I have been prosecuted twice for each of my class actions and have many trespasses given to me by the Mayor Adolf Murray, Seattle City Council and the Executive of King County, Dow Constantine.I have twelve trespass from Seattle City Hall and council chamber for a total of more than 1400 days. NOBODY IN UNITED STATES HISTORY HAS EVER HAD THIS HAPPEN BEFORE! I have trespass from 12 July 2017 from Seattle City Hall and Council Chamber when I was the Mayoral Candidate for Seattle Mayor position, which is a pure constitutional crime. This trespass was for one year. I have three trespasses from King County. One from Puget Sound Regional Council. I have a lifetime trespass from Seattle City Club and Seattle University. This is what happens with a fascist government and you have a different opinion. Seattle fascism is classic fascism when government together with corporation suck blood and money from the people. This is a pure example of fascism!
The government harassment is totally illegal as outlined in “Legal Guide to Handling Disruptive People in Public Meetings”, found here: https://www.orcities.org/application/files/2316/8321/7752/LegalGuideHandlingDisruptivePeople-WhitePaper-updated5-23.pdf
In this guide it states that
Disruptive people can be removed from public meetings (public officials often refer to this removal as “trespassing”). However, the person must actually be disrupting the meeting. The Ninth Circuit has specifically stated, “Actual disruption means actual disruption. It does not mean constructive disruption, technical disruption, virtual disruption, nunc pro tunc disruption, or imaginary disruption.”7 A nunc pro tunc disruption is one where the speech could cause a disruption after the fact.
To that end, individuals who refuse to sit down when their allotted speaking time has ended can be removed from the public meeting. Persons who interrupt a meeting’s proceeding by repeatedly shouting out and yelling can also be removed. Even individuals located in a different room than an actual public meeting who are protesting so loudly that it interferes with the meeting can be removed from the area. On the other hand, a person who rolls his or her eyes, repeatedly sighs, shakes their head or guffaws is probably not actually disrupting the meeting. A person who is merely a distraction is not necessarily and actual disruption, and thus, should be ignored.
Because the requirement is that an actual disruption of the proceedings occur, it is not appropriate to remove a person because of some type of symbolic expression that does not interrupt or halt the meeting itself. For example, the Ninth Circuit found that while a person giving a Nazi salute may be offensive, giving the salute did not interfere with or interrupt the public meeting itself. And because the actual meeting was not interfered with by the salute, the removal of the person giving the salute from the meeting amounted to “viewpoint discrimination” by the governing body. Having a person removed from a public meeting because their view on a matter is offensive to some or all of the other people in attendance at the meeting is not legally permissible.
Most importantly it states that
Two relatively recent federal court opinions held that prohibiting a disruptive person from attending future meetings, and from entering the entirety of a government facility, is not permitted under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The federal district court for Oregon specifically held in Walsh v. Enge9 that a government may not “prospectively exclude
individuals from future public meetings merely because they have been disruptive in the past.” In a separate decision, Reza v. Pearce,10 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “imposing a complete ban” on a person’s entry into a government building “clearly exceeds the bounds of reasonableness” established under First Amendment jurisprudence. Both decisions are explained below more fully.