McCain has security detail remove 61 year old librarian holding a sign from public property

[thewise1]

By the way I'm not saying I like it at all, I think it's a perversion of the intent of these laws. I'm just saying that legally there might be some standing.

[motivez]

But this isn't a city leasing something to a private company, it's the city leasing something FROM a private company.

Thus, it would be the city taking the action here, preventing the speech, rather than the private company (as in your firearms example).. and that's not something the city is legally allowed to do.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

But this isn't a city leasing something to a private company, it's the city leasing something FROM a private company.

the article I posted.

the venue is city-owned rental property but is not legally defined as public property.

I read that as "the city owns it and is renting it to <someone who is not the city>.

No?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by 7960

the article I posted.

the venue is city-owned rental property but is not legally defined as public property.

I read that as "the city owns it and is renting it to <someone who is not the city>.

No?

That's how I read it as well, but who knows

[HughRuss]

I just came across this today, and I found it appalling, but understandable (explanation below).

YouTube Video

I can understand where the secret service officials don't want a 61 year old woman protesting at a public event. If it was closed camera, it would be fine.

[7960]

it wasn't a public event. the entire video is shot INSIDE a PRIVATE establishment.

you really need to get your facts straight before you get all pissed about something.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by 7960

it wasn't a public event. the entire video is shot INSIDE a private establishment.

you really need to get your facts straight before you get all pissed about something.

Ahem...

A town hall meeting is an informal public meeting derived from the traditional town meetings of New England. Similarly to those meetings, everybody in a community is invited to attend, voice their opinions, and hear the responses from public figures and elected officials,

and

On orders from Senator John McCain's security detail, Denver police escorted a 61-year-old woman away who was waiting in line to attend a so-called town hall meeting with McCain that was billed as open to the public.

Facts are straight, sir.

[HughRuss]

It was at the Donald R. Seawell Grand Ballroom, which is a part of the Denver Center for Performing Arts, which is, and I quote,

owned and partially operated by the City and County of Denver’s Theatres and Arenas Division.

making it public property, rather than private.

Maybe it is you who should check their facts?

[7960]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Ahem...

and


Facts are straight, sir.

Ahem, wrong.

McCain staff asked for protester's ouster - The Denver Post

"A representative of Senator John McCain's staff respectfully asked that the venue for its July 7 Town Hall Meeting, The Denver Center for the Performing Arts, not allow persons to display signage within the Arts Complex," DCPA officials said in a statement.

It was not a public event. It was held inside the Denver Center for Performing Arts. The public had to go INSIDE the arena that had been rented by McCain's people. So,

1. it was a "town meeting" but it wasn't a public event.
2. it was not in a public place. DCPA is a private arena.
3. she was asked not to display the sign.
4. she refused to not display the sign so she was removed.

[7960]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

It was at the Donald R. Seawell Grand Ballroom, which is a part of the Denver Center for Performing Arts, which is, and I quote,

making it public property, rather than private.

Maybe it is you who should check their facts?

but it is rental property and had been rented, so the city may own it but it's no more open to the public than a city-owned apartment being rented.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by 7960

Ahem, wrong.

McCain staff asked for protester's ouster - The Denver Post

"A representative of Senator John McCain's staff respectfully asked that the venue for its July 7 Town Hall Meeting, The Denver Center for the Performing Arts, not allow persons to display signage within the Arts Complex," DCPA officials said in a statement.

It was not a public event. It was held inside the Denver Center for Performing Arts. The public had to go INSIDE the arena that had been rented by McCain's people. So,

1. it was a "town meeting" but it wasn't a public event.
2. it was not in a public place. DCPA is a private arena.
3. she was asked not to display the sign.
4. she refused to not display the sign so she was removed.

So then, if it wasn't public, it defeats the purpose of an entire town hall meeting.
By the by, it wasn't the DCPA that asked her to be removed, but rather the "secret service detail."
And, if you didn't check my 3rd post, it was a public area outside, need I remind you the legal definition of trespassing:

In modern law the word trespass is used most commonly to describe the intentional and wrongful invasion of another's real property). An action for trespass can be maintained by the owner or anyone else who has a lawful right to occupy the real property, such as the owner of an apartment building, a tenant, or a member of the tenant's family. The action can be maintained against anyone who interferes with the right of ownership or possession, whether the invasion is by a person or by something that a person has set in motion. For example, a hunter who enters fields where hunting is forbidden is a trespasser, and so is a company that throws rocks onto neighboring land when it is blasting.

In reality the definition of trespass then is an uninvited, unwelcome and unauthorized act which violates the person or property of another.

So, unless she did damage to his property, was clearly uninvited (which can't be true because it was a public event), and she was holding a sign that was far from violating the person or the property of the person.

[7960]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

So then, if it wasn't public, it defeats the purpose of an entire town hall meeting.

it's open to the public. that doesn't mean it was on public property.

By the by, it wasn't the DCPA that asked her to be removed, but rather the "secret service detail."

And again, wrong. It wasn't the secret service it was mccain's security detail. And it was because they asked for no signs and she had a sign.

And, if you didn't check my 3rd post, it was a public area outside, need I remind you the legal definition of trespassing:

And if you knew what you were talking about you'd realized "outside" meant outside the hall where his speech was but INSIDE the atrium.

I really wish you'd done your homework and not just believed what you wanted to believe.

http://origin.denverpost.com/technology/ci_9812206

A 60-year-old librarian received a trespassing ticket Monday after a liberal group's protest outside John McCain's town-hall meeting.

Clutching a sign that read "McCain = Bush," Carol Kreck was removed from the atrium of the Denver Performing Arts Complex by four Denver police officers.

Kreck — a former Denver Post reporter who works part time as a librarian for an education think tank — said she was removed as she quizzed a police officer about whether he could deny her free-speech rights "on city property" by taking away her sign, while McCain supporters wore buttons inside.

Jenny Schiavone, a spokeswoman for the performing arts center, said the venue is city-owned rental property but is not legally defined as public property.

The liberal group ProgressNowAction had called the center before the event and asked about being inside the atrium, she said. The group was told it would have to rent space or use previously designated protest areas along the street, Schiavone said.

Detective John White, a spokesman for the Denver Police Department, said officers acted as they would have for any complaint on private property.

"Our officers received a signed complaint from a security guard at a private event and acted accordingly," he said.

Tom Kise, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said that he did not know about Kreck's ouster but that the town-hall-style meeting was open to supporters and opponents.

"All the campaign asked for is a respectful dialogue," Kise said.

"What's disrespectful about pointing out that attendees voted for Bush and would be voting for McCain?" Kreck said of her sign.

So it's not exactly the kind of "public property" they're implying, they protested in a place they KNEW they weren't supposed to, and she was removed for THAT (protesting in a place she wasn't supposed to), NOT for carrying the sign, and she's lying when she implies she was removed because of her sign.

[7960]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

In modern law the word trespass is used most commonly to describe the intentional and wrongful invasion of another's real property). An action for trespass can be maintained by the owner or anyone else who has a lawful right to occupy the real property, such as the owner of an apartment building, a tenant, or a member of the tenant's family. The action can be maintained against anyone who interferes with the right of ownership or possession, whether the invasion is by a person or by something that a person has set in motion. For example, a hunter who enters fields where hunting is forbidden is a trespasser, and so is a company that throws rocks onto neighboring land when it is blasting.

In reality the definition of trespass then is an uninvited, unwelcome and unauthorized act which violates the person or property of another.



So, unless she did damage to his property, was clearly uninvited (which can't be true because it was a public event), and she was holding a sign that was far from violating the person or the property of the person.

you're kidding with this shit, right? she was INSIDE a private area. it was open to the public but that doesn't mean she can do what she wants. if you don't believe me try doing something stupid at a concert in a public park and see how quickly you're removed even though it's a "public event."

[7960]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

also, as by a definition from a lawyer (one responding to a rental case)

She was told she had to leave if she didn't get rid of the sign, so she decided to leave. How is that justifiable as trespassing, even if it were public property (although it is federally funded)?

she was asked to get rid of the sign and refused. she was told there was a specific place where she could hold the sign and again refused. then she was escorted out. IMO she's lucky she didn't go to jail.



According to the article I posted:

The liberal group ProgressNowAction had called the center before the event and asked about being inside the atrium, she said. The group was told it would have to rent space or use previously designated protest areas along the street, Schiavone said.

So she knew.



And apparently, going by your ninja delete, so do you (now)

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by 7960

it's open to the public. that doesn't mean it was on public property.

And again, wrong. It wasn't the secret service it was mccain's security detail. And it was because they asked for no signs and she had a sign.

And if you knew what you were talking about you'd realized "outside" meant outside the hall where his speech was but INSIDE the atrium.

I really wish you'd done your homework and not just believed what you wanted to believe.

http://origin.denverpost.com/technology/ci_9812206

A 60-year-old librarian received a trespassing ticket Monday after a liberal group's protest outside John McCain's town-hall meeting.

Clutching a sign that read "McCain = Bush," Carol Kreck was removed from the atrium of the Denver Performing Arts Complex by four Denver police officers.

Kreck — a former Denver Post reporter who works part time as a librarian for an education think tank — said she was removed as she quizzed a police officer about whether he could deny her free-speech rights "on city property" by taking away her sign, while McCain supporters wore buttons inside.

Jenny Schiavone, a spokeswoman for the performing arts center, said the venue is city-owned rental property but is not legally defined as public property.

The liberal group ProgressNowAction had called the center before the event and asked about being inside the atrium, she said. The group was told it would have to rent space or use previously designated protest areas along the street, Schiavone said.

Detective John White, a spokesman for the Denver Police Department, said officers acted as they would have for any complaint on private property.

"Our officers received a signed complaint from a security guard at a private event and acted accordingly," he said.

Tom Kise, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said that he did not know about Kreck's ouster but that the town-hall-style meeting was open to supporters and opponents.

"All the campaign asked for is a respectful dialogue," Kise said.

"What's disrespectful about pointing out that attendees voted for Bush and would be voting for McCain?" Kreck said of her sign.

So it's not exactly the kind of "public property" they're implying, they protested in a place they KNEW they weren't supposed to, and she was removed for THAT (protesting in a place she wasn't supposed to), NOT for carrying the sign, and she's lying when she implies she was removed because of her sign.

In an attempt to edit my previous post, I deleted it. Sometimes technology eludes me.
Now, what I don't understand is how a publicly funded venue isn't technically public property by law. Must be some legal caveat.

And to follow the librarian's idea, how was her sign a sign of protest?

These are honest questions.

And to quote my first post, I understand why she was kicked out.

Although I am partial to Obama, if there were a same situation that I came across, I would question it just as equally as I did here.

[7960]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Now, what I don't understand is how a publicly funded venue isn't technically public property by law. Must be some legal caveat.

Because it was rented? Section 8 housing is publicly funded. Do you think that gives you the right to walk in a section 8 house whenever you want?

Doesn't seem difficult to me.

And to follow the librarian's idea, how was her sign a sign of protest?

There were no signs in the arena. She had a sign. She was asked to leave.

Where did I say "protest" sign?

Although I am partial to Obama, if there were a same situation that I came across, I would question it just as equally as I did here.

And if it was the same situation I'd be defending the decision to remove her.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by 7960

Because it was rented? Section 8 housing is publicly funded. Do you think that gives you the right to walk in a section 8 house whenever you want?

Doesn't seem difficult to me.

There were no signs in the arena. She had a sign. She was asked to leave.

Where did I say "protest" sign?


And if it was the same situation I'd be defending the decision to remove her.

Gosh, while I understand your points, I still can't understand the fact that publicly funded area --making it public property-- can still act as private property. As I said, probably some legal caveat that I'd have to spend a full day or so on to understand.

I thank you for correcting what I wrote and providing the article (since I did about half-n-hour google search and just found blogs and forum discussions about it, nothing of substance, though).