Lonegan arrested in Cape May outside Corzine public meeting

outside a public school ?, on public property   maybe Bill Brennan could find out.

were they the same State Police who pick up women in bars and rape them for fun, or local Overpaid YOKEL cops who never read the constitution. ? Regardless Lonegan the media fox will have his day in court and Corzine will be shown to be the complete jackass that he is.

This sounds very similar to an outrageous tactic once used back in early 1993 by a top administration official of former Governor Jim Florio. 

During one of Florio's so-called "Capital For A Day" events, I believe one held down in Ocean Township, NJ, a top Florio official prompted the local police to arrest a young woman from Rahway, NJ, a mother with children, on a disorderly persons charge. 

It was done merely because she got in line to ask a question of the Governor.  The most outrageous aspect of the incident was that prior to the event, she had actually been urged to ask a question by another lower level Florio staff person!  At the time, the story was reported in the Trentonian.

When she got up to asked the question, she was confronted by the Florio official, who prevented her from asking a question.  The confrontation then moved into the lobby of the auditorium, where she was arrested and hand-cuffed for merely trying to exercise her First Amendment rights!

Later, the official was reportedly also charged with some disorderly charge, and both sides later decided to drop all prosecution.

by Trochilus

While I do not support most of Mayor Lonegan's political views or core philosophies, I do believe that his fundamental free speech liberties have been needlessly abridged in this situation. It was unnecessary and appalling.

He has been harassed and denied his basic consitutional rights. I don't care if you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent or Third Party, there are certain unalienable rights afforded to everyone. First amendment free speech liberties being first among equals.

I have encountered the Lonegan protest at a previous financial restructuring/debt reduction town hall meeting. The Lonegan protesters were simply holding up their opposition signs and handing out leaflets explaining their position. There was no need to interfere with their work.

This is an unfortunate embarrassment for the Governor. The heavy handed silencing of his political foe may hinder his attempt to build goodwill support from the public for his very controversial and complex financial plan.

It will give the Governor's enemies more ammunition and his friends reason to pause.

On The Waterfront since 1954

Just another example of Jon Corzine's idea of "open discussion" of this idiot plan of his. 

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."
                --Theodore Roosevelt--

The one fact that is clear is that Governor Stupidhead is a socialist liberal who is only watching out for himself and his cronies. Steve Lonegan on the other is out to try and educate the citizens of New Jersey (even the stupid ones like you) on how this idiot is trying to bankrupt the state.

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."
                --Theodore Roosevelt--

They can throw handcuffs at those who protest, but people wont wont pull back from defeating a man who makes Jim Florio look like Ronald Reagan. This is a fight for us to remain free of an incompetent and overbearing state government. Corzine is at 40% and only going down. You have Democratic congressmembers and Senators licking their chops, sensible centrists know Corzine's policies won't work. It is time for these Dems to form a coalition for change with Republicans and Independents to save our state. As for the GOP, they are not only back from the dead but Lautenberg will not be in for an easy sail in November.

Be kind to the lawyers; they're the ones you'll call when you get in real trouble . . . unless you'd rather have an accountant, but I wouldn't recommend it.

The problem in this case is the very idea of public property.  In the case of trespass to private property, the fee owner has the maximal right of use and disposal of the subject property.  The owner can eject anyone she wishes for any reason whatever or no reason.  You can't claim the right to be on private property to speak your mind without the consent of the owner.  You don't have a right to free speech on someone else's private property without their consent.

The First Amendment does not apply to private property.  It was intended as a limitation on government in the context of government's adopting rules and regulations limiting/regulating use of public property for political assembly and speech.  If the local government could not make rules of any kind restricting the use of public property, anyone could go into any court and sit on the judge's bench or create a disturbance sufficient to disallow the courts or the public schools to operate at all.

But local governments can't just make any regulations they want.  The restrictions made by local governments on political assembly and political speech must pass constitutional muster.  They must be content-neutral, meaning that the restrictions cannot be directed at limiting the political content of the message.  If a ordinance does so, it would be subject to a facial, First Amendment challenge.  In addition, the ordinance must be tailored to achieve a really important and legitimate public interest (like the health, welfare and safety of the public).  If it isn't, whatever section is not tailored to achieve that goal can challenged and found unconstitutional as well.  Oftentimes such challenges result in the entire regulatory scheme being found unconstitutional. 

Thus, we all will have to see the ordinance or rule under which Mr. Mayor was arrested.  Could also be that the ordinance is overbroad or vague (doesn't give notice of what is prohibited or permitted), etc.

It may also be the case that the ordinance or rule was constitutional, but the police acted ultra vires in the performance of their job.  They may have exceeded their rule-based authority in stopping the demonstrators from waving their signs and distributing their literature. 

I haven't seen the regulation in question or heard the admissable evidence.  When we do see it, we'll be able to make a better judgment as to whether the actions of the police were legitimate (legally authorized and otherwise appropriate) or not.    

I was there.  The police told everyone if you want to hold a sign you have to go across the street.  Steve said no I'm standing (outside) right here.  He was arrested.  20 Minutes later Seth Grossman showed up and was told the same thig.  He sat down and insisted he has a right to petition and he would not go anywhere else.  Both arrested for having a sign outside, noeither even tried to take their signs in.  Aren't there gang problems the police should be taking care of?

"None of the members of the Board will want to be grilled in a discovery process about what conversations they may had with any members of the Governor's staff about the arrangements for the meeting, or what any of them may have said to the Lieutenant."

Don't worry, they'll all get to testify in the Civil suit. 

it's always good counsel to remain silent when you are ignorant rather than open your mouth (or keyboard) and prove (puke?) it for all the world to see.  A free word to the wise . . . but I suspect he will not take it, even if freely given.  Some folks just can't resist the temptation to loudly proclaim their ignorance, no matter what.

I am a member of the bars of the State of New York and New Jersey, as well as the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States; I hold an LLM in American Constitutional Law; and, I regularly advise political campaigns on these kinds of issues.

Now that we have the credentials out of the way, lets go  a little further . . . shall we?

In the first place, this is a complex issue, not a simple one.  The police are not authorized to verbally change or alter the applicable, relevant law (just imagine if that were the case).  And it doesn't matter what the policeman said the Governor did or didn't want.  I'm sure the Governor doesn't want any protest.  So what? The written law and the court's application thereof will determine what remedies, if any, Mayor Lonegan will have as a result of and related to his arrest.

As I have written elsewhere (not on this thread), and generally speaking, public schools are treated as "limited public forums".  If the school has been so designated, sign displays outside of the school and leafletting on school location might be constitutionally prohibited within certain content-neutral, time, place and manner guidelines.  That's the law.  See, State v. Schmid and NJCAW v. JMB Realty Corp., both NJ Supreme Court cases .  . .

In the second place, if the police exceeded their authority even in that context, Mayor Lonegan may have a civil claim against them under federal law.  This may have nothing directly to do with Lonegan's chosen place or manner of protest, but rather the mode and method of arrest.

The point is, we don't know.  I viewed the videotape.  It doesn't show much except that the polceman instructed Lonegan to remove his placards.  When all the elevance evidence is made available, then we can judge the totality of the matter.

N.B. Get a copy of the Middle Township Ordinances (for sale on the Internet) and see what kind of local restrictions there are governing protest outside of their schools.  A good start.  

I am not impressed by your citation of the State Constitution.  The guarantees set forth therein are not absolute . . . like the state doesn't have to provide you with a forum to exercise your rights as you see fit to exercise them.  You can look it up.  Plenty of Supreme Court decisions on the state and federal level supporting that assesment.

You don't necessarily need an actual local rule, either.  Under the apllicable case law, public schools are presumptively "restricted" and not open or limited public fora.  If it is a limited forum, then the local government can make rules governing what kind of public speech or demonstration will be permitted.  So long as the rules are content-neutral, and they are "reasonable" (according to the legal standard, not your standard) then a court of law will uphold the actions of the police in requiring certain content-neutral behavior on the premises.  And they would uphold the arrest as legal (unless some procedural issue arose respecting the nature of the arrest and subsequent confinement).

Personally and professionally, from what I have seen, heard and read of the operative facts, I don't think (yet) that Mr. Mayor has a very good case on either the facts or the law.

Seems that the police did not tell him to leave, they told him to get rid of the signs and leaflets and that no signs or leaflets were permitted.  Not that only HIS signs and leaflets were prohibitied.  And he could have taken them across the street, presumed to be an "open public forum" in the law.

No one told Mayor Lonegan that he or his group could not participate in the discussion moderated by the Governor.  Lonegan presumably was afforded the same opportunity to speak as everyone else, given the dictates of the forum, the parameters of which the local government can dictate.

I am not positive that the Mayor has been wronged under the applicable law.  In fact, it seems that he might not have been.

If he has a good case, the ACLU will probably ask him if they can take the case on . . . maybe they're interested in a possible change in the law.

I still think the Governor is a putz . . . and his program is stinko.

The mistake being made is conflating public property with public forum.  Not all public property can be a public forum at all times and in every manner in every way.  Hence, time, place and manner restrictions.  I won't and shouldn't have to wait for my case to be called because you wish to sit in the judge's chair and protest the jurisdiction of the court to hear my case.  You can go out in the street on the sidewalk with your sign and leaflets and protest to your heart's content.  You can even go to the malls now and airports, and along with the Hari Krisnas, pass out flowers, etc.  Like it or not, these are legitimate restrictions.

Anyone could attend any or all of these worthless "town hall meetings" by filling out a form and submitting it to the Governor's Office.  The fact that these forms were requires shows that the forum was intended to be restricted or limited in some way.  if Lonegan was paying attention instead of assuming facts not in evidence and applicable law, he would have simply attended the forum with his entourage and presented his case along with everyone else.  Or he could have left the school property and picketed and passed out leaflets on the street without so much as a hoot from the police.

The real problem that presents itself today is not the First Amendment or any limitation on free speech; the problem is that so much of publicly-owned property outside the realm of categorical public fora of some kind.  Leaves very little area for public conversation.  And this is not accomplished only by police activity and local rules. 

Worse yet are DWI laws and anti-smoking laws which drive people from public places where they used to gather and discuss such matters . . . taverns and public houses.  People go to restaurants and have their dinners, but they don't dine in public . . . they dine only with family and friends and generally don't mix with other patrons.  So long as these rules exist, no revolutionary plots to save liberty and the republic will be hatched in the public houses anymore.

Sometimes ignorance is NOT bliss.  It's just ignorance . . . and ignorance is not the same as stupidity.  Stupid is inability or refusal to learn; ignorance is just the absence of knowledge.  But generally, stupid people remain predictably ignorant.

No State shall ...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

The best part of the first video is how the business administrator does not want a "video record" made.  Great comment on open government. 

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."
                --Theodore Roosevelt--

The newspaper reports show that the locals, upon consultation with their attorneys decided to drop the case against Lonegan, indicating that "Lonegan was engaged in constitutionally-protected action", but that the actual dismissal of the matter would have to happen at the municpal court.  Good move . . . maybe.

The locals are smart.  Tey're engaged in major-league CYA.  Of course picketing and leafleting are constitutionally protected action; however, the arrest under the particular circumstances and that statute and in that context would likely pass constitutional muster given the current state of the law.  Every single case on the books where defendants have tested the "Defiant Trespass" statute, defendants have lost, even though the court opinions concede that the defendants in each case were engaged in "constittutionally protected action or speech" at the time of their arrest.  The local municipal court would be obligated to apply the law and precedent set by the NJ Appellate Division decisions upholding these kinds of arrests under the Defiant Trespass statute.  Cape May is a resort area that doesn't wish to be known as a place where visitors can expect to be bullied by local gendarmes and then convicted in their courts.  And their attorneys know that while a trial against Lonegan would result in a legal win at least at the trial level, that win would result in a terrible economic loss over the long run and a blow to their reputation.

If Lonegan wants to maintain his "populist hero" stature, he will refuse to stipulate to probable cause for arrest when he appears in municipal court, as that will secure his option to pursue a 1983 action.  He wisely contacted the ACLU who will send their bulldog, Frank Askin, Esq., a real veteran of the Free Speech idea and a prof of Constitutional Law at Rutgers.  I'm sure Frank and the ACLU are just dying to make new law by challenging the Defiant Trespass law "as applied" in this case.  The State Police, prosecutors and the local cops like this law and don't want any review of it in either the NJ Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.  (Based upon preliminary research of past cases, when convicted defendants attenpted to appeal the lower court rulings to a higher court, the Supreme Court has declined to grant certification, but they might under this set of facts, especially because it is a high profile case.

Mulsihine's piece in today's Ledger is spot on.  No matter what, the Governro will look bad, even if he's right, especially about deferring to the judgment of local police in enforcing local laws and policies governing otherwise constitutionally-protected behavior in limited or designated public fora.  Askin opined that Lonegan was entitled "to leaflet inside as long as there was a political meeting going on".  Maybe.  But that's not why Lonegan was arrested.  Lonegan was arrested because he refused to take his placards and signs out of a restricted area, a whole 'nother kettle of fish and treated very differently in the relevant case law.

As Mulshine pointed out, the Governor's butt is really in a public-relations sling.  He might be subpoened for deposition and would have to subject himself to legal process.  If it was a federal court, he could refuse based upon 11th Amendment sovereign immunity (states can't be sued in federal court).  If the matter is brought in a state court, the Governor could refuse to either testify or be deposed based upon Executive Privledge (but the privlege would not extend to his staff).  In any event and under any scenario, this whole thing will end up bad for the Governor as a PR nightmare.  In fact, whatever support the Governor might have for his program in the State Legislature might dry up quickly if this matter goes any further.

Lonegan wants the Governor to apologize for the actions of the local police; the Governor insists he had nothing to do with the arrest and steadfastly refuses to apologize for something he technically had no authority to control.  The Governor cannot order the police not to enforce the applicable statutory law governing defiant trespass.  And the local rule, as published in the newspaper was that no signs or backpacks were permitted on the premises (perfectly legitimate as a safety precaution, given the governor's presence and the law).

Lonegan, who thinks he should be governor, has no interest in dropping this matter.  Assuming he could get the GOP nomination (not a forgone conclusion), his interest is in running against a weak incumbent with lots of negatives and a failed administration.  (This assuming that the Gov would not be challenged by another Dem for nomination or that the Gov decided to run for reelection).  For now, Lonegan is in the catbird seat . . . the Governor had better take some political tap-dance lessons  . . . like yesterday.