U.S. Politics

Court declares 92 Occupy Chicago arrests unconstitutional

Two New York City police officers arrest a man during the “Occupy Wall Street” protests. Photo: Flickr user anjanjanj.

Just ninety-two?  Well, it’s a start and that’s just one county in Illinois.  The Judge makes some really good points in his opinion.

The Raw Story

A judge in Cook County, Illinois on Thursday dismissed over 90 cases against Occupy Chicago activists on the grounds that they violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Judge Thomas Donnelly declared that the city’s park curfew law that was used to arrest activists in Grant Park last October was “unconstitutional both on its face and as applied and all complaints in this case are dismissed with prejudice,” according to the Chicago chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG).

“The Occupy Chicago demonstrators were subject to constantly changing rules and regulations that ended in a directive that they had to be constantly moving in order to protest,” the judge explained in his 37-page opinion (PDF). “Viewed in isolation the rules and regulations appear reasonable, but viewed in the larger context of the Occupy movement’s presence in Chicago, they give rise to the inference that the City was attempting to discourage this particular protest.”

“The police would promulgate a rule; when the protesters would comply, the police would change the rule,” he added. “These facts, together with the clear pattern of selective enforcement of the Curfew, support a finding that the cityintended to discriminate against the Defendants based on their views.”

NLG attorney Sarah Gelsomino, who represented the activists, said that Donnelly “made the right decision by declaring the city’s ordinance unconstitutional and by dismissing the remaining cases brought by the city against activists legitimately engaged in free speech.”

Chicago Law Department spokesperson Roderick Drew told the Chicago Tribune that the city would appeal the ruling.

Rep. Joe Walsh

Judge Orders Joe Walsh To Prove He Doesn’t Owe Back Child-Support

This guy is a clown.  He actually asked for sanctions against his ex-wife for not providing them with her salary records, bank statements and tax returns.  It all seems like a typical smoke and mirrors game to take the spotlight off of Joe Walsh.  However, in a Cook County court, a judge ordered Walsh to prove that he is not a “deadbeat dad” and prove that he doesn’t owe $100,000 in back child support.

Get the popcorn ready, Mr. I wanna be in front of the camera 24/7s has some splainin’ to do.

The Huffington Post

After months of dismissing allegations that he owed his ex-wife more than $100,000 in back child support, U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh was ordered Wednesday to provide the court with proof that he isn’t a deadbeat dad.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega expressed frustration when the Illinois Republican and Tea Party favorite did not appear in court along with his ex-wife, Laura Walsh.

From the Sun-Times:

Walsh’s new attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court.Vega gave her a puzzled look.

To which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”

“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge said.

The judge then issued a “rule to show cause,” asking that Walsh provide proof that he made the child support payments–or risk being held in contempt for falling behind.

Continue reading…

Petition for RTSC Against Joe – Part 1 [12!7!10]