Story No. 1:

In my opinion, Municipal judge Ruddy Moore, Bill Clinton's former
chief of Staff, breeched my right of free speech.  On January 3, 2000
Judge Moore fined me $1025 for the unspeakable crime of installing 
a sign in my office window.  While pronouncing sentence Judge Moore
said, "I don't care if you appeal this decision.  I don't even keep up 
with it anymore".

I am filing this law suit against  the City of Fayetteville in a 
attempt to help the city officials care about our civil 
rights as citizens of Fayetteville, AR.  In my opinion, 
any judge who declares from the bench, as Judge Moore did, 
that he does not care, should not be serving as judge.

All judges should supremely care about justice and equity.
Moreover, the only reason to appeal a case is to ensure the carrying
out of justice and equity. For the judge to state that he does not 
care is in affect declaring that he does not care about justice and equity.

The entire controversy arose over a sign that I installed in my office 
window.  The sign is eight inches tall and about eighty-four inches 
long.  It is programmed via a personal computer.

The sign display is physically limited so that it can only display up 
to approximately three words at one time.  Thus, in order to convey a 
complete thought, the screen must change several times.

Judge Moore ruled that I can only change the screen once in a 24 hour period.

How would you feel if I told you that you could express yourself about
any topic, such as politics, religion, business, environment, trees, 
commercial development, or socialism, but you could only use three words 
per day!  Would you feel free or inhibited?  Would you feel just a
little infringed upon?

This ruling is breeching my constitutional guarantee to free speech and 
expression and the city should answer for such an infraction.

The US Courts have ruled that state and municipal governments may regulate 
the NONCOMMUNICATIVE aspects of signs, but NOT the communicative aspects. 

When Judge Moore restricted the number of words that I can use on my sign, 
he restricted and regulated the very fundamental communicative aspect of my 
free expression.  That is, what strikes at the very heart of our free expression rights 
more than limiting the number of words we can use?   When you limit the number of words
that can be used in communication, you limit communication itself! 

Also, the courts have continually held that if the states are going to make an activity illegal, 
they must set out the law in clear and plain definitions so that anyone can read the law and 
understand what is being prohibited.  

In this case, the judge ruled that the sign's message can only be changed once in 24 hours.  
You can read the Fayetteville sign ordinance from beginning to end and there is absolutely 
nothing about such a restriction.  How then could anyone have known the restriction?  
When did the city counsel pass such a restriction?  In fact this law was never debated, 
legislated, or passed.  It was merely hatched in the back (or front) room of the Fayetteville 
prosecutor's office by legal officials who should have known better.  Such a process of 
hatching laws is clearly illegal under the due process clause of the US Constitution.

******************************

Story 2: 

 I attended a town hall meeting on February 1, 2001 in the Fayetteville, AR city hall where the
city attorney told all of us in attendance that the courts have ruled that you can only limit the number 
of people living in one house on a rational basis. The courts have defined a rational basis as rules based 
on health, such as so many people per square feet of floor space, or so many people per bathroom. 
The courts have also ruled that cities can NOT regulate the number of people in a house based 
on marriage or relationships.

In spite of these court rulings and the city attorney's advice that such regulations are seriously flawed 
on a legal basis, the City of Fayetteville, AR continues to enforce its housing ordinance that specifically 
regulates persons per house on the basis or marriage and relationships. 

These city regulations are patently unconstitutional. If you know of someone that is being harassed by 
city officials because of the number of people living in a house, contact should be made with a good lawyer
and suit should be filed against the enforcement of such unconstitutional regulations. Please do not be pushed
around by city officials who are acting beyond their authority and who may be trampling on your 
constitutional rights. Stand up and be counted.

If you don't want to go to the expense of hiring an attorney, you can file the suit yourself.  
You can find many helpful resources on the internet at www.findlaw.com.  Although I am not an attorney and 
cannot give legal advice, I will gladly help you in anyway I can.  You can email me at sprintefile@yahoo.com . 

Remember, men wiser than I have said, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Also, please remember that the greatest threats to our freedoms and liberty in America are not from foreign 
invasion but rather from well meaning persons without understanding.

******************************

Back to Main Page