And the Oscar goes too

 

Last night at City Council you saw corruption at its finest. A man (Eddie Aviles) alleged that the Allentown Police assualted him and called him a "f_c_k__g fa_got" while in their custody.

Eddie is obviously targeted by the police.  He is very outspoken. He was visibly angry and told council he wanted the investigation results since he filed a Right to Know request and a Act 22 request (for body camera footage).   He stated he has followed the rules the city told him and he has been denied any information.

Another male who stated he was "gay" was appalled by the fact he tried to get the findings of the investigation as well and was denied.  

This appears to be a total coverup by Chief Roca and the Mayors office.  Once again, the APD is covering up allegations of misconduct of one of their own.  Big surprise. If the investigation is over is, YOU have to by law give over the findings.  Council, the solicitor’s office, nor the Police Chief are above the law. 

The city is afraid to release any information for fear of the news backlash that will occur if in fact these allegations are true.  I hope Eddie gets an attorney, and has a judge order the release of the body cameras.  

The city boasts transparency and Chief Roca is always saying he wants to build trust within the community.  Bullshit. Bullshit Bullshit.  

This blog has stated before that this city council chooses to violate case law and the Sunshine Act by trying to limit the rights to free speech. They have created a list of rules that essentially stifle the right to free speech and hide it under the auspices of “decorum”. 

Although no one wants to be publicly criticized it is part of being an elected official. In PA citizens have the absolute right to publicly criticize, challenge, and even harshly berate council during public comment. The council cannot shut down speech simply because it is rude, insulting, or uncomfortable. That is at the very center of the First Amendment. 

The federal courts have repeatedly held that public comment at any government meeting is a designated public forum, and free speech cannot be restricted based on viewpoint. City officials may only regulate time, place, and manner….NOT content.

Quit crying because someone is calling you out.

There are exceptions and based on the gentleman’s comments last night they do not appear to apply. Here are the exceptions since council needs to be taught the rules. 

Threats

Incitement to imminent lawless action

Actual disruption (refusal to yield the floor, shouting in audience and disrupting official business)

Being disrespectful, sarcastic, angry, or accusatory is not illegal and cannot be prohibited.

Case Law- study this

1. New York Times v. Sullivan -- The Supreme Court held that public officials must tolerate even sharp, caustic attacks: Debate on public issues must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide‑open,” and may include “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times Company v. Sullivan | Constitution Center

Study this

2. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) -- The Court struck down a conviction for speech that “stirred people to anger,” holding that speech cannot be punished simply because it provokes strong reactions: Justia US Supreme Court CenterJustia US Supreme Court Center. Terminiello v. Chicago | 337 U.S. 1 (1949) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Speech is protected even if it “stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance.”

Study this

3. Ison v. Madison Local School Board, 3 F.4th 887 (6th Cir. 2021) -- The court struck down a “civility” rule banning “abusive” or “antagonistic” speech at public meetings.

Government cannot prohibit speech because it is “offensive to officials.”

Study this

4. Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2013) -- The city tried to remove a speaker for “disorderly conduct” because he criticized officials. The court said no.

Officials may remove speakers only for actual disruption, not for “insulting or offensive remarks.”

Study this

5. Steinburg v. Chesterfield County Planning Commission, 527 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2008)

The court held that public bodies cannot silence speakers for criticizing officials unless they disrupt the meeting.

A speaker’s “disparaging tone” is not grounds for removal.

Study this

6. Jones v. Heyman, 888 F.2d 1328 (11th Cir. 1989) -- A mayor removed a citizen for criticizing him. The court ruled the removal unconstitutional.

Officials cannot remove speakers for “disrespectful” or “hostile” criticism.

Study this

7. White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1990) -- The court held that public comment can be regulated only to prevent actual disruption, not to suppress criticism.

Speakers may not be stopped “because their speech is critical of the government.”

Should be noted: We often wonder where our tax dollars go, and last night, we had a chance to see wasted money in action. The council has upgraded its camera and broadcasting system to a high-definition modern system. It should be noted that this cost the taxpayers $270,329.42.  Over a quarter million to upgrade the council camera systems!!!! That is absurd.  Someone should look into that vendor and their connections. However, with the added HD we can now see what Verizon Frank is dreaming about during his council naps. see R56 at the link below:

https://allentownpa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1402229&GUID=7C818F84-0BED-496C-BE78-CA5C1CFDBD79

Big Brother is always watching. If it is not a Flock camera system reading your license plate and watching your every move, it is a new camera system at public meetings. And Allentown wants to approve data centers to store this type of data? 

Now to Council President Napoli.

What a display of weak leadership all around by Council President Napoli. Unfortunately he lost complete control of the meeting and allowed an angry citizen to be further angered to the point that name calling and insults occurred. Napoli should resign as president for his weak and failed leadership—clearly a top tier understudy of Matt Tuerk’s. 

I do not condone the behavior of Mr Aviles but I do support his right to be frustrated with city leaders for their repeated ignoring of the situation that has made him so angry.    

The truth is that City Council cannot order the police or city administrators to do anything. They essentially can ask questions and will most likely get the same bullshit answers from the administration. It ends there - they do not have any administrative authority over the APD or employees.

Now the failures in this instance were solely with Napoli for giving Mr Aviles hope at the prior meeting where he said he would get answers after he read a canned statement from the Administration. He caused the anger and frustration to spill into last night’s meeting because of his failure as a leader to follow through and set an expectation for Mr. Aviles.  

Napoli by his inaction and disregard of the situation caused the escalation. Mr. Aviles was wrong to scream, yell, and tell council to “shut up”…but the failed approach to handling the situation by the Administration, APD, Legal, and the Council President added fuel to an already burning inferno. No one should be called a “f_cking f_g_ot” by a city employee, especially a law enforcement officer.