DKT Entry 21 Reply Brief

Case: 17-16640, 03/26/2018, ID: 10814138, DktEntry: 21, Page 1 of 29
17-16640
_____________________________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________________________
ROY WARDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
RICHARD MIRANDA, ET AL
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
CIVIL CASE NO: 4:14-cv-02050 – DCB
(Honorable David Bury)
_______________________________________________
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

_______________________________________________
Roy Warden, Appellant, in forma pauperis

6502 E. Golf Links Rd., #267
Tucson Arizona 85730
roywarden@hotmail.com
(520) 551-3496
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities 3
Summary of Reply 4
COT Misstatements of Fact One 5
Fact #1: 5
COT Misstatements of Fact Two 8
Fact #2 9
COT Misstatements of Fact Three 12
FACT #3 12
Issue One: COT Repeats The Losing Argument in 17
Gathright
Heckler’s Veto 19
Request for Case Reassignment 22
Conclusion 23
Prayer 27
Certificate of Service 29
Certificate of Compliance 29
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page
Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966) 20

Forseyth County v. National Movement, 112 20, 21
S.Ct. 2395 (1992)
Gathright v. City of Portland, 439 F.3d 573 4, 6, 7,
(9th Cir. 2006) 17, 18,
28
Gregory v Chicago, 19
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bi- 17, 19
sexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 18, 19
198 (1996)
ARTICLES
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation by 4
Sheldon Nahmod
Outlawing the Heckler’s Veto 21
Rejecting the Hecklers Veto 21
The Shadow Party by David Horowitz 23
The Plan of Aztlan 24
The Prison Industrial Complex 26
3
1 SUMMARY OF REPLY
2 “To the federal (appellate courts)1, guardians of the rule
3 of law.2”
4 Appellee COT’s Answering Brief3 (DktEntry 13) (1) is a
5 masterpiece of government misdirection, obfuscation, mis-
6 statement of fact and law (aka “Lawyer BS”), (2) is no less
7 than an outright justification for breaking the law4, and (3)
8 presents this Court a CLASSIC example why We the People
9 will always need appellate courts to protect our rights and
10 defend the Rule of Law.
11
1 Appellant respectfully distinguishes the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeal from the U.S. District of Arizona trial
court.
2 Sheldon Nahmod, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litiga-
tion: The Law of Section 1983 (4th edition)
3 DktEntry 13 presents the same kind of “Lawyer BS” as

the COT “Confidential Memo” (Doc.116-2, “Exhibit 4”,
page 9) that COT Attorney Defendant Mike Rankin au-
thored to mislead the Tucson Police Department and to
convince them is was “legal” to bar Appellant’s entry into
Armory Park when Rankin knew it wasn’t.
4 Gathright v. City of Portland, #19 F.3d, 573 (9th Cir 2006)
4
1 COT “Misstatements of Fact” # One:
2  “This case concerns a lawsuit filed by Roy Warden

3 (“Warden”) that was big on allegations about conspir-
4 acies and violations of constitutional rights by City
5 Defendants, but in the face of a City summary judg-
6 ment motion, he failed to provide any evidence to
7 warrant a continued expenditure of valuable court or
8 governmental resources.” (DktEntry 13, page 6)
9
10  “Warden failed to produce any evidence, aside from

11 self-serving and conclusory statements, of constitu-
12 tional violations.” DktEntry 13, page 7);
13
14 Fact #1: Warden Presented Overwhelming Evidence
15
16 1. Regarding both COT and Warden’s motions for sum-
17 mary judgement: as Warden sets forth in his Open-
18 ing Brief (DktEntry 8, 15:4-26:5), Warden did pre-
19 sent overwhelming evidence (mostly from COT doc-
20 uments) which he repeats here as follows:
21 a) Coalition for Worker and Immigrant Rights,
22 (CWIR) request for reservation of Armory Park on
23 May 1, 2012. (DktEntry 8 page 19, ¶16);
24 b) CWIR request for “exclusive use” of Armory Park.
25 (DktEntry 8 page 19, ¶18);
5
1 c) COT Recreation Rental Permit, (DktEntry 8 page
2 20, ¶ 20);
3 d) CWIR letter explaining the purpose of the “exclu-
4 sive use” permit. (DktEntry 8 page 20, ¶ 21);
5 e) COT reservation confirmation letter to CWIR.
6 (DktEntry 8 page 21, ¶22 & page 22, ¶ 24);
7 f) Cover sheet re exclusive use permit email com-
8 munication between COT conspirators Ochoa,
9 Rankin, Judge, & McLaughlin. (DktEntry 8 page
10 22, ¶25 & 26);
11 g) COT exclusive use permit letter issued to CWIR.
12 (DktEntry 8 page 23, ¶27 & 28);
13 h) CWIR invitation to “the communities of Arizona
14 and the entire country.” (DktEntry 8 page 23-24,
15 ¶29);
16 i) Defendant COT Attorney Mike Rankin document
17 (“The Rankin Memo”) dated April 12, 2006 first
18 endorsing the Gathright decision. (DktEntry 8
19 page 15, ¶ 8);
6
1 j) Defendant COT Attorney Mike Rankin authored
2 document (“The Confidential Memo”) dated April
3 27, 2006 setting forth an illegal “scheme” to vio-
4 late the law set forth in Gathright. (DktEntry 8
5 page 16-17 ¶ 10 & 11).
6 2. Virtually ALL5 of this evidence came from COT disclo-
7 sures made subsequent to the failure of COT’s
8 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13); thus the legal
9 process of set forth by the F.R.Civ.P (first a complaint
10 setting forth sufficient allegations, second discovery,
11 and finally the production of documents which
12 proved Warden’s case), worked as intended.
13 3. Warden presented this evidence with great clarity in
14 his opening brief. (DktEntry 8: 19:1-26:5)
15 4. Moreover; Warden presented this same evidence to
16 Judge Bury both to support the Warden MSJ (Docs
5 The lone document Appellant provided was the internet

published CWIR Invitation made to all “the communities
of Arizona and the entire country” to attend the Armory
Park event on May 1, 2011 “to discuss immigrant rights”
which forms the basis for this suit. (Doc 116-2, “Exhibit
2”, page 5)
7
1 99 & 100 to 100-6),) and in his Opposition to the
2 COT MSJ (Doc 116 to 116-9)
3 5. Therefore; the COT misrepresentation that “Warden
4 failed to produce any evidence, aside from self-serv-
5 ing and conclusory statements, of constitutional vi-
6 olations”, set forth on page 7 of DktEntry 13, is not
7 true.
8 COT “Misstatements of Fact” # Two:
9  “(Warden) incited a disturbance that culminated in

10 violence and several arrests.” (DktEntry 13, page 6);
11
12  “The crowd of pro-immigration marchers became ag-

13 itated and violent. According to Warden, ‘the ‘pro-
14 raza’ participants rioted in 2006’ because of Warden’s
15 speech.” (DktEntry 13, page 9);
16
17  “The Coalition planned to exclude Mr. Warden and
18 any others the Coalition thought did not share [their]
19 peaceful message of worker and immigrants’ rights in
20 order to prevent another disturbance like the one that
21 occurred on April 10, 2006.” (DktEntry 13, page 10)
22
23  “(CWIR only wanted) to prohibit people from entering
24 the park wanting to disrupt [and] incite violence.”
25 (DktEntry 13, page 10)
26
27  “Additionally, the purpose of the exclusive use permit
28 was to prevent the riot Warden caused in 2006 when
29 Armory Park was opened to all members of the public
30 and to exclude Warden specifically because he did
8
1 not share the Coalition’s peaceful message of worker

2 and immigrants’ rights.” (DktEntry 13, page 20)
3
4  “Warden’s actions had caused a riot six years earlier
5 at the very same venue, resulting in violence, arrests,
6 and disturbing public safety and peace. (DktEntry
7 13, page 24)
8
9  “Warden was prevented from inciting the crowd to vi-
10 olence, and that is it.” (DktEntry 13, page 25)
11
12  “The compelling governmental interest of keeping the
13 peace and preventing violence was also achieved.”
14 (DktEntry 13, page 25)
15
16  “Additionally, the purpose of the exclusive use permit
17 was to prevent the riot Warden caused in 2006 when
18 Armory Park was opened to all members of the public
19 and to exclude Warden specifically because he did
20 not share the Coalition’s peaceful message of worker
21 and immigrants’ rights. (DktEntry 13, page 20 )
22 Fact #2: Warden NEVER “Caused a Riot.”
23 6. The record, taken from COT Tucson Police Depart-
24 ment After Action Report6, shows that on April 10,
25 2006 the estimated 15,000 CWIR “pro-Raza” Open
6 This document, set forth in Attachment One, was origi-

nally provided by COT in the Supplemental Disclosure
COT1977-1984. It “escaped” prior submission simply
because who caused the “Riot in Armory Park” on April
10, 2006 is not a legal issue before the Court and was
not needed to support Appellant’s “heckler’s veto” argu-
ment.
9
1 Border supporters were violent well prior to War-
2 den’s Armory Park speech:
3 a) “(O)fficers noted that during the march (to ar-

4 mory Park) some of the participants threw (fro-
5 zen) water bottles and other objects at counter
6 protestors that were present along the march.”
7 (COT1978);
8
9 b) “As the march arrived at Armory Park officers
10 noted approximately 6-7 middle-aged women sit-
11 ting in lawn chairs near the southwest corner of
12 the park.” (COT1978);
13
14 c) “These women held various signs in opposition to
15 immigration reform. Officers noted that again,
16 some march participants began to throw water
17 from water bottles at the counter protestors. In
18 lieu of police intervention and arrests, the De-
19 partment utilized the peacekeepers within the
20 march to terminate this behavior.” (COT1978);
21
22 d) “(Appellant’s group) The Border Guardians,
23 clearly articulated to Department staff that they
24 wished to exercise their First Amendment rights
25 and refused to consider moving to another loca-
26 tion.” (COT1979);
27
28 e) “The crowd within the park continued to become
29 increasingly agitated due to the actions of the
30 counter protestors. Peacekeepers independently
31 formed a protective ring around the counter pro-
32 testors to provide a buffer between the parties
33 and requested that members of the rally turn
34 their backs on the counter protestors. Although
35 this proved somewhat effective, Police Command-
36 ers noted the crowd continued to encroach un
37 the peacekeepers and the counter protestors.
10
1 Those Commanders thereupon made a decision

2 to deploy three additional squads of officers to
3 assist the maintenance of order.” (COT1979);
4
5 f) “(B)ottles of (frozen) water and other projectiles
6 continued to be thrown at the counter protestors.
7 At one point a large ball bearing was thrown and
8 struck an officer in the chest but the perpetrator
9 cold not be identified. Additional officers were de-
10 ployed deeper into the crowd and at some dis-
11 tance from the peacekeeper’s buffer ring to deter
12 further projectiles from being thrown. This also
13 proved to be only temporarily effective.”
14 (COT1979);
15
16 g) “Officers began to notice the presence of several
17 individuals in the crowd wearing masks to cover
18 their faces. Police Commanders were concerned
19 about this action since it is known to be a com-
20 mon tactic of those who engage in disruptive
21 and/or criminal behavior…Eventually a member
22 of the counter demonstration group announced
23 his intent to burn a Mexican flag. This caused a
24 substantial increase in the numbers of projectiles
25 thrown, with one projectile (a frozen water bottle)
26 striking the subject (Appellant) in the face.”
27 (COT1979);
28
29 h) “Numerous members of the crowd engaged in as-
30 saultive activity, punching officers and jumping
31 on officers backs. Officers were then required to
32 use force to maintain control of the crowd, and
33 protect themselves” (COT1980);
34
35 i) “Numerous parties (what COT refers to as “peace-
36 ful demonstrators”) attacked the officers…several
37 officers were punched in the face or torso.”
38 (COT1983)
39
11
1 7. Thus; COT’s representation that the demonstrators
2 were “peaceful” is utter nonsense. The “Open Border
3 Pro-Raza” movement is always “peaceful” until
4 someone presents an opposing viewpoint. Then they
5 turn violent.
6 COT “Misstatements of Fact” # Three:
7  Warden “freely exercised his right to freedom of

8 speech across the street from Armory Park, using a
9 bullhorn.” (DktEntry 13, page 7)
10
11  “Police allowed Warden to, and he did, counter-pro-
12 test with a bullhorn on the sidewalk across the street
13 from the rally entrance for several minutes as march-
14 ers walked past him.” (DktEntry 13, page 12)
15
16 Fact #3: Warden Did Not Exercise his Rights on May 1,

17 2012
18 13. The COT contention that “Warden was able to de-
19 liver his message” is another outright lie aka “Lawyer
20 BS.”
21 14. COT deposed Warden on September 7, 2016 (Doc
22 100-3) at which time Warden informed them, in ex-
23 plicit detail, he wanted to attend the public meeting
24 in Armory Park on May 1, 2012, (without using a
12
1 bullhorn) to communicate a peaceful message of sol-
2 idarity with the goals of CWIR marchers who were
3 concerned with border issues:
4 a) “You know, you kind of missed the whole point of

5 what the Armory Park event is. And one, this has
6 been consistent with the leftwing movement
7 since the beginning. It's announced as a public
8 meeting, where the public will get together and
9 discuss the issues regarding workers' rights and
10 immigrants' rights. And I'm very interested in
11 those issues, not just in terms of opposing some
12 of them, for reasons which you may not be aware
13 of, but I'm very interested in participating in com-
14 munity meetings.” (Doc 100-3: page 22:9-18)
15
16 b) “So I went there not necessarily to, quote, protest
17 and to oppose them, but to communicate with
18 them on that issue. And one of the issues I
19 wanted to bring up, and I brought it up before, is
20 that Cesar Chavez himself did not approve of il-
21 legal labor coming across the border because it
22 competed with his American farm workers union,
23 which was made up of Filipino and Mexican peo-
24 ple, people of Hispanic background, American
25 citizens, but nonetheless they were of Hispanic
26 background.” (Doc 100-3: page 22:19-23:3)
27
28 c) “He (Chavez) didn't like having to compete with
29 strike breakers and other people that the con-
30 tractors would bring across the border to work to
31 perform farm labor at half the wages. He couldn't
32 raise the wages of his farm workers.” (Doc 100-3:
33 page 23:4-8)
34
35 d) “I met Chavez. I met him on a march in Berkeley.
36 Actually, I was going to school in Berkeley, but I
13
1 met him back in (1966), and (I wanted to tell the

2 marchers) you're not following what he wanted.
3 And whenever you talk to these people outside of
4 the leadership, they begin to understand it, and
5 they start to realize that maybe we're on the
6 wrong side of this issue, we're not really humani-
7 tarians.” (Doc 100-3, 23:9-16)
8
9 e) “And when you're yelling through a bullhorn, you
10 don't get anywhere. But if you're sitting one-on-
11 one in a group of people and you're starting to
12 explain these things, they listen because you're
13 just a regular person, you're not the enemy,
14 you're just a regular person talking to them.
15 They're concerned about these issues, too. They
16 don't realize that they're involved in a very hide-
17 ous aspect of it and leadership of their groups
18 want revolution and don't want anything to be
19 peaceful and happy for Mexican people or Amer-
20 ican people, for that matter.” (Doc 100-3, 45:6-
21 18)
22
23 f) “See, the real problem is when you're speaking
24 through a microphone and you're kept out as
25 someone, don't listen to him and those people are
26 putting up the white barriers and stuff -- in fact,
27 they used this sign -- now that I'm looking at this
28 long sign here, they use that to shield me from
29 the marchers, then you are an enemy. People
30 won't listen to you. They don't care what you're
31 saying. You're just basically an agitator that's
32 against what they're doing.” (Doc 100-3, 49:5-14)
33
34 g) “You see, once you're in the park and everybody's
35 in the group and you're standing there, you have
36 -- the way the dynamics of it is there's a whole
37 bunch of people, there's people speaking, there's
38 lulls of activity in between, there's people com-
39 menting upon what the speakers are saying and
14
1 interacting. It's a much different dynamic. You're

2 not marching to an event; you're at the event. And
3 that's when real communication can occur.” (Doc
4 100-3, 51:25-52:9)
5
6 h) “I don't believe that I was effectively delivering
7 any message. There was no -- it certainly wasn't
8 my intention I'm delivering a message. If I'm talk-
9 ing to them through this loudspeaker, they're not
10 hearing because we're not in a position where
11 they're going to listen. You listen when people are
12 gathered together and you're talking informally.
13 That's when people listen. When you're shouting
14 through a loudspeaker, which is what I was re-
15 duced to doing, there's no communication at all.”
16 (Doc 100-3, 53:23-54:7)
17
18 i) “I wasn't able to convey what I wanted to convey.
19 You understand? Other than you're betraying the
20 dream of Cesar Chavez. That's not a communica-
21 tion -- it's a statement of fact. It's not a commu-
22 nication. I wasn't communicating anything of
23 what I wanted to communicate to these people as
24 a group and individually.” (Doc 100-3, 54:10-16)
25
26 j) “Basically I'm kept out of the rally. Again, it's an
27 antagonistic relationship between me and these
28 people on the basis of they've enforced this per-
29 mit. They've expressly put my name down on then
30 permit. Keep Roy Warden out. Don't listen to what
31 he has to say. This is coming from Isabel Garcia
32 and the rest of the leadership.” (Doc 100-3, 56:3-
33 9)
34
35 k) “And so the people that follow don't know until I
36 do have a time to talk to them informally, like I've
37 done down at the federal building at Operation
38 Streamline rallies that they've had, and they've
39 got a little table set up and we have very informal
15
1 chats and they say, you know, we get – a lot of us

2 get your e-mails, Roy, and we agree with what
3 you have to say. So that's real communication.”
4 (Doc 100-3, page 56:10-17)
5
6 l) “And that's what I wanted (to say on) that day
7 (May 1, 2012). That's what I didn't have (oppor-
8 tunity to say on) that (May) day nor any (May) day
9 before that. (Doc 100-3, 56:18-20)
10
11 m) “I'm not allowed in because I basically have been
12 identified as the enemy that we have to keep out
13 because he's dangerous and even the police have
14 to be here to keep him out.” (Doc 100-3, 56:23-
15 57:1)
16
17 15. As Appellant clearly sets forth above in paragraph
18 14, subparagraphs a-m; police enforcement of the
19 illegal “exclusive use permit” on May 1, 2012 denied
20 Warden the opportunity to share his peaceful mes-
21 sage of solidarity with the goals of the CWIR march-
22 ers.
23 16. Therefore; the COT misrepresentation that “Warden
24 was allowed to speak and to deliver his message”,
25 set forth above in COT “Misstatements” of Fact #2,
26 is utter nonsense.
16
1 COT Repeats7 The Losing Argument In Gathright:
2 17. COT cites Hurley v. Irish -American Gay, Lesbian &
3 Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995 to
4 support its argument that the ruling of this Court
5 in Gathright does not apply in Warden v COT.
6 18. COT argues that “Hurley applies as City Defendants
7 could not force a political rally to include discordant
8 speakers, depriving the rally of its own rights to
9 freedom of speech.”
10 19. However; the Gathright Court concluded Hurley was
11 a parade event which the Court distinguished from
12 a park event as follows:
13 “We disagree with the City's reading of Hur-

14 ley. Hurley involved the exclusion of those
15 who wished to participate in the parade as
16 marchers, not those who witnessed or op-
17 posed the procession. Cf. Mahoney v. Bab-
7 COT attorneys have repeated the losing argument re-

jected by the Gathright the following four times: (1) in
the “Confidential Memo” (Doc 116-2, Exhibit 4, pages 8-
15 ), (2) in their MSJ (Doc 100 to102-2), in their Re-
sponse to Warden MSJ (Doc 112 to 113-2), and in their
Reply Brief (DktEntry 13), thus demonstrating their utter
contempt for this Court’s statement of the law in Gath-
right.
17
1 bitt, 105 F.3d 1452, 1456 (D.C.Cir.1997) (re-

2 fusing to extend Hurley to allow parade or-
3 ganizers to exclude people wishing to stand
4 along parade route holding protest signs). As
5 the district court has here observed, "[t]here
6 is a distinction between participating in an
7 event and being present at the same location.
8 Merely being present at a public event does
9 not make one part of the organizer's message
10 for First Amendment purposes." (Gathright at
11 577)
12
13 20. COT also cites Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99
14 F.3d 194, 198 (1996) to support its argument that
15 the ruling of this Court in Gathright does not apply
16 in Warden v COT.
17 21. However; as distinguished from Warden v. COT, Sis-
18 trunk was a closed event enclosed within a perma-
19 nent chain link, with entry requiring Republican
20 Party membership and tickets.
21 “The permit specifically provided that the use

22 of the facilities and grounds were limited to
23 the members of the organization and their in-
24 vitees. The permit also provided that the
25 committee was authorized to further restrict
26 the use of the premises by category of invita-
27 tion. To attend the rally, members of the pub-
28 lic were required to obtain admission tickets,
29 which were available at city hall free of
30 charge.” Sistrunk at 196.
31
18
1 22. Thus; to enter the political event in Sistrunk, pro-
2 spective attendees had to be (1) a member of the
3 Republican Party (2) who held a ticket, as expressly
4 stated on the permit.
5 23. However; In Warden v. COT the parade permit did
6 not “specifically provide that use of the facilities and
7 grounds was limited to members of the organization
8 and their invitees…”, as did the Sistrunk permit.
9 24. In Warden v COT, no one had to (1) be a member of
10 a specific political party or (2) obtain an admission
11 ticket from City Hall, (or from anywhere), to gain en-
12 trance into the May 1, 2012 CWIR event. No tickets
13 were required and no tickets were collected.
14 25. Thus; the facts set forth in Sistrunk v. City of
15 Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 198 (1996) which was a
16 “closed event” are distinguished from the facts set
17 forth in Warden v. COT.
18 Heckler’s Veto:
19
1 26. As set forth above in (this brief) COT has used the
2 “heckler’s veto” argument to justify their intention-
3 ally breaking the law and suppressing free speech
4 critical of their “Open Border Policy.”
5 27. COT attorneys know such practice and such argu-
6 ment has been outlawed for more than five decades.
7 See Gregory v Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969)
8 28. In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 112
9 S.Ct. 2395, 2404 (1992), the Supreme Court held
10 that the First Amendment protects “[t]hose wishing
11 to express views unpopular with bottle throwers . .
12 Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more
13 than it can be punished or banned, simply because
14 it might offend a hostile mob.” (Forsyth at 2403-
15 2404)
16 29. In Brown v. Louisiana , 86 S.Ct. 719 (1966), the
17 Court addressed this practice, ruling that political
18 demonstrators’ First Amendment rights may not be
19 curtailed merely because “their critics might react
20 with disorder or violence.”
20
1 30. Moreover; the internet provides us with numerous
2 examples8 of the current government use of the
3 “heckler’s veto” as a tactic to justify government
4 censorship of free speech.
5 31. The illegality of using a “heckler’s veto” to suppress
6 political speech is common knowledge within the
7 politically active public, and obviously well known
8 to legal professionals, (especially to the COT attor-
9 neys who prepared DktEntry 13).
10 32. Appellant will not belabor this point, which frankly,
11 is black letter law. Simply speaking: The govern-
12 ment may not employ a “heckler’s veto” to suppress
13 speech critical of government policy.
14 33. Therefore; the COT argument: “We were only pro-
15 tecting public safety” is a gross and intentional mis-
16 statement of the law and one of the reasons the
17 public has such disdain for the truthfulness of
8 Rejecting the Heckler’s Veto, citing Forseyth County v.

Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), Outlawing
the Heckler’s Veto, Forbes, Jan 26, 2018.
21
1 practicing attorneys, and the judges (like Arizona
2 District Court Judge David Bury) who “buy” their
3 arguments.
4 REQUEST FOR CASE REASSIGNMENT
5 36. Appellant notes the wise commentary of recently
6 appointed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neal Gor-
7 such who said: “A judge often has to make deci-
8 sions he doesn’t like”, meaning: a judge has to rule
9 as the rule of law commands him in spite of his per-
10 sonal proclivities or bias.
11 37. Justice Gorsuch was not speaking to the American
12 people, who would have no idea what he was talk-
13 ing about.
14 38. Justice Gorsuch was speaking to trial judges, all
15 across America, who are often inclined to ignore the
16 law and to rule “arbitrarily”, “capriciously” or “in
17 the absence of jurisdiction” which is no more than
18 judicial lingo for “lie, cheat and steal.”
22
1 39. Appellant respectfully submits: Justice Gorsuch
2 was speaking to U.S. District Court Judges like Ari-
3 zona District Court Judge David Charles Bury.
4 CONCLUSION
5 In Warden v. COT, the government had an illegitimate
6 “compelling government interest” to protect (1) Tucson’s il-
7 legal Open Border Policy and (2) Tucson’s “pro-raza” shock
8 troops who were helping to create a sense of urgency for
9 the political change necessary for COT to implement Open
10 Border Policy nationwide.
11 In short: for nearly three decades COT had been in-
12 volved in what is no less than a revolutionary scheme.
13 And as we’ve seen above in paragraph 6 sub-para-
14 graphs a-i, COT has employed “Open Border Pro Raza”
15 shock troops to protect its revolutionary scheme.
16 Regarding COT “Open Border Policy” and revolution,
17 Appellant quotes from the Shadow Party by David Horo-
18 witz as set forth in Appellants’ Opposition to COT Motion
19 for Summary Judgment (Doc 116-5):
23
1 “The overall plan for the “Nationwide” rallies, in-

2 cluding theme and date, was made months in ad-
3 vance by the leaders of well known radical groups,
4 such as Lulac, MEChA, the National Council of la
5 Raza, ACORN, SEIU, MALDEF, The American
6 Friends Service Committee, etc. along with the
7 Communist Party, all working in concert to max-
8 imize the effect.
9 “The overall purpose of the April 10, 2006 “Nation-
10 wide” Rallies was to implement a specific tactic or
11 strategy first identified in 1957 by Czech Com-
12 munist Party theoretician Jan Kozak who ex-
13 plained how a small number of communists man-
14 aged to gain power in Czechoslovakia through
15 parliamentary maneuvers. The trick was to exert
16 pressure for radical change from two directions
17 simultaneously—from the upper levels of govern-
18 ment and from provocateurs in the streets. Kozak
19 called this tactic ‘pressure from above and below’.
20 One way to exert “pressure from below” is “to fill
21 the streets with rioters, strikers and protesters,
22 thus creating the illusion of a widespread clamor
23 for change from the grassroots. Radicals in the
24 government would then exert ‘pressure from
25 above,’ enacting new laws on the pretext of ap-
26 peasing the protesters in the street— even though
27 the protestors (or at least their leaders) were
28 themselves part of the plot.
29 “On April 10, 2006 many of the 15,000 “pro-raza,”
30 Open Borders marchers (1) displayed Mexican
31 Flags and declared “This is Mexico,” (2) displayed
32 signs which stated: 18 “Hoy Marchamos, Manana
33 Votamos,” (today we march, tomorrow we vote), (3)
34 chanted “all white people go back to Plymouth
35 Rock,” (4) demanded Arizona cede sovereignty to
36 Mexico, (5) committed numerous acts of violence
37 including (a) six felony assaults on police officers,
38 (b) threw projectiles including ball bearings and
24
1 frozen water bottles, one of which struck Plaintiff

2 in the head, (c) committed assaults upon “protect
3 the border” demonstrators in front of the U.S. Dis-
4 trict Court, and (d) assaulted six elderly ladies sit-
5 ting in lawn chairs, and otherwise displayed the
6 same violent intolerance for any viewpoint diverse
7 from their own exhibited in Berkeley California on
8 February 2, 2017.
9 “Thus, the April 10, 2006 “National Day of Protest”
10 was a carefully orchestrated, nationwide plan to (1)
11 advance the interests of Globalism, (2) advance the
12 interest of the Communist Party to create racial
13 strife and to divide Americans on the basis of racial
14 and ethnic identity, (3) implement permanent
15 open borders, and (4) implement the Plan of Az-
16 tlan.” (Doc 116-5, page 3:12-5:13)
17
18 Moreover; COT’s nonsensical “hecklers veto” argument
19 and the implementation of the “Rankin Scheme” to violate
20 Gathright (as evidenced by the “Confidential Memo”) pre-
21 sents this Court with a classic example of “tyranny”: the
22 use of the apparatus of local government to suppress op-
23 position to their clearly unlawful “Open Border Policy.”
24 Quite simply: COT officials have no respect for the rule
25 of law.
26 Quite simply: COT officials, (who proclaim to be “hu-
27 manitarians”), have no concern for the well being of the
25
1 millions and millions of American citizens who been vic-
2 tims of Illegal Alien crime9, or have lost their jobs due to
3 COT’s “Cheap Mexican Labor” policy.
4 Quite simply: COT officials have no respect for the lives
5 of the millions of impoverished Mexican citizens COT has
6 “…aided and abetted, enticed and invited and otherwise
7 encouraged to illegally cross the border for both political
8 and economic exploitation,” many of whom, are subjected
9 to gang rape under “rape trees”, murder, kidnapping, slav-
10 ery, child sexual exploitation etc., eventual capture, pros-
11 ecution, imprisonment etc10, only to be sent home after
12 they have been thoroughly digested by the Law Enforce-
13 ment, Criminal Justice, Prison Industrial Complex11.
9 Illegal Alien crime rate estimated to be double that of the

native born: Arizona Statistics as of January 26, 2018.
10 Thus feeding the voracious appetite of the Law Enforce-
ment, Criminal Justice, Prison Industrial Complex.
11 The Washington Post described the Prison Industrial
Complex on March 7, 1996.
26
1 COT officials lie, cheat steal break the law and mislead
2 the police to commit constitutional violations, etc., as evi-
3 denced by the fallacious argument12 they first advanced in
4 the 2006 “Confidential Memo” (Doc ) and continued to ad-
5 vance 12 years later, in their Answer (DktEntry 13) to this
6 Appeal.
7 And for more than a decade, ever since he was first ap-
8 pointed to Warden v. Garcia in 2008, Arizona District
9 Court Judge David Charles Bury has assisted them.
10 PRAYER
11 Appellant respectfully requests this Court to:
12  Reverse the order dated July 24, 2017 (Doc.126);
13  Declare TCC 21-4(a)(b) (6) & TCC 21-3(7)(4) and Tuc-
14 son’s “exclusive use permits” to be unconstitutional;
15  Remand this case back to the District Court;
16  Remove Judges Bury and Velasco from presiding
17  over further proceedings;
12 COT asks this Court to ignore the law that this Court
wrote in Gathright.
27
1  Order the District Court Clerk to use the process of
2 “random automated selection” mandated by
3 L.R.Civ.P. 3.7 to reassign this case to the next avail-
4 able judge;
5  Issue another statement of the law that under Gath-
6 right, the government may not employ the simple de-
7 vice of issuing “Exclusive Use Permits” to bar entry
8 into open public meetings held in public parks on the
9 basis of viewpoint;
10  Issue a clear, unambiguous statement of the law re-
11 garding the F.R.Civ.P. precluding district court
12 judges from ignoring the spirit (if not the direct mean-
13 ing) of Rule 16, and
14  Provide Appellant such other relief the Court deems
15 appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted this 26th day of March, 2018.
/s/ Roy Warden, Appellant in forma pauperis
See Attachment One
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate
CM/ECF system on March 26, 2018.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered
CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by
the appellate CM/ECF system on March 26, 2018.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
I Roy Warden, Appellant appearing in forma pauperis in

17-16640, do herein declare, swear and affirm as follows:
The foregoing Appellant Reply Brief complies with the
Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure for the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals.
The font used is Bookman Old, font size 14.
This document contains 4667 words, including foot-
notes and excluding the Cover Page, Table of Contents and
Table of Authorities.
29

DKT Entry 21 Reply Brief

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

DKT Entry 21 Reply Brief

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Case: 17-16640, 03/26/2018, ID: 10814138, DktEntry: 21, Page 1 of 29

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

Roy Warden, Appellant, in forma pauperis

Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966) 20

4 Appellee COT’s Answering Brief3 (DktEntry 13) (1) is a

5 masterpiece of government misdirection, obfuscation, mis-

6 statement of fact and law (aka “Lawyer BS”), (2) is no less

7 than an outright justification for breaking the law4, and (3)

8 presents this Court a CLASSIC example why We the People

9 will always need appellate courts to protect our rights and

10 defend the Rule of Law.

1 Appellant respectfully distinguishes the Ninth Circuit

3 DktEntry 13 presents the same kind of “Lawyer BS” as

1 COT “Misstatements of Fact” # One:

2  “This case concerns a lawsuit filed by Roy Warden

10  “Warden failed to produce any evidence, aside from

17 mary judgement: as Warden sets forth in his Open-

18 ing Brief (DktEntry 8, 15:4-26:5), Warden did pre-

19 sent overwhelming evidence (mostly from COT doc-

20 uments) which he repeats here as follows:

21 a) Coalition for Worker and Immigrant Rights,

22 (CWIR) request for reservation of Armory Park on

23 May 1, 2012. (DktEntry 8 page 19, ¶16);

24 b) CWIR request for “exclusive use” of Armory Park.

25 (DktEntry 8 page 19, ¶18);

1 c) COT Recreation Rental Permit, (DktEntry 8 page

3 d) CWIR letter explaining the purpose of the “exclu-

4 sive use” permit. (DktEntry 8 page 20, ¶ 21);

5 e) COT reservation confirmation letter to CWIR.

6 (DktEntry 8 page 21, ¶22 & page 22, ¶ 24);

7 f) Cover sheet re exclusive use permit email com-

8 munication between COT conspirators Ochoa,

9 Rankin, Judge, & McLaughlin. (DktEntry 8 page

10 22, ¶25 & 26);

11 g) COT exclusive use permit letter issued to CWIR.

12 (DktEntry 8 page 23, ¶27 & 28);

13 h) CWIR invitation to “the communities of Arizona

14 and the entire country.” (DktEntry 8 page 23-24,

16 i) Defendant COT Attorney Mike Rankin document

17 (“The Rankin Memo”) dated April 12, 2006 first

18 endorsing the Gathright decision. (DktEntry 8

19 page 15, ¶ 8);

1 j) Defendant COT Attorney Mike Rankin authored

2 document (“The Confidential Memo”) dated April

3 27, 2006 setting forth an illegal “scheme” to vio-

4 late the law set forth in Gathright. (DktEntry 8

5 page 16-17 ¶ 10 & 11).

6 2. Virtually ALL5 of this evidence came from COT disclo-

7 sures made subsequent to the failure of COT’s

8 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13); thus the legal

9 process of set forth by the F.R.Civ.P (first a complaint

10 setting forth sufficient allegations, second discovery,

11 and finally the production of documents which

12 proved Warden’s case), worked as intended.

13 3. Warden presented this evidence with great clarity in

14 his opening brief. (DktEntry 8: 19:1-26:5)

15 4. Moreover; Warden presented this same evidence to

16 Judge Bury both to support the Warden MSJ (Docs

5 The lone document Appellant provided was the internet

1 99 & 100 to 100-6),) and in his Opposition to the

2 COT MSJ (Doc 116 to 116-9)

3 5. Therefore; the COT misrepresentation that “Warden

4 failed to produce any evidence, aside from self-serv-

5 ing and conclusory statements, of constitutional vi-

6 olations”, set forth on page 7 of DktEntry 13, is not