Self-righteous idiots at PRO Gainesville appeal to CCA; self-righteous idiots at ACLU Texas abet them

There's no other way to put it than the headline. 

The PRO Gainesville saga has been going on for three-plus years now. And, not content to lose a Class A misdemeanor case locally, a trio of PRO Gainesville leaders, charged arrested and convicted in trial for, to use the everyday term, "jaywalking" on a state highway when leading a protest march WITHOUT a parade permit (an important issue) appealed to the Texas appeals court system.

And, lost again, and pretty summarily, as noted in detail here, much of which is quoted below.

I thought that MAYBE they would stop there, while also noting snarkily there, AND a bit in media commentary for my day job, that maybe they wouldn't.

Sadly, my snark is right and they've appealed again to the Court of Criminal Appeals, egged on by an ACLU of Texas who apparently is either:

• Ignorant of the facts on the ground;
• Ignorant of ACLU National's pamphlet on what's allowed and not allowed with, and especially WITHOUT, a parade permit, or;
• Doesn't care, believes that beliefs make law, or similar.
• Related: Going beyond the three above, or a mix of them, to straight lying.
  

I'm going to reference items from ACLU Texas' news release, the second link, before posting details from the first link, of my previous blogging.

Here's the biggie to unpack:

“This is a pivotal case for free speech rights in Texas,” said Savannah Kumar (she/they), an attorney with the ACLU of Texas. “It concerns whether protesters can move along public streets without facing jail time and whether organizers of peaceful protests can be held criminally responsible for the words and actions of other participants. We are asking the highest criminal court of Texas to take this case and reaffirm that Texans cannot be convicted for simply walking in a street.”

Wrong in several ways, Savannah. 

First, per what I said above about not having a parade permit, and extracting from my previous post at the first link?

The ACLU national, which I cited in my first post-arrest discussion of the trio's plight, would also like a word with both you and original county court at law case defense attorney Allison Grinter's understanding of protests and permits.

I quote from the ACLU pamphlet:

You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don’t have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.

Pretty clear. Note that that applies to ANY street. It applies in spades to a state highway, whatever the state.

And, if you don't do that, especially after warnings? They can arrest you as necessary. Period and end of story. 

So, it is NOT NOT NOT "a pivotal case for free speech rights in Texas,” contra Kumar. And, per the law, yes, they have the right to be arrested.

As for why these three? They're the organizers. Whether the "rank and file" knew that PRO Gainesville did not have a parade permit, or not, these three did. They're the ones who applied for one, and were denied it. And, with organization and leadership comes responsibility. (I await Kumar claiming, as Grinter did, that "they're just kids.")

Next? This:

A few days later, they were issued arrest warrants for “obstructing a highway or other passageway,” a misdemeanor under Texas law, even though they had not caused an obstruction.

Is simply untrue, spoken by someone who has seen the video, was in the area at the start of the march and read the county court at law trial testimony. It's why I added the fourth item to the original three bullet points up top.

Next? Whichever one of the four bullet points, or all of them to some degree, is correct, Kumar and the rest of ACLU Texas roped in Emerson Sykes from ACLU national, who apparently is also a mix of uninformed about facts on the ground and/or functionally illiterate about ACLU national's own pamphlet.

So, we quote him for refutation:

“Since our country’s founding, public streets and sidewalks have always been a place where people can march and exercise their First Amendment rights,” said Emerson Sykes (he/him), senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “It is unconstitutional to arrest and jail protesters just because they momentarily walk in a street, and it conflicts with Texas state law and precedent recognizing the importance of the right to protest.”

First, obviously, uninformed about the pamphlet. I mean, the whole unstated background premise of the pamphlet is that, if you don't comply with police order to stop walking in the street and hindering traffic, whatever the applicable laws of a state or municipality are, they can be enforced. Period.

I will again quote from that pamphlet, were elsewhere that premise is indeed stated:

Police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety.

Pretty clear in my book. Emphasis added to get at the heart of this issue.

Let's quote elsewhere from that, like an opening paragraph:

Your rights are strongest in what are known as “traditional public forums,” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for.

Pretty clear in my book. (Emphasis added.)

Second, the "momentarily" shows him uninformed about the facts of the matter.

And, that's why the "self-righteous" is in the header. 

Related to this is that this seems to be another example of a critique of the ACLU first raised about a decade or so ago. That is that it is becoming more and more a progressive justice organization and not just a civil liberties outfit.

===

Per my previous update, and referencing those facts of the matter on the ground? Having been dumb enough not to accept a presumable plea deal from County Attorney Ed Zielinski on the misdemeanor charge of obstructing a major passageway, the PRO Gainesville leadership trio of Torrey Henderson, Amara Ridge and Justin Thompson got a $2,000 fine and seven days in the county slammer as their penalty upon jury conviction.

Rather than cut their losses, the trio got the ACLU of Texas to help them on appeal. And emphatically lost that appeal last Nov. 16. Will they go to the Court of Criminal Appeals next? Try to bump that to federal court on their First Amendment claim that this is First Amendment protected speech? I was halfway snarking, but with an update, a response to the Register, received uncritically by it, it sounds like I shouldn't have been.

That said, why wasn't this dude (I heard it on that video too) charged?

At one point in the video, the cameraman could be heard saying, “[The police] are telling us to get out of the road and we’re not listening. I like it.”

Can't the police finger him? (The state statute for obstruction of a major roadway says "willingly" or "knowingly," and Gainesville's police chief said at the time they didn't think most the rank and file knew the leadership had not gotten a parade permit. BUT? What if the cameraman DID know?)

Meanwhile, why did PRO Gainesville go all the way down to Dallas to land Alison Grinter as their legal beagle, especially if she either doesn't understand the First Amendment or thought she could buffalo the Gainesville yokels with stuff like this:

Dallas attorney Alison Grinter’s defense relied on First Amendment protections and the right to protest. She said she believed the legal system was trying to make a point by having the charge be an obstruction of traffic on a major passageway, when if the charge had been on any other street in the area the charge would have been a ticket for jaywalking at most.

Ms. Grinter, come now. Courts have ruled for hundreds of years that the actions of public protest under freedom of assembly can be regulated by government permit requirements. If PRO Gainesville had asked you to sue the city of Gainesville on its claims of unfair treatment of issuance or denial of permits, that would be another thing.

The only thing I agree with re this actual case is that jail time beyond the fines is overkill. But, 7 days is FAR less than the maximum of 180 days.

BUT!

Maybe Zielinski offered that, something less than 7 days, in plea talks and you rejected it? Maybe he didn't, either. Grinter Allen (her actual last name, Grinter her maiden, see below) didn't talk to the Groansville folks, but told the Denton Wrecked Chronic, which also reported on the case, that Zielinski was determined to go to trial. Well, he no-commented, since she's appealing. 

(I asked her point-blank on Twitter if Ed offered a plea deal or not. We'll see if I get a response. I also told her in my Tweet thread that I'm a non-duopoly actual leftist.

As for your claim re the specific road and that Gainesville PD was "targeting" PRO Gainesville? It IS a state highway. This would probably fall under the "duh" category. (Before we go further, I'm a non-duopoly voting actual leftist.) 2/x

— TheRealSocraticGadfly (@real_gadfly) August 26, 2022

We'll see if she responds. A year later, she hasn't. Shock me. Zielinski was determined to go to trial ... rather than dismissing all charges, is what it is. Or rather, Ms. Grinter, YOU and PRO Gainesville were determined to go to trial rather than accept his plea deal. If that IS bad legal counsel, well, the ACLU of Texas is providing more of the same.)

In their story, Thompson claims the commissioners court was in on the effort to deliberately punish them. Uhh, wrong. They don't micromanage Zielinski.

Thompson also claims that a group of Trumpist MAGAts types were so upset over local coverage they started an alternative newspaper. News to me. Never seen a copy at, say Quick Trip. Seriously, knowing how far right Gainesville tilts? And this isn't publicly circulated?

Thompson also has a different story for the Wrecked Chronic about not hearing the police than he did for the Register, where he said he did, thought the warning was originally for a bicyclist, then realized it wasn't, then told people to get back on the sidewalk. 

To update my original piece? "Goes to motive, your honor," per the old legal phrase.

This is one of several reasons, but the biggest recurring reason, that, while I have made civil liberties donations to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU hasn't gotten a dime from me for, I think, 15 years and counting now.