above.