This blog regularly discusses Rod Pacheco's zealous advocacy for the People of the state. As long time readers know, I regularly comment on the effect of his refusal to plea bargain. As is no secret, this has resulted in a glut of criminal cases which has all but eliminated the civil justice system. This article includes a twist on his actions. Specifically, he is seeking a civil injunction against an east side gang on the grounds that it is a nuisance. The article includes a number of interesting legal theories. First, it references that the gang members aren't entitled to a lawyer because this is a civil matter. This is interesting because the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that before the government can take away your life or liberty it must provide you with counsel. The constitution gives us a right to assembly which by definition means a right to free association. Well, here, aren't the people attempting to stop these gang members from freely associating and thus impinging there right to free assembly?
It's a fanciful legal argument which starts to fall apart on even minimal examination. Just like our freedom of speech isn't absolute (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater), your right to assemble may be limited to peaceful lawabiding activities. As you will read from the article, whether these gang members are law abiding is exactly the issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment