Seeking Amicus Support for Important U.S. Supreme Court Case

-
California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act ("DVPA") has a residual clause definition of "abuse" that is unconstitutionally vague, and impermissibly grants unbridled discretion to issue a prior restraint. DV "abuse" can be found in any conduct that "destroys the mental or emotional calm" of the other person. In Alex Baker's case, domestic violence was found in his pending litigation against his ex-wife (and ex-business partner), "irrespective of whether the cases have any merit".

Moreover, the DV restraining order has gagged Alex, disallowing him from publishing court documents, and from contacting necessary trial witnesses, on the basis that doing so would emotionally upset his legal adversary. The California Court of Appeal found that these prior restraints of free speech and of the right to petition did not need to be narrowly tailored, and were not subject to a strict scrutiny analysis, simply because they were issued under a domestic violence statute. 

Alex has filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which can be downloaded at this link:


Alex seeks amicus support. On June 24, 2019, the very day Alex filed the Petition, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. v Davis, which struck down a similar residual clause as void for vagueness. As Justice Gorsuch opined:

"Under our constitutional order, a vague law is no law". 

Please consider supporting Alex's important First Amendment case with an amicus brief citing U.S. v. Davis, which now marks the third Supreme Court case in the last four years to strike down a residual clause definition of wrongdoing under the vagueness doctrine. With your support, let the the residual clause in the DVPA will be similarly done away with, and our First Amendment protected. 

Thank you. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Response to Clair Marlo's False and Misleading GoFundMe Comments

-
As I try to raise funds for the constitutional challenge to the DVPA, Clara Veseliza Baker, aka Clair Marlo, aka my ex wife, has commented on my GoFundMe. Below is her post quoted in full, with my notes in between statements. The reason I have a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against you is because you posted my signature, my personal and private information, my private emails, my co-workers names, address, phone number, signature and private contracts on the internet. I posted court documents, including evidentiary exhibits attached to a complaint against Clair Marlo for fraud and other causes of action. Court documents are, by definition, public. All confidential information - such as social security number -  was properly redacted from the court documents prior to filing, and prior to publishing. Prior to this restraining order, none of the things that Ms. Marlo mentions were ever considered confidential by any court. It is true that the Court found that I had posted "
Read more

Global Warming Challenge - Want to Convince Me?

-
Apparently a lot of people believe that man-caused "global warming" or "climate change" will provoke catastrophe unless we "reduce our carbon footprint". I don't. The global warming "theory" is based on a 5-step chain of reasoning, with each link dependent on the validity of the link before. I don't accept a single one, for reasons that I'm glad to discuss. Here is the theory, as best as I understand it. 1. We know exactly what the earth's climate and average temperature would be like now and in the future, had mankind never begun putting CO2 into the atmosphere. 2. Assuming #1: Computer models are a reliable method of understanding and predicting global climate change.  3. Assuming #2: The earth's average temperature is higher, and will continue to get higher than it would otherwise have been, had mankind never begun putting CO2 into the atmosphere. 4. Assuming #3: If the earth's average temperature goes up by a
Read more

NBC's Malicious Editing and the George Zimmerman Defamation Case

-
A brief history of the Constitutional dimensions of defamation, a discussion of George Zimmerman v. NBC, and a call for careful consideration   of the ability of national news organizations to confer “public figure” status, especially including their legal adversaries in defamation.   Introduction In December 2012 George Zimmerman filed a defamation lawsuit against NBC television and three of their news reporters / producers – Ron Allen, Lilia Rodriguez Luciano, and Jeff Burnside. Zimmerman alleged that the producers maliciously edited a recording of Zimmerman’s 911 call, falsely accused him of uttering a racial epithet, and falsely reported the facts of the Trayvon Martin shooting in such a way as to make Zimmerman appear that he racially targeted Martin and gunned him down in cold blood. Zimmerman alleged that this was done for the purpose of generating high television ratings.   The defamation action was stayed pending the outcome of the criminal trial against
Read more