Fresno's Paper for Arts, Entertainment, News, and Political Analysis
Vermont Police Try To Arrest Socialist Presidential Candidate
Socialist Party USA Presidential Nominee Brian Moore was threatened with arrest Sunday afternoon by Brattleboro(Vermont) Police officers for petitioning in a supermarket parking lot to qualify on the presidential primary ballot of the Liberty Union Party of Vermont. The primary is scheduled for March 5th.
The manager of Hannaford Supermarkets in Brattleboro repeatedly ordered Moore, in a hostile voice, to leave the large mall parking lot because it was private property and owned by the store. Moore and his three colleagues stood their ground and refused to leave claiming they had a constitutional right to participate in a democratic process in a public area so that he could be a qualified presidential candidate in Vermont.
Two City of Brattleboro police cars, containing a lieutenant and a Sergeant Mike Gorman, arrived on the scene within minutes and ordered Moore and three of his petition colleagues "to leave or they would get a trespassing order, and would arrest us if necessary," Moore stated. Peter Diamondstone, an attorney and a leader of the Liberty Union Party in Vermont, and one of Moore's colleagues doing the petitioning, informed the officers that they had a constitutional right for such actions.
The officers decided to telephone State Attorney Dan Davis's office to determine the proper procedure. The petitioners, at Moore's request, were allowed to continue seeking signatures while the police and store manager waited for the chief law enforcement office of Vermont to make a decision. A last minute return call from the State Attorney Dan Davis's office saved the day for the Socialist Presidential candidate and his team. The petitioners continued on and finished the weekend with close to 500 signatures---halfway toward their goal of 1,000 signatures of Vermont voters, which is due Monday, January 21st, 2008, in the Vermont Secretary of State's Office.
Many of the shoppers Moore spoke with in the parking lot were from New Hampshire, several miles away, and thus could not sign his petition. Democratic and Republican presidential candidates were campaigning simultaneously as the Moore group petitioned, as close as 7 miles away, in the Town of Moreland, New Hampshire, and Keene, NH, which is 14 miles from Brattleboro. Moore observed "How ironic that these close by major party candidates are campaigning effortlessly, while minor party candidates face obstruction after obstruction, in many states, just to gain ballot access." Moore hopes to gain access to 20 state ballots for the November General election. Moore says "Our political system is undemocratic and unfair, and biased in favor of the status quo and a two-party system."
User login
Navigation
Syndicate
Comments
More on this re: California Shopping Centers
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/12/25/california-supreme-court-again-u...
California Supreme Court Again Upholds First Amendment Activity on Shopping Center Property
December 25th, 2007
On December 24, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that its 1980 Pruneyard decision is still good law. That decision had said that because shopping center walkways are the social equivalent of the old traditional town square, therefore distributing leaflets, petitioning, and related free speech activity must be allowed, even though the shopping center is private property.
The new decision is Fashion Valley Mall v National Labor Relations Board, S144753. The particular kind of free speech activity concerned union activists passing out leaflets, suggesting a boycott of one particular store in that shopping center. The case had been in the courts since 1998.
The majority consisted of Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Carlos Moreno, Joyce Kennard, and Kathryn Werdegar. The dissent was written by Justice Ming Chin and signed by Justices Marvin Baxter and Carol Corrigan. The dissent is fierce. It says, “Pruneyard was wrong when decided. In the nearly three decades that have since elapsed, jurisdictions throughout the nation have overwhelmingly rejected it (this is a reference the fact that most other State Supreme Courts have interpreted their state’s free speech provisions to not apply to any private property).” The dissent also says, “The time has come to recognize that we are virtually alone, and that Pruneyard was ill-conceived…Even if we stubbornly maintain our position of ‘magnificent isolation’ in the face of this tide of history, we should not carry Pruneyard to the extreme of forbidding private property owners from controlling expressive activity on their property - urging a boycott of its tenants - that is inimical to the purpose for which the property is being used…Assuming free speech rights exist in shopping centers, the fact remains that they are not Hyde Park in London, Central Park in New York, or the National Mall in Washington, D.C.”
shocking
not so much that authorities tried to arrest him, but that in the end he wasnt arrested. one usually doesnt expect such restraint the peace keepers (aka law enforcement, aka police, aka the boys in blue). thanks for the post john.
yes, shocking...
Yes, shocking but I've been to Brattleboro (stayed in a converted chicken coop that had an old pot-bellied stove while visiting a friend there sometime back in another life) and there's lots of herbal shops and the like. My guess these cops eat Granola. Most cops these days eat raw meat.
Raw Meat???
It is actually my understanding that the meat they eat is only mostly raw. The fact is that it is slightly cooked. You see they tazer it a few times first.