CONTINUED
FROM:
***
Mr. Avery,
I did get in touch with the court reporter. Here is her response below:
I am in court tomorrow and next week, but I'll get you an estimate and then I just need a check for the deposit of 50%. I have a couple of other transcripts ahead of it, so it will be towards the end of March or early April before I can have it done. It was a two-hour hearing which normally would be 100 pages, $400ish. But I think this hearing had some technical delays so maybe not even that much. I'll send you an estimate in the next week or so and we'll go from there.
Also, I will have the recording of the Jan. 3rd hearing for you on a USB drive next week when you have your compliance hearing (or I will give to Ms. McGaughey if I am not able to be there).
Regards,
Whitney L. Gibbs
Assistant Public Defender
The Law Office of the Public Defender Dekalb County
320 Church Street
Decatur, GA 30030
(office) 404.371.2222
(fax) 404.371.2296
Assistant Public Defender
The Law Office of the Public Defender Dekalb County
320 Church Street
Decatur, GA 30030
(office) 404.371.2222
(fax) 404.371.2296
***
Hello Whitney,
I was really hoping to review them before my upcoming compliance hearing. This is not helpful at all!!!
I would also like the court recordings of August 9th when Judge McCoyd deciding to have a public defender assigned to me, status update hearing January 3rd, "THE TRIAL" January 20th, Terms of Probation January 31st, as well as upcoming compliance hearing.
EVERYTHING!
How about copies of Law Office of Public Defender DeKalb County records? Will it be possible for me reviewing at least these records before upcoming compliance hearing?
Regards,
James E. Avery, D.V..M.
P.S.
B. Discussion
The First Amendment, as applied to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that state actors “shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”
U.S. Cont. amend. I. A Plaintiff may bring two types of First Amendment challenges against a law: facial and as applied. Hawkins v. City of Denver, 170 F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 1999). “A facial challenge is a head-on attack on a legislative judgment, an assertion that the challenged statute violates the Constitution in all, or virtually all, of its applications.” United States v. Supreme Court of N.M., 839 F.3d 888, 907 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal citation and punctuation omitted). “In contrast, an as-applied challenge concedes that the statute may be constitutional in many of its applications, but contends that it is not so under the particular circumstances of the case.” Id.; see also N.M. Youth Organized v. Herrera, 611 F.3d 669, 677 n.5 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[An] ‘as-applied’ challenge to a law acknowledges that the law may have some potential constitutionally permissible applications, but argues that the law is not constitutional as applied to [particular parties].”). Here, Plaintiff asserts that the enforcement provision is facially unconstitutional. See Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 86-94. The Tenth Circuit has explained that “the approach to facial challenges . . . involves an examination of whether the terms of the statue itself measured against the relevant constitutional doctrine, and independent of the constitutionality of particular applications, contain a constitutional infirmity that invalidates the statute in its entirety.” Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 667 F.3d 1111, 1127 (2012) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). “In other words, where a statute fails the relevant constitutional test (such as strict scrutiny, the Ward test, or reasonableness review), it can no longer be constitutionally applied to anyone—and thus there would be ‘no set of circumstances’ in which the statute would be valid.” Id. (discussing the “test” laid out in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)).
I'm still pissed that our Law Office of Public Defender DeKalb County did not even try defending my First Amendment Rights!!! And let's not go forgetting SCOTUS 8-1 ruling in favor of Phelps clan. As the issue of God and Gays was already within the public domain being debated, to punish the Phelps/Westboro Baptist Church members in any way over their signs would be denying them their rights participating within these debates.
I used to think Conservatives were Conservatives only because they didn't know better; that they could be reasonable. Not only have I since been proven wrong about our Conservatives, I had to learn the hard way that our "Liberals" behave no differently when perceiving a threat to their pocket books/interests/egos; in effect, proving our Conservatives were right about our LIberals being the worse kind of hypocrites.
Quite an embittering experience!
Attachments
- December 3rd, 2016 Quondam 023.JPG (6.57MB)
- December 3rd, 2016 Quondam 035.JPG (6.72MB)
- December 13th, 2016 Tyro 026.JPG (6.81MB)
***
No comments:
Post a Comment