crosstar
2007-12-15 03:34:36 UTC
The Nationalist Movement v. Jena
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
#07-2168
Complaint
Plaintiff, The Nationalist Movement, seeks to invalidate as unconstitutional
an Ordinance of Defendant, the Town of Jena, Louisiana, as well as various
restrictions, which are, also, unconstitutional, in order for Plaintiff to exercise
its First Amendment rights in conducting a rally, delivering speeches, holding
a parade and circulating petitions to the government for redress of grievances,
at the LaSalle Parish Courthouse and upon the public streets adjoining said
Courthouse, in Jena, Louisiana, under the theme "Jena Justice Day", sub-titled
"No to Jena Six, No to MLK".
Plaintiff seeks to use the streets, sidewalk and grounds at and about the said
Courthouse, at and in the traditional and quintessential public forum of the seat
of government, on January 21, 2007, between 11:00 AM and 4:00 PM (with two
hours beforehand for setup of loud speakers, decorating and preparing petitions).
But, by promulgating and enforcing Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326
§130 (B), and, thereunder, requiring Plaintiff to pay for and secure a bond in the
sum of $10,000.00, under Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 (B) to
provide said bond as a "security-deposit," under Town of Jena Ordinance #146,
R.S. 14:326 §130 (A) to assume liability for any and all damages "which may
arise" and to suffer such burdens notwithstanding that similar activities by the
"governing authority," labor-unions, schools, Mardi Gras and "carnival festivities"
are exempt, under Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 (C), Defendants
have unconstitutionally interfered with Plaintiff's rights.
In addition, Defendants have "required" that Plaintiff "vary from your
anticipated [parade] route" for "public safety," notwithstanding that Plaintiff
has notified Defendants that it intends to parade, briefly, on Highway 84,
which was previously blocked off in order to accommodate a group assembling,
parading and speaking, in the same vicinity, on or about September 21, 2007,
but with views contrary to those of Plaintiff.
In addition, Defendants have required, as a pre-condition to the exercise of
First-Amendment rights, that Plaintiff execute a "hold-harmless" clause styled
a "Permit Application for Procession, March, Parade or Demonstration" stating
that "I will be liable for all damages" "which may arise." Furthermore, under
said "Permit Application," Defendants have required Plaintiff to covenant that
"the carrying of firearms is prohibited," in contravention of the Second
Amendment.
In addition, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that said Town of Jena
Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130, or sections thereof, the abridgement of the
parade route by letter dated November 27, 2007on the official-stationery of the
Town of Jena and signed by Defendant McMillin, the "hold-harmless" clause
of the said "Permit Application" and the Second-Amendment-restriction of
said "Permit Application" cannot be utilized by Defendants to prohibit the
exercise of First Amendment rights. Plaintiff further seeks compensatory
damages, attorney fees and costs.
Count I seeks declaratory and injunctive relief by reason of Defendants'
unlawful constitutional violations. Count II seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief against Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 complained
of for being invalid, on its face or as applied. Count III seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief by reason of the prohibition, separate and apart from the
Ordinance, against carrying of firearms, being contrary to the Second Amendment
and lack of an appeal, for the prohibition, route-limitation, bond and hold-harmless
clause, being violative of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count
IV seeks declaratory and injunctive relief by reason of said Ordinance being
unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. Count V seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief by reason of said Ordinance violating equal-protection
based upon status or ability to pay to parade. Count VI seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief by reason of said Ordinance violating equal-protection based
upon content of speech or symbolic speech, as the case may be, sought to
be conveyed by Plaintiff. Count VII seeks declaratory and injunctive relief by
reason of said Ordinance abridging freedom-of-association.
I. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USC §§1331 and
1343(3) and (4). The action is brought pursuant to 42 USC §§1983, 1985 and
1988 to redress violations of Plaintiff's First, Second, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and for a declaratory
judgment pursuant to 28 USC §§2201 and 2202.
Plaintiff is:
The Nationalist Movement, a non-profit pro-majority organization, domiciled
in and incorporated under the laws of the State of Mississippi, whose
principal place of business is at 5722 Learned Road, PO Box 2000, Learned,
Mississippi 39154, in Hinds County, Mississippi.
Defendant, Town of Jena, is:
A municipal, governmental entity, existing under the laws of the State of
Louisiana, acting under color-of-law, located at Town Hall, PO Box 26, Jena,
Louisiana, within the Western District of Louisiana, in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana.
Defendant, Murphy McMillin, is:
An adult, resident citizen of the laws of the State of Louisiana, who is, also,
Mayor of the said Town of Jena, Louisiana, acting under color-of-law, who
may be found at Town Hall, PO Box 26, Jena, Louisiana, within the Western
District of Louisiana, in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On or about October 15, 2007, Plaintiff notified Defendants of its scheduling
of a public protest, wherein "the parade will use the public street directly
from the front of the Courthouse down to Hwy. 84, East one block, back to the
Courthouse, then to Jena High School and back to the Courthouse, where
the rally will take place. "The rally including ceremonies, petitions and
speeches will begin at approximately 12:30 PM at the Courthouse front steps
and last until approximately 3:00 PM, followed by disassembly of the equipment
and signing of petitions, completing at 4:00 PM." The schedule begins at
"9:00 AM, at which time decorating, staging and equipment will set in place,
followed by assembly for paraders in front of the Courthouse between 11:00
AM and Noon. The parade will step off at Noon from the front of the Court
house, proceeding in the full width of the street along the route, as outlined."
2. Pursuant to Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 (A), (B),
Defendants, by letter, on November 27, 2000, interposed the financial-obligation
of a $10,000.00 bond for "security," as well as a "hold-harmless" covenant,
also included on their "Permit Application for Procession, March, Parade
or Demonstration as "security," as a pre-condition to parade upon the
public-streets, from, around and back to the LaSalle Parish Courthouse.
3. In addition, Defendants interposed a limitation on the parade route, slated
to include a one-block portion of Highway 84, by prohibiting parading on said
highway.
4. In addition, Defendants purported to prohibit "the carrying of firearms."
5. Plaintiff, which had been conducting protests against the King Holiday
across the country, had, also, desired to rally opposition to the "Jena Six", who
had engaged in lawless activities in the Town of Jena, to call for abolition of
the "Inter-racial Committee" recently appointed by the Defendant-Mayor and
approved by the Defendant Town-council and to "honor the rule of law and
oppose the lawlessness and minority-preferences instigated by the late Martin
Luther King. It will, also, show respect for the Bill of Rights and demand
abolition of King Day."
6. Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 requires a $10,000.00
bond for "security," amounting to a "security-deposit" or "insurance" and a
"hold-harmless" clause, which amounts to an indemnification. Plaintiff is
unable to afford such a financial undertaking, insofar as its income for the
previous year amounted to approximately $1,906.00, but with a net operating
loss totaling $1,289.00. There is no provision under the Ordinance for a waiver
of the bond due to financial hardship or inability and no exception is made for
those on the grounds of financial-inability.
7. Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 (C) undertakes to give
preferential or exempt treatment to the "governing authority," labor-organizations,
schools, Mardi Gras and "carnival festivities," mandating that "nothing
contained herein shall apply" to them. The provision is based upon status of
the rallier, parader or speaker, in that "official" government organizations do
not need to pay to secure or post a bond, as well as upon the content of speech,
insofar as a "school" or "municipality" would not likely be disposed to be
critical of government-policies or to voice an appeal for reform. The Ordinance
states that a "bona fide" "organization" "specifically" celebrating Mardi
Gras is exempt, but without stating any guidelines as to what is "bona fide" or
how "bona fide" is determined. Likewise, the Ordinance exempts a "bona fide,
legitimate labor organization" without any standards as to how any such "bona
fides" are determined.
8. Plaintiff's purpose in having said parade and rally is to peacefully assemble
to petition the government for a redress of grievances, to promote patriotism,
democracy, majority rule and freedom, to promote membership, to discuss
topics of current importance of local and national interest, including, but not
limited to, calling for abolition of the instant Ordinance, opposing the assault
and criminality perpetrated by the "Jena Six", opposing the "Inter-racial Committee,"
opposing "diversity" and "racial integration," striking down privileges and favors
for the few, which Plaintiff avers is exemplified by the King Holiday, and honoring
those who defend the American Way of Life. The events seek to empower Jena
residents to speak and be heard in a peaceful, dignified, positive and democratic
setting and to promote the agenda of Plaintiff regarding positive social change
and peaceful social justice.
9. As part of its expression, petitioning and assembly, Plaintiff desires to
parade upon the public streets, in the traditional public-forum thereof, to call
attention to its grievances, display signs and placards stating its goals and
recruit members. Plaintiff, also, desires that members of the public, supporting
its goals, take part in its parade and assembly, that interested spectators, who
may not wish to participate directly, have an opportunity to see and hear the
proceedings and that any hostile elements be relegated to some place sufficiently
distant so as to not to be able to disrupt, heckle or perpetrate violence upon
those taking part in the ceremonies. Plaintiff brings considerable expertise
in organizing, conducting and litigating over parades and rallies, across the
nation, during its twenty-year history, having, also, forged the law of the land
on the subject in its 1992 United States Supreme Court ruling.
10. Defendants' actions interfere with and prevent Plaintiff's exercise of its
rights to parade, assemble, speak and express its views in Jena, Louisiana on
said date. Use of the public streets directly from the front of the Courthouse
down to Hwy. 84, East one block, back to the Courthouse, the to Jena High
School and back to the Courthouse is necessary for said parade and use of the
street or streets adjoining the LaSalle Parish Courthouse are necessary and
desirable to give participants an opportunity to express their views. Use of the
public streets directly surrounding the Courthouse is likely necessary for
paraders as an adjunct to parading (assembly or disassembly) and for spectators
supporting the event to assemble for or view the rally or to listen to speeches
at said rally.
11. The public which shares Plaintiff's pro-majority theme has been invited to
parade and attend the rally thereafter. Approximately fifty to one-hundred-fifty
people are expected, as well as possible counter-demonstrators. Hostile
demonstrators have appeared at some of Plaintiff's previous events in other
locales, and are a potential at Plaintiff's planned events in Jena.
12. There remain no timely and adequate remedies by which to obtain Plaintiff's
First Amendment rights and Plaintiff is unwilling to surrender to Defendants its
right to the "symbolic" speech occasioned by the holding of its parade. Plaintiff
has, also, scheduled opportunities to afford local citizens the occasion to assemble
and engage in expressive-activities.
13. Plaintiff has submitted logistics and public-order plans to Defendants,
offering "full cooperation for a safe and patriotic event, " in good faith, and
counsel for Plaintiff, on or about December 6, 2007, has attempted to contact
Walter E. Dorroh, Jr., the city-attorney, to negotiate a waiver of the bond,
security, fire-arms-dictate and route-limitation, as well as to institute any sort
or appeal or consideration to overturn the "observations and responses" of
November 27, 2005, leaving the request on Attorney-Dorroh's answering
machine, with his secretary and, also, in written correspondence, but, although
Attorney-Dorroh has acknowledged receiving the request, he has taken no
dispositive action thereon.
14. Plaintiff cannot afford to postpone or delay its parade and assembly because
of the urgency of calling for abolition of the challenged Ordinance, the on-going
trials or other dispositions of the Jena Six, the continuation of the objectionable
"Inter-racial Committee," the appearance of some of the "Jena Six" on television
or in news and commentaries in newspapers and other media and the conduct
of the King Holiday, all having been of considerable public-interest.
15. Plaintiff is unable to afford the cost of the bond demanded by Defendants.
Neither can Plaintiff afford to post the bond or provide security or indemnification
as a pre-condition to speak, assemble and petition, in the premises. And, after
diligent and personal search and inquiry, Plaintiff has been unable to find
an insurance company which would, in any event, issue insurance according
to the risks involved in staging a public event upon a controversial topic. And,
the District Court of the District of New Jersey has found that Plaintiff, in a similar,
recent case, was unable to afford any such fees.
16. The topics Plaintiff wishes to discuss are of current and urgent importance,
which should be addressed in a timely, public and orderly manner by the
citizenry as a petition to the government for redress of grievances.
17. Plaintiff desires to limit or exclude potentially hostile, violent or adverse
hecklers from attacking or disrupting its parade and rally, with undue noise-makers,
rock-throwing or physical attacks, through logistics and coordination with police
and other officials, which has proven to be a successful plan, in the staging
of similar events. In Dubuque, Atlanta and Simi Valley those attacking the
parade were arrested and in Morristown, Denver and Boston, those attempting
to heckle the ceremonies with undue noise were excluded or kept at a distance,
so as to not interfere.
18. For assembly logistics, it seems likely that, in addition to the gathering at
and before the LaSalle Parish Courthouse, a street or streets adjoining the said
Courthouse would be needed for assembly for Plaintiff's parade, prior to the
parade, and for use by spectators supporting the event or rally-goers in
conjunction with the rally, after the parade (depending on the number of paraders
or spectators supporting the event), or for security and police purposes.
19. Notwithstanding the obstacles and constitutional deprivations interposed
by Defendants, Plaintiff has a continuing interest in parading, rallying and
expressing its views in Jena, Louisiana, between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on
January, 21, 20083, using the public streets, to parade and assemble, in
conjunction with its Courthouse rally, as aforesaid.
20. The right of the people to assemble and parade, without being financially
burdened in doing so, as well as to be free from the arbitrary conduct of public
officials based upon opposition to the content of the speaker's speech, is a
well-known legal principle of longstanding, since at least 1992 when the right
was established in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Forsyth
County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement.
21. Plaintiff has acted reasonably, lawfully and properly to secure cooperation
to assemble, parade, speak, symbolically speak and petition, in good faith, to
no avail, but verily believes and so avers, that Defendants will continue to
abridge Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
22. Defendants have acted arbitrarily and capriciously their aforesaid denial
of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
23. The actions of Defendant, set forth above, interfering with Plaintiff's rights
to parade, petition, assemble and express its views in Jena, Louisiana, will
cause irreparable and continuing injury to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has no
adequate remedy at law. The public interest requires that Defendants be
enjoined from engaging in such unlawful conduct.
COUNT TWO
24. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated and realleged.
25. The denial of Plaintiff's right to peaceably assemble in a parade and to
assemble in the public streets at the seat of government and, thereby, to petition
the government and exercise freedom of speech, is a violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
26. Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is unconstitutional on
its face or as applied, by placing a financial burden of a $10,000.00 bond upon
the exercise of the First Amendment by Plaintiff, at or about the traditional
public forums of the seat of government and the public streets adjoining the
same.
27. The application of said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130,
as hereinbefore set forth, chills the exercise of Plaintiff's said constitutional
rights and serves no valid purpose except to prevent and deny Plaintiff its said
rights to assemble, rally and parade and to actually or symbolically speak in a
timely, public and organized manner on current events of local and national
importance.
COUNT THREE
28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated and realleged.
29. The prohibition contained on the "Permit Application for Procession, March,
Parade or Demonstration," submitted by Defendants to Plaintiff along with the
November 27, 2007 "Observations and Responses," prohibits the "carrying of
firearms," in contravention of the Second Amendment.
30. The said prohibition is interposed under color-of-law, but without authority
of law and is included as part of a form Defendants demanded Plaintiff to sign
as a pre-condition to conducting its parade.
31. Said prohibition is vague and uncertain, in that it purports to override not
only the Second Amendment, but to cast Plaintiff as an ombudsman for Defendants'
unconstitutional proclivities, as well as to undertake covenants or liability for
conduct of participants beyond its control.
32. In addition, in that there is no appeal-process by which to challenge the said
prohibition and in that attempts by Plaintiff to secure an appeal, by requesting
the same from the City-Attorney, have been rebuffed or shunted aside, as the
case may be, the issuance, promulgation and enforcement of the said firearms'
prohibition violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT FOUR
33. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated and realleged.
34. Said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is unconstitutionally
overbroad and, as such, violates principles of fundamental fairness in that
it fails to set out narrow, objective and definite standards to guide Defendants
or others empowered to enforce the same.
35. Said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is, as applied or
on its face, unconstitutional and overbroad, in that it permits Defendants to
impose the financial-burden of a bond, security-deposit, indemnification and
hold-harmless scheme, as well as forfeiture of Second-Amendment rights, as
a pre-condition to exercise of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights, thereby
permitting denial of the constitutional right of Plaintiff to police protection and
to the use of the public street for free speech, without intimidation, violence or
disorder.
36. The said Ordinance provides that Plaintiff "shall be liable for all damage to
property or persons which may arise out of or in connection with any such
procession, march, parade or public demonstration," thereby inflicting unlimited
and unascertainable liability upon Plaintiff, even for conduct of others, such
as rioters, arsonists or looters, beyond its control, thereby constituting
overbreadth, vagueness and uncertainty, which chills Plaintiff's
freedom-of-expression and violates the First Amendment.
COUNT FIVE
37. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated and realleged.
38. The said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is void as applied
or on its face because it contains no waiver or exemption for those, such as
Plaintiff, who are unable to afford to pay for bond or security or to agree to the
"hold-harmless" or damage-liability requirements.
39. The said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 unlawfully
discriminates according to status, between rich and poor, in deciding who may
speak in the traditional public forum in exercise of constitutional rights, whereby
the poorer and humbler elements of society are disadvantaged as a result of said
Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130, without compelling governmental
reason for such distinction or conduct.
40. The said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 , on its face or
as applied, unlawfully discriminates according to status, between those entities
which are exempt, such as labor organizations, "governing authority" groups,
schools and Mardi Gras celebrants, and Plaintiff, which is a non-profit organization,
lacking any such "official" aegis, without any compelling governmental reason
for such distinction or conduct in violation of free-speech, under the First
Amendment, and equal-protection, under the Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT SIX
41. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated and realleged.
42. There are no guidelines or standards to determine what is a "bona fide,
legitimate labor organization," which is exempt from all provisions of the said
Ordinance, notably bonds and damage-liability clauses, versus Plaintiff, which
is active in advancing and speaking for the rights of labor and working-men by
way of its Platform, publications and activities, but is being required to "pay
for patriotism" by way of a "fee for freedom" under a "license for liberty."
43. By necessarily taking into account the content of the speech or
symbolic-speech, as the case may be, of Plaintiff and others, particularly
that "any procession or parade directly held or sponsored by the governing
authority of the municipality" would be unlikely to be critical of the "governing
authority," whereas Plaintiff is expressly critical of the "governing authority," in
calling for abolition of the "Inter-racial Committee" appointed by the Defendant
Mayor and approved by the Defendant Town-council, as well as in seeking
abolition of the Ordinance imposing bonds and other financial-burdens on
free-speech, said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is arbitrary,
treating those similarly situated dissimilarly without compelling state reason
to do so, abridging Plaintiff's right to free-speech under the First Amendment
and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendments.
44. Defendants had actual notice of the content of Plaintiff's intended speech,
or symbolic speech, as the case may be, by means of newspaper and Internet
reports and articles, circulated in the jurisdiction, as well as a copy of Plaintiff's
publication "All The Way", sent to Defendants with Plaintiff's initial October 15,
2007 notice. In addition, Defendant-Mayor and Plaintiff conducted a telephone
discussion, in which Plaintiff expressed its views and discussed Plaintiff's
counter-protest to a prior event supporting the "Jena Six".
45. The denial of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights by Defendants as a result
of the content of Plaintiff's intended speech (or symbolic speech, as the case
may be) violates Plaintiff's right to equal protection under the laws as guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it
unlawfully differentiates between parades whose speech is "approved" and
those whose speech is "not approved."
COUNT SEVEN
46. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated and realleged.
47. Defendants' refusing or declining to consider Plaintiff's request for waiver
of the bond, indemnification, damage-security, hold-harmless and restrictions
pursuant to Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130, deprives
Plaintiff of due process of law and equal protection under the First, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments.
COUNT EIGHT
48. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated and realleged.
49. Plaintiff has been injured by Defendants' actions in that its rights under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated, its organizing efforts
hindered, its ability to associate together for the common purpose of recruiting,
discussion and advocacy on matters of public interest have been hindered and
its efforts to garner support for its agenda have been hampered.
50. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff will be unable to exercise
its fundamental constitutional rights of expression, petition, assembly and
association upon the public-streets, in the traditional public-forum which such
streets represent, in and about the seat-of-government, on January 21, 2008.
51. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is in need of immediate and
permanent equitable relief.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant
the following relief against Defendant, Town of Jena, and Defendant, Murphy
McMillin, as Mayor of the Town of Jena and Individually:
1. Enter injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation
with them, from interfering in any way with Plaintiff's assembly, speech or
symbolic speech, as the case may be, on the public-streets of Jena, Louisiana,
at or about the LaSalle Parish Courthouse, between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM,
on January 21, 2008 or about the parade-route from the front of the Courthouse
down to Highway 84, East one block, back to the Courthouse, then to Jena High
School and back to the Courthouse.
2. Enter a declaratory judgment that Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S.
14:326 §130 cannot be utilized by Defendants to restrict the exercise of First
Amendment rights in Jena, Louisiana between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, on
January 21, 2008;
3. Enter a declaratory judgment that said Town of Jena Ordinance #146,
R.S. 14:326 §130 as applied, or on its face, as the case may be, is violative
of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
4. Enter a declaratory judgment that said Town of Jena Ordinance #146,
R.S. 14:326 §130 as applied, or on its face, as the case may be, is violative
of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as the case may be;
5. Enter a declaratory judgment that the provision of the "Permit Application
for Procession, March, Parade or Demonstration" for damage-liability is
violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution;
6. Enter a declaratory judgment that the provision of the "Permit Application
for Procession, March, Parade or Demonstration" for carrying of firearms
is violative of the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution;
7. Grant injunctive relief against Defendants prohibiting them from unlawfully
and unreasonably interfering with the exercise by Plaintiff of its First
Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right
to petition the government for redress of grievances;
8. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff;
9. Award costs and attorney-fees to Plaintiff under 42 USC §1988, together
with interest from the date of award of attorney-fees;
10. Give this case expedited treatment on this Court's docket so that the
Plaintiff will be able to meaningfully enjoy its constitutional rights; and,
Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, necessary,
proper and equitable in the premises.
Richard Barrett
Attorney for The Nationalist Movement
http://www.nationalist.org/docs/law/jena.html
Crosstar
Trademark/service of The Nationalist Movement
nationalist.org
Not necessarily Crosstar views
© 2007 The Nationalist Movement
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
#07-2168
Complaint
Plaintiff, The Nationalist Movement, seeks to invalidate as unconstitutional
an Ordinance of Defendant, the Town of Jena, Louisiana, as well as various
restrictions, which are, also, unconstitutional, in order for Plaintiff to exercise
its First Amendment rights in conducting a rally, delivering speeches, holding
a parade and circulating petitions to the government for redress of grievances,
at the LaSalle Parish Courthouse and upon the public streets adjoining said
Courthouse, in Jena, Louisiana, under the theme "Jena Justice Day", sub-titled
"No to Jena Six, No to MLK".
Plaintiff seeks to use the streets, sidewalk and grounds at and about the said
Courthouse, at and in the traditional and quintessential public forum of the seat
of government, on January 21, 2007, between 11:00 AM and 4:00 PM (with two
hours beforehand for setup of loud speakers, decorating and preparing petitions).
But, by promulgating and enforcing Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326
§130 (B), and, thereunder, requiring Plaintiff to pay for and secure a bond in the
sum of $10,000.00, under Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 (B) to
provide said bond as a "security-deposit," under Town of Jena Ordinance #146,
R.S. 14:326 §130 (A) to assume liability for any and all damages "which may
arise" and to suffer such burdens notwithstanding that similar activities by the
"governing authority," labor-unions, schools, Mardi Gras and "carnival festivities"
are exempt, under Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 (C), Defendants
have unconstitutionally interfered with Plaintiff's rights.
In addition, Defendants have "required" that Plaintiff "vary from your
anticipated [parade] route" for "public safety," notwithstanding that Plaintiff
has notified Defendants that it intends to parade, briefly, on Highway 84,
which was previously blocked off in order to accommodate a group assembling,
parading and speaking, in the same vicinity, on or about September 21, 2007,
but with views contrary to those of Plaintiff.
In addition, Defendants have required, as a pre-condition to the exercise of
First-Amendment rights, that Plaintiff execute a "hold-harmless" clause styled
a "Permit Application for Procession, March, Parade or Demonstration" stating
that "I will be liable for all damages" "which may arise." Furthermore, under
said "Permit Application," Defendants have required Plaintiff to covenant that
"the carrying of firearms is prohibited," in contravention of the Second
Amendment.
In addition, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that said Town of Jena
Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130, or sections thereof, the abridgement of the
parade route by letter dated November 27, 2007on the official-stationery of the
Town of Jena and signed by Defendant McMillin, the "hold-harmless" clause
of the said "Permit Application" and the Second-Amendment-restriction of
said "Permit Application" cannot be utilized by Defendants to prohibit the
exercise of First Amendment rights. Plaintiff further seeks compensatory
damages, attorney fees and costs.
Count I seeks declaratory and injunctive relief by reason of Defendants'
unlawful constitutional violations. Count II seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief against Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 complained
of for being invalid, on its face or as applied. Count III seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief by reason of the prohibition, separate and apart from the
Ordinance, against carrying of firearms, being contrary to the Second Amendment
and lack of an appeal, for the prohibition, route-limitation, bond and hold-harmless
clause, being violative of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count
IV seeks declaratory and injunctive relief by reason of said Ordinance being
unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. Count V seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief by reason of said Ordinance violating equal-protection
based upon status or ability to pay to parade. Count VI seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief by reason of said Ordinance violating equal-protection based
upon content of speech or symbolic speech, as the case may be, sought to
be conveyed by Plaintiff. Count VII seeks declaratory and injunctive relief by
reason of said Ordinance abridging freedom-of-association.
I. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USC §§1331 and
1343(3) and (4). The action is brought pursuant to 42 USC §§1983, 1985 and
1988 to redress violations of Plaintiff's First, Second, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and for a declaratory
judgment pursuant to 28 USC §§2201 and 2202.
Plaintiff is:
The Nationalist Movement, a non-profit pro-majority organization, domiciled
in and incorporated under the laws of the State of Mississippi, whose
principal place of business is at 5722 Learned Road, PO Box 2000, Learned,
Mississippi 39154, in Hinds County, Mississippi.
Defendant, Town of Jena, is:
A municipal, governmental entity, existing under the laws of the State of
Louisiana, acting under color-of-law, located at Town Hall, PO Box 26, Jena,
Louisiana, within the Western District of Louisiana, in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana.
Defendant, Murphy McMillin, is:
An adult, resident citizen of the laws of the State of Louisiana, who is, also,
Mayor of the said Town of Jena, Louisiana, acting under color-of-law, who
may be found at Town Hall, PO Box 26, Jena, Louisiana, within the Western
District of Louisiana, in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On or about October 15, 2007, Plaintiff notified Defendants of its scheduling
of a public protest, wherein "the parade will use the public street directly
from the front of the Courthouse down to Hwy. 84, East one block, back to the
Courthouse, then to Jena High School and back to the Courthouse, where
the rally will take place. "The rally including ceremonies, petitions and
speeches will begin at approximately 12:30 PM at the Courthouse front steps
and last until approximately 3:00 PM, followed by disassembly of the equipment
and signing of petitions, completing at 4:00 PM." The schedule begins at
"9:00 AM, at which time decorating, staging and equipment will set in place,
followed by assembly for paraders in front of the Courthouse between 11:00
AM and Noon. The parade will step off at Noon from the front of the Court
house, proceeding in the full width of the street along the route, as outlined."
2. Pursuant to Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 (A), (B),
Defendants, by letter, on November 27, 2000, interposed the financial-obligation
of a $10,000.00 bond for "security," as well as a "hold-harmless" covenant,
also included on their "Permit Application for Procession, March, Parade
or Demonstration as "security," as a pre-condition to parade upon the
public-streets, from, around and back to the LaSalle Parish Courthouse.
3. In addition, Defendants interposed a limitation on the parade route, slated
to include a one-block portion of Highway 84, by prohibiting parading on said
highway.
4. In addition, Defendants purported to prohibit "the carrying of firearms."
5. Plaintiff, which had been conducting protests against the King Holiday
across the country, had, also, desired to rally opposition to the "Jena Six", who
had engaged in lawless activities in the Town of Jena, to call for abolition of
the "Inter-racial Committee" recently appointed by the Defendant-Mayor and
approved by the Defendant Town-council and to "honor the rule of law and
oppose the lawlessness and minority-preferences instigated by the late Martin
Luther King. It will, also, show respect for the Bill of Rights and demand
abolition of King Day."
6. Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 requires a $10,000.00
bond for "security," amounting to a "security-deposit" or "insurance" and a
"hold-harmless" clause, which amounts to an indemnification. Plaintiff is
unable to afford such a financial undertaking, insofar as its income for the
previous year amounted to approximately $1,906.00, but with a net operating
loss totaling $1,289.00. There is no provision under the Ordinance for a waiver
of the bond due to financial hardship or inability and no exception is made for
those on the grounds of financial-inability.
7. Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 (C) undertakes to give
preferential or exempt treatment to the "governing authority," labor-organizations,
schools, Mardi Gras and "carnival festivities," mandating that "nothing
contained herein shall apply" to them. The provision is based upon status of
the rallier, parader or speaker, in that "official" government organizations do
not need to pay to secure or post a bond, as well as upon the content of speech,
insofar as a "school" or "municipality" would not likely be disposed to be
critical of government-policies or to voice an appeal for reform. The Ordinance
states that a "bona fide" "organization" "specifically" celebrating Mardi
Gras is exempt, but without stating any guidelines as to what is "bona fide" or
how "bona fide" is determined. Likewise, the Ordinance exempts a "bona fide,
legitimate labor organization" without any standards as to how any such "bona
fides" are determined.
8. Plaintiff's purpose in having said parade and rally is to peacefully assemble
to petition the government for a redress of grievances, to promote patriotism,
democracy, majority rule and freedom, to promote membership, to discuss
topics of current importance of local and national interest, including, but not
limited to, calling for abolition of the instant Ordinance, opposing the assault
and criminality perpetrated by the "Jena Six", opposing the "Inter-racial Committee,"
opposing "diversity" and "racial integration," striking down privileges and favors
for the few, which Plaintiff avers is exemplified by the King Holiday, and honoring
those who defend the American Way of Life. The events seek to empower Jena
residents to speak and be heard in a peaceful, dignified, positive and democratic
setting and to promote the agenda of Plaintiff regarding positive social change
and peaceful social justice.
9. As part of its expression, petitioning and assembly, Plaintiff desires to
parade upon the public streets, in the traditional public-forum thereof, to call
attention to its grievances, display signs and placards stating its goals and
recruit members. Plaintiff, also, desires that members of the public, supporting
its goals, take part in its parade and assembly, that interested spectators, who
may not wish to participate directly, have an opportunity to see and hear the
proceedings and that any hostile elements be relegated to some place sufficiently
distant so as to not to be able to disrupt, heckle or perpetrate violence upon
those taking part in the ceremonies. Plaintiff brings considerable expertise
in organizing, conducting and litigating over parades and rallies, across the
nation, during its twenty-year history, having, also, forged the law of the land
on the subject in its 1992 United States Supreme Court ruling.
10. Defendants' actions interfere with and prevent Plaintiff's exercise of its
rights to parade, assemble, speak and express its views in Jena, Louisiana on
said date. Use of the public streets directly from the front of the Courthouse
down to Hwy. 84, East one block, back to the Courthouse, the to Jena High
School and back to the Courthouse is necessary for said parade and use of the
street or streets adjoining the LaSalle Parish Courthouse are necessary and
desirable to give participants an opportunity to express their views. Use of the
public streets directly surrounding the Courthouse is likely necessary for
paraders as an adjunct to parading (assembly or disassembly) and for spectators
supporting the event to assemble for or view the rally or to listen to speeches
at said rally.
11. The public which shares Plaintiff's pro-majority theme has been invited to
parade and attend the rally thereafter. Approximately fifty to one-hundred-fifty
people are expected, as well as possible counter-demonstrators. Hostile
demonstrators have appeared at some of Plaintiff's previous events in other
locales, and are a potential at Plaintiff's planned events in Jena.
12. There remain no timely and adequate remedies by which to obtain Plaintiff's
First Amendment rights and Plaintiff is unwilling to surrender to Defendants its
right to the "symbolic" speech occasioned by the holding of its parade. Plaintiff
has, also, scheduled opportunities to afford local citizens the occasion to assemble
and engage in expressive-activities.
13. Plaintiff has submitted logistics and public-order plans to Defendants,
offering "full cooperation for a safe and patriotic event, " in good faith, and
counsel for Plaintiff, on or about December 6, 2007, has attempted to contact
Walter E. Dorroh, Jr., the city-attorney, to negotiate a waiver of the bond,
security, fire-arms-dictate and route-limitation, as well as to institute any sort
or appeal or consideration to overturn the "observations and responses" of
November 27, 2005, leaving the request on Attorney-Dorroh's answering
machine, with his secretary and, also, in written correspondence, but, although
Attorney-Dorroh has acknowledged receiving the request, he has taken no
dispositive action thereon.
14. Plaintiff cannot afford to postpone or delay its parade and assembly because
of the urgency of calling for abolition of the challenged Ordinance, the on-going
trials or other dispositions of the Jena Six, the continuation of the objectionable
"Inter-racial Committee," the appearance of some of the "Jena Six" on television
or in news and commentaries in newspapers and other media and the conduct
of the King Holiday, all having been of considerable public-interest.
15. Plaintiff is unable to afford the cost of the bond demanded by Defendants.
Neither can Plaintiff afford to post the bond or provide security or indemnification
as a pre-condition to speak, assemble and petition, in the premises. And, after
diligent and personal search and inquiry, Plaintiff has been unable to find
an insurance company which would, in any event, issue insurance according
to the risks involved in staging a public event upon a controversial topic. And,
the District Court of the District of New Jersey has found that Plaintiff, in a similar,
recent case, was unable to afford any such fees.
16. The topics Plaintiff wishes to discuss are of current and urgent importance,
which should be addressed in a timely, public and orderly manner by the
citizenry as a petition to the government for redress of grievances.
17. Plaintiff desires to limit or exclude potentially hostile, violent or adverse
hecklers from attacking or disrupting its parade and rally, with undue noise-makers,
rock-throwing or physical attacks, through logistics and coordination with police
and other officials, which has proven to be a successful plan, in the staging
of similar events. In Dubuque, Atlanta and Simi Valley those attacking the
parade were arrested and in Morristown, Denver and Boston, those attempting
to heckle the ceremonies with undue noise were excluded or kept at a distance,
so as to not interfere.
18. For assembly logistics, it seems likely that, in addition to the gathering at
and before the LaSalle Parish Courthouse, a street or streets adjoining the said
Courthouse would be needed for assembly for Plaintiff's parade, prior to the
parade, and for use by spectators supporting the event or rally-goers in
conjunction with the rally, after the parade (depending on the number of paraders
or spectators supporting the event), or for security and police purposes.
19. Notwithstanding the obstacles and constitutional deprivations interposed
by Defendants, Plaintiff has a continuing interest in parading, rallying and
expressing its views in Jena, Louisiana, between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on
January, 21, 20083, using the public streets, to parade and assemble, in
conjunction with its Courthouse rally, as aforesaid.
20. The right of the people to assemble and parade, without being financially
burdened in doing so, as well as to be free from the arbitrary conduct of public
officials based upon opposition to the content of the speaker's speech, is a
well-known legal principle of longstanding, since at least 1992 when the right
was established in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Forsyth
County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement.
21. Plaintiff has acted reasonably, lawfully and properly to secure cooperation
to assemble, parade, speak, symbolically speak and petition, in good faith, to
no avail, but verily believes and so avers, that Defendants will continue to
abridge Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
22. Defendants have acted arbitrarily and capriciously their aforesaid denial
of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
23. The actions of Defendant, set forth above, interfering with Plaintiff's rights
to parade, petition, assemble and express its views in Jena, Louisiana, will
cause irreparable and continuing injury to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has no
adequate remedy at law. The public interest requires that Defendants be
enjoined from engaging in such unlawful conduct.
COUNT TWO
24. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated and realleged.
25. The denial of Plaintiff's right to peaceably assemble in a parade and to
assemble in the public streets at the seat of government and, thereby, to petition
the government and exercise freedom of speech, is a violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
26. Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is unconstitutional on
its face or as applied, by placing a financial burden of a $10,000.00 bond upon
the exercise of the First Amendment by Plaintiff, at or about the traditional
public forums of the seat of government and the public streets adjoining the
same.
27. The application of said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130,
as hereinbefore set forth, chills the exercise of Plaintiff's said constitutional
rights and serves no valid purpose except to prevent and deny Plaintiff its said
rights to assemble, rally and parade and to actually or symbolically speak in a
timely, public and organized manner on current events of local and national
importance.
COUNT THREE
28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated and realleged.
29. The prohibition contained on the "Permit Application for Procession, March,
Parade or Demonstration," submitted by Defendants to Plaintiff along with the
November 27, 2007 "Observations and Responses," prohibits the "carrying of
firearms," in contravention of the Second Amendment.
30. The said prohibition is interposed under color-of-law, but without authority
of law and is included as part of a form Defendants demanded Plaintiff to sign
as a pre-condition to conducting its parade.
31. Said prohibition is vague and uncertain, in that it purports to override not
only the Second Amendment, but to cast Plaintiff as an ombudsman for Defendants'
unconstitutional proclivities, as well as to undertake covenants or liability for
conduct of participants beyond its control.
32. In addition, in that there is no appeal-process by which to challenge the said
prohibition and in that attempts by Plaintiff to secure an appeal, by requesting
the same from the City-Attorney, have been rebuffed or shunted aside, as the
case may be, the issuance, promulgation and enforcement of the said firearms'
prohibition violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT FOUR
33. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated and realleged.
34. Said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is unconstitutionally
overbroad and, as such, violates principles of fundamental fairness in that
it fails to set out narrow, objective and definite standards to guide Defendants
or others empowered to enforce the same.
35. Said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is, as applied or
on its face, unconstitutional and overbroad, in that it permits Defendants to
impose the financial-burden of a bond, security-deposit, indemnification and
hold-harmless scheme, as well as forfeiture of Second-Amendment rights, as
a pre-condition to exercise of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights, thereby
permitting denial of the constitutional right of Plaintiff to police protection and
to the use of the public street for free speech, without intimidation, violence or
disorder.
36. The said Ordinance provides that Plaintiff "shall be liable for all damage to
property or persons which may arise out of or in connection with any such
procession, march, parade or public demonstration," thereby inflicting unlimited
and unascertainable liability upon Plaintiff, even for conduct of others, such
as rioters, arsonists or looters, beyond its control, thereby constituting
overbreadth, vagueness and uncertainty, which chills Plaintiff's
freedom-of-expression and violates the First Amendment.
COUNT FIVE
37. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated and realleged.
38. The said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is void as applied
or on its face because it contains no waiver or exemption for those, such as
Plaintiff, who are unable to afford to pay for bond or security or to agree to the
"hold-harmless" or damage-liability requirements.
39. The said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 unlawfully
discriminates according to status, between rich and poor, in deciding who may
speak in the traditional public forum in exercise of constitutional rights, whereby
the poorer and humbler elements of society are disadvantaged as a result of said
Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130, without compelling governmental
reason for such distinction or conduct.
40. The said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 , on its face or
as applied, unlawfully discriminates according to status, between those entities
which are exempt, such as labor organizations, "governing authority" groups,
schools and Mardi Gras celebrants, and Plaintiff, which is a non-profit organization,
lacking any such "official" aegis, without any compelling governmental reason
for such distinction or conduct in violation of free-speech, under the First
Amendment, and equal-protection, under the Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT SIX
41. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated and realleged.
42. There are no guidelines or standards to determine what is a "bona fide,
legitimate labor organization," which is exempt from all provisions of the said
Ordinance, notably bonds and damage-liability clauses, versus Plaintiff, which
is active in advancing and speaking for the rights of labor and working-men by
way of its Platform, publications and activities, but is being required to "pay
for patriotism" by way of a "fee for freedom" under a "license for liberty."
43. By necessarily taking into account the content of the speech or
symbolic-speech, as the case may be, of Plaintiff and others, particularly
that "any procession or parade directly held or sponsored by the governing
authority of the municipality" would be unlikely to be critical of the "governing
authority," whereas Plaintiff is expressly critical of the "governing authority," in
calling for abolition of the "Inter-racial Committee" appointed by the Defendant
Mayor and approved by the Defendant Town-council, as well as in seeking
abolition of the Ordinance imposing bonds and other financial-burdens on
free-speech, said Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130 is arbitrary,
treating those similarly situated dissimilarly without compelling state reason
to do so, abridging Plaintiff's right to free-speech under the First Amendment
and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendments.
44. Defendants had actual notice of the content of Plaintiff's intended speech,
or symbolic speech, as the case may be, by means of newspaper and Internet
reports and articles, circulated in the jurisdiction, as well as a copy of Plaintiff's
publication "All The Way", sent to Defendants with Plaintiff's initial October 15,
2007 notice. In addition, Defendant-Mayor and Plaintiff conducted a telephone
discussion, in which Plaintiff expressed its views and discussed Plaintiff's
counter-protest to a prior event supporting the "Jena Six".
45. The denial of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights by Defendants as a result
of the content of Plaintiff's intended speech (or symbolic speech, as the case
may be) violates Plaintiff's right to equal protection under the laws as guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it
unlawfully differentiates between parades whose speech is "approved" and
those whose speech is "not approved."
COUNT SEVEN
46. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated and realleged.
47. Defendants' refusing or declining to consider Plaintiff's request for waiver
of the bond, indemnification, damage-security, hold-harmless and restrictions
pursuant to Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S. 14:326 §130, deprives
Plaintiff of due process of law and equal protection under the First, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments.
COUNT EIGHT
48. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated and realleged.
49. Plaintiff has been injured by Defendants' actions in that its rights under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated, its organizing efforts
hindered, its ability to associate together for the common purpose of recruiting,
discussion and advocacy on matters of public interest have been hindered and
its efforts to garner support for its agenda have been hampered.
50. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff will be unable to exercise
its fundamental constitutional rights of expression, petition, assembly and
association upon the public-streets, in the traditional public-forum which such
streets represent, in and about the seat-of-government, on January 21, 2008.
51. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is in need of immediate and
permanent equitable relief.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant
the following relief against Defendant, Town of Jena, and Defendant, Murphy
McMillin, as Mayor of the Town of Jena and Individually:
1. Enter injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation
with them, from interfering in any way with Plaintiff's assembly, speech or
symbolic speech, as the case may be, on the public-streets of Jena, Louisiana,
at or about the LaSalle Parish Courthouse, between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM,
on January 21, 2008 or about the parade-route from the front of the Courthouse
down to Highway 84, East one block, back to the Courthouse, then to Jena High
School and back to the Courthouse.
2. Enter a declaratory judgment that Town of Jena Ordinance #146, R.S.
14:326 §130 cannot be utilized by Defendants to restrict the exercise of First
Amendment rights in Jena, Louisiana between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, on
January 21, 2008;
3. Enter a declaratory judgment that said Town of Jena Ordinance #146,
R.S. 14:326 §130 as applied, or on its face, as the case may be, is violative
of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
4. Enter a declaratory judgment that said Town of Jena Ordinance #146,
R.S. 14:326 §130 as applied, or on its face, as the case may be, is violative
of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as the case may be;
5. Enter a declaratory judgment that the provision of the "Permit Application
for Procession, March, Parade or Demonstration" for damage-liability is
violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution;
6. Enter a declaratory judgment that the provision of the "Permit Application
for Procession, March, Parade or Demonstration" for carrying of firearms
is violative of the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution;
7. Grant injunctive relief against Defendants prohibiting them from unlawfully
and unreasonably interfering with the exercise by Plaintiff of its First
Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right
to petition the government for redress of grievances;
8. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff;
9. Award costs and attorney-fees to Plaintiff under 42 USC §1988, together
with interest from the date of award of attorney-fees;
10. Give this case expedited treatment on this Court's docket so that the
Plaintiff will be able to meaningfully enjoy its constitutional rights; and,
Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, necessary,
proper and equitable in the premises.
Richard Barrett
Attorney for The Nationalist Movement
http://www.nationalist.org/docs/law/jena.html
Crosstar
Trademark/service of The Nationalist Movement
nationalist.org
Not necessarily Crosstar views
© 2007 The Nationalist Movement