Glenn,
I encourage you to take on the cause of changing this provision in the
Philadelphia City Charter and Code, or to promoting the defense of
your helper and the other two on the grounds that the provision is
intended to violate the civil rights of certain folks in the way that
the Birmingham requirement for parade or march permit did. I, however,
will refrain from drinking upscale Chardonnay in the park some fine
Saturday morning or afternoon, as I figure I too may be busted in the
way those downscale beer drinkers were.
I respectfully decline the challenge to debate either the real you, or
Mr. Moyer. I've reached a point in my life that I understand that
certain undertakings and battles are not worth the effort.
Elliot
Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
United States of America
telephone: 215-747-6204
mobile: 267-240-8418
[email protected]
On 27 Oct 2009, at 11:38 AM, Glenn moyer wrote:
Hi Mr. Stern,
Perhaps Mr. Moyer is not aware of this, but the 14th Amendment to
the U.S. Constition is not a blanket prohibition against laws that
govern individual conduct.
Hahaha. Of course, "the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is
not a blanket prohibition against laws that govern individual
conduct."
But Elliot, that's a great parody of the potential use of a straw
man in argumentation! It's a very interesting sentence
construction. The important issue for analysis, then; is this Mr.
Moyer's ridiculous position born from ignorance or deception? With
the word "perhaps," you give this Moyer's motivation the benefit of
the doubt for the made-up position. Sympathy for the straw man-
hehehe.
Mr. Moyer seems to be making a straw man of the UCD in the counter
example he provides: the person in charge of Clark Park may have
provided written permission to allow drinking at the Philadelphia
Orchestra performance in Clark Park.
When I got to this last sentence, I realized that you wanted to
suggest that "Mr. Moyer seems to be" employing a type of logical
fallacy. I think you meant a weak analogy or a red herring,
depending on your conclusions about the motivation of this Moyer.
The debate you have introduced could get lengthy, if you wish to
debate the real Glenn. I've been told to take it easy on the "old
geezers" eyes, so we may need multiple but brief exchanges for this
serious issue-haha .
Elliot, either enforcement or the legislation can abridge the rights
of citizens. I think we have multiple problems in the city and
Clark park in this era of the anointed. Your apparent resolution of
the issue I revealed depends upon an oversimplification of the
problem. Profiling and unequal enforcement are one serious problem
related to the original city code.
The concept that a sole individual poses a compelling public safety
or nuisance threat as he or she listens to the birds, and therefore
requires arrest and indentured servitude to UCD; while the signature
of a rather dim Parks Coordinator eliminates whatever threat for
3500 people doing the same activity in the same park is rather
laughable. Shuttlesworth vs Birmingham deals with vesting such
power in one dim beuarocrat.
I believe that after reasonable people examine the city code; they
would see that this bizarre hidden authority over picnic areas is
nothing more than a pretext to violate the civil rights and abridge
the freedoms of certain citizens. The policy causes great harm to
our civil liberties, but has no positive value. Conversely,
prohibiting drinking and driving would be an example of a compelling
safety reason that could be substantiated.
The fact that profiling and unequal enforcement exists in the same
upscale park when there is no orchestra, supports the theory that a
capped beer in a paperbag is an artificial unconstitutional
smokescreen. (Here is where we need the case made for both the
compelling reason for the selective prohibition, and an explanation
of the city's efforts to avoid fooling or entrapping local citizens
subjected to a traumatic arrest and indentured servitude.)
For the sake of brevity, I think the ridiculous and hidden city
policy can be proven to be a smokescreen to allow the police to
violate the civil rights of the poorer classes of our neighbors.
The vision for forced gentrification, and neo-colonialism, has been
known to take civil rights of indigenous citizens for granted in
police states around the world!!!
Letting the old geezers eyes rest,
The real Mr. Moyer
-----Original Message-----
From: "Elliot M. Stern"
Sent: Oct 25, 2009 10:32 AM
To: University City List
Subject: Re: [UC] Local residents arrested in Clark Park, loss of
fourteenth
Perhaps Mr. Moyer is not aware of this, but the 14th Amendment to
the U.S. Constition is not a blanket prohibition against laws that
govern individual conduct. There is indeed a law concerning
alcoholic beverages in city-owned recreation centers, playgrounds
and park areas. I have reproduced a relevant portion of the
Philadelphia Code below. While I cannot comment on the
appropriateness of his helper's reported arrest, it seems clear that
drinking downscale beer is covered under prohibited conduct
described below. Mr. Moyer seems to be making a straw man of the UCD
in the counter example he provides: the person in charge of Clark
Park may have provided written permission to allow drinking at the
Philadelphia Orchestra performance in Clark Park.
§ 10-604. Alcoholic Beverages. 96
(1) Definitions.
(a) Alcoholic Beverages. All "liquor" and "malt or
brewed beverages" as defined by the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47
P.S. § 1-102.
(b) Public Right-of-Way. All public streets, alleys,
sidewalks, steps and other corridors through which either vehicles
or persons may travel, including motor vehicles parked within such
right-of-way.
(2) Prohibited Conduct.
(a) No person shall bring onto any city-owned
recreation center, playground or park area, with the exception of
Fairmount Park, proper, or drink thereupon an alcoholic beverage
unless such person has written permission for that purpose from the
person in charge of the City facility.
(b) No person shall consume alcoholic beverages or
carry or possess an open container of alcoholic beverages in the
public right-of-way, or on private property without the express
permission of the landowner or tenant, except that this prohibition
shall not apply to alcoholic beverages consumed in the public right-
of-way as permitted under Chapter 9, Section 208 of The Philadelphia
Code entitled "Sidewalk Cafes" or to block parties held under
special permit issued by the Street Department and in accordance
with regulations issued pursuant thereto.
Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
United States of America
telephone: 215-747-6204
mobile: 267-240-8418
[email protected]
On 25 Oct 2009, at 9:24 AM, Glenn moyer wrote:
14th Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.
One of our neighbors rang my door bell Thurs. night. He was
scheduled to help me with a job Friday morning. But he had to
cancel and go to court. Three people had been rounded up in Clark
Park, cuffed, and taken to 55th and Pine.
Earlier the same day, a friend told me that others had recently
been arrested as the volleyball players watched. All of these
local residents were sitting peacefully drinking a downscale beer!
When my helper offered to dump out the beer to avoid arrest, the
cops told him, "there are people around here with a lot of money
and power." Then they cuffed him.
Many of you will remember the UCD regional marketing campaign
encouraging suburban folks to bring wine to Clark Park for the
orchestra. Here is one example:
http://phillyist.com/2007/07/20/get_classic_in.php
In addition to a hefty fine, my helper will need to wear the orange
jumpsuit and work for the very same UCD under the threat of an
arrest warrant if he refuses. (UCD was previously caught using
these probationers for election work in violation of federal law.)
Our neighbor described the humiliation of being arrested, cuffed,
and taken away in front of neighbors and friends in the community
in which he has lived for 20 years! Think of the next humiliation,
over two days, as he works in the chain gang in front of us in his
orange suit!
( My helper and the other guy walked the third victim home because
he was traumatized and having serious anxiety trouble as a result
of the events. Thank God for honorable downscale citizens!)
Think of this! UCD advertises around the entire region that
wealthy suburbanites are encouraged to bring upscale wine to Clark
Park. (Many of us attended the orchestra and watched the wine
flowing freely. We watch students regularly bring wine and houkas
with their picnics in Clark Park.) But our hard working neighbors
are traumatized, fleeced, and then forced to work in the chain gang
for the very same UCD, or face jail.
In the same jurisdiction, middle and lower class citizens are now
arrested and enslaved for the same privileges enjoyed by the
wealthy and powerful. UCD and these good people with money and
power piss on the US Constitution. The poor and middle class are
no longer considered US citizens. They have been criminalized.
Here is what Asians face:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_re_us/us_police_beating_video
Waiting for my orange suit,
Glenn
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
