This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Roy Warden, Publisher Common Sense II 1015 West Prince Road #131-182 Tucson Arizona 85705 email@example.com IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Superior Court No. C20117276
ROY WARDEN, Petitioner, v. MAYOR BOB WALKUP, for the City of Tucson, Respondent, and THE CITY OF TUCSON, Real Party at Interest
11 12 13 14 15
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ANSWER DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
The Honorable Steven Villarreal
COMES NOW THE PETITIONER, Roy Warden, with his Request for Permission to Answer Defendants’ Supplement to Motion to Dismiss, for reasons set forth below: STATEMENT OF FACTS
16 17 18 19
On January 23, 2012 the parties in the above captioned action gave oral argument before the Court regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Petitioner, presently, cannot afford a transcript of the proceedings.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
However; to the best of Petitioner’s recollection, on January 23, 2012 counsel for Defendants informed the Court that new Rules of Decorum were about to be approved by the Tucson City Council on the following day, January 24, 2012, and therefore all Petitioner’s arguments regarding the (then) current Rules of Decorum were moot.
Counsel for Defendants then argued the Court should disregard Petitioner’s brief comments regarding the constitutional deficiency of the new Rules of Decorum because the new rules were not yet before the Court for consideration.
On January 28, 2012 Petitioner received Defendants’ Supplement to Motion to Dismiss, which announced “…new evidence has come to light that this Court must consider,” and the imposition of the new Rules of Decorum on January 24, 2012. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Petitioner herein respectfully submits: the newly adopted Rules of Decorum are as constitutionally infirm as the previous rules were insofar as they permit the arrest of speech and the expulsion of a public speaker for the mere issuance of words, and words alone, irrespective of whether or not those words cause public disruption, in direct violation of the law set forth by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d, 1421 (9th Cir, 1990) and Norse v. City of Santa Cruz , 629 F.3d 976 (2010). CONCLUSION Frankly speaking; Petitioner cannot afford to risk the displeasure of
this Court, or any Court, by appearing obdurate, or by submitting an improper pleading. However; out of respect for judicial economy Petitioner
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
does not want to file a new special action to address the constitutional infirmities inherent in the new Rules of Decorum. The public’s right to address their government on matters of public concern free of threat or coercion is of paramount concern, and the foundation of all other constitutionally protected liberties. Plaintiff respectfully submits: the First Amendment is too important to risk further erosion by Tucson City Officials, past or present, several of whom have already been sanctioned by a federal court and federal jury for conspiracy and first amendment retaliation1 to the tune of 2.9 million dollars, or by the Tucson City Attorney’s use of artifice or sleight of hand. PRAYER In the interests of justice and judicial economy, Petitioner respectfully requests this Court to Grant his Request for Permission to Answer Defendants’ Supplement to Motion to Dismiss
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of January, 2012. BY ____________________ Roy Warden, Petitioner
Original filed with the Court this 30th day of January 2012 Copy of the foregoing mailed this 30th day of January 2012 to: Viola Romero-Wright City Attorney PO Box 27210 Tucson AZ 85726-7210
In Gilmartin v Miranda, et al, the City of Tucson used 1.7 million dollars of public money to satisfy the entire verdict of 2.9 million dollars, including 2 million dollars of punitive damages.