According to the LA Times charges have been dropped.
-----Original Message-----
From: O. R. Armstrong [mailto:rarmstrong@casefinder.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:29 AM
To: Watson, Holly E.; law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Atty arrested at Mall for T-shirt
Dear Ms. Watson:
Thank you. Although any howling mob considers itself to be "protesting,"
it is the person with the courage to stand up against that mob for whom the
First Amendment was intended.
Russ Armstrong
----- Original Message -----
From: "Watson, Holly E." <hwatson@jenkens.com>
To: <law-lib@ucdavis.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:10 AM
Subject: RE: Atty arrested at Mall for T-shirt
> To be strictly accurate, he wasn't arrested for wearing a peace Tshirt.
He
> was arrested for refusing to leave the mall ; the mall is not public
> property and the mall owner or landlord has a right to kick anyone out for
> any stupid reason (although i agree with Wachtler's opinion that sticking
a
> roof over a bunch of shops does not make the mall any less "public", but
> that's the law right now). The mall owners' (more likely some petty mall
> manager with delusions of power) reasons for kicking Downs out were
> obviously biased and stupid - malls have gotten into trouble for doing the
> same thing to young people wearing certain clothing that mall owners
deemed
> "offensive" or indicative of gang membership. The young people have
> frequently gone on to win lawsuits and have charges dropped. The malls
> always end up losing, both in court and in the court of public opinion.
> Downs should slap the mall with a nice fat lawsuit. But don't blame the
> cops - they did not take it upon themselves to arrest some poor old guy
> wearing a peace Tshirt - they were responding to a complaint of
trespassing.
> Therefore this doesn't really represent the power of the state being used
to
> stifle dissent or serve as a harbinger of jackboots marching in the mall.
> Last time I checked, you are still free to march in the streets with big
> signs proclaiming the government to be facist - and if you can, then it
> isn't.
>
> For the record, I'm a libertarian and I too have problems with the Patriot
> Act(s). But I'm also an optimist and I think that many of these laws will
be
> squished upon judicial review.
>
> And on a different topic - why do so many writers and others misuse the
term
> "ironic?" Most of the time when they say "ironically" they really mean
> "coincidentally." Not the same thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mary.g.hune@verizon.com [mailto:mary.g.hune@verizon.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:14 AM
> To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
> Subject: Atty arrested at Mall for T-shirt
>
>
> This article appeared in the NY Law Journal today. The action taken
> against this attorney for merely wearing a T-shirt advocating "Peace" at a
> shopping mall, makes me very uncomfortable about my rights as a citizen.
> Especially after reading the analysis of Patriot II posted here by Brian
> Baker.
>
> The text of the article can be retrieved from
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6z5r
>
> Mary Grace Hune
> Law Librarian
> Verizon Legal Department
> 1515 North Courthouse Road, Suite 500
> Arlington, VA 22201-2909
> Tel. 703-351-3173
> Fax 703-351-3663
> mary.g.hune@verizon.com
>
>
>
>
>
> - JENKENS & GILCHRIST E-MAIL NOTICE - This transmission may be: (1)
subject
> to the Attorney-Client Privilege, (2) an attorney work product, or (3)
> strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this
information.
> If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender
> (only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is
a
> violation of federal criminal law.
>
> This communication does not reflect an intention by the sender or the
> sender's client or principal to conduct a transaction or make any
agreement
> by electronic means. Nothing contained in this message or in any
attachment
> shall satisfy the requirements for a writing, and nothing contained herein
> shall constitute a contract or electronic signature under the Electronic
> Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, any version of the Uniform
> Electronic Transactions Act or any other statute governing electronic
> transactions.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:44:27 PST