The Fix Is In. Judge REFUSES To Issue Ruling On The Constitutionality Of Mayor's Executive Order!

Yesterday, I had court in SKC. I was arrested on April 1, 2024, at the City Hall in SKC for simple trespass. This arrest stemmed from my refusal to comply with an executive order issued by Mayor Gary McCarthy, which prohibited recording inside City Hall without every individual's permission.

The Arrest and Executive Order

The executive order essentially declares that recording in City Hall is not allowed unless consent is obtained from every person within the premises. This policy is in stark violation of our First Amendment rights and basic principles of government transparency.

The Motion to Dismiss

I filed a detailed motion to dismiss the charges against me, emphasizing the following points:

Facial Insufficiency: The complaint against me did not state the elements of the crime. According to New York Penal Law 14.05, for trespass to be valid, it must be proven that I knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in or upon the premises.
Unlawfulness of the Executive Order: I argued that the executive order was issued without lawful authority and therefore is unenforceable. Mayoral executive orders cannot usurp legislative powers reserved for the city council.
Violation of Monitoring Rights: The executive order also violates the New York State Right to Monitor Act, which allows citizens to record law enforcement officers in the course of their duty.

My motion was supported by strong legal precedents, such as the New York Court of Appeals case People v. Leonard, which presumes the public has a license or privilege to be in public buildings unless specifically revoked.

Government's Weak Response

The district attorney’s response was weak and only a few pages long. They asserted that the court was not the proper venue to determine the constitutionality of the executive order. They suggested that this should be taken up with the city attorney’s office—a suggestion that is both illogical and impractical.

Judge’s Ruling: A Disappointment

In court, the judge dismissed all the points I made regarding the executive order, stating that they were "made in the wrong venue." This means the judge refused to consider whether the executive order itself was unconstitutional.

The court’s order was only two pages long. It did not provide any detailed explanations for finding the complaint facially sufficient. The judge only stated that defendants’ other arguments are “made in the wrong venue” and would not be considered.

Moving Forward: August 27th Trial

My trial is now set for August 27th, and fortunately, it will be a bench trial. I remain determined to fight these charges and bring transparency to this matter. Given the judge’s reluctance to address the constitutional issues at hand, it seems I may have to prepare for a costly appeal process.

A Call for Transparency

This matter is not just about my right to film in a public building, but about holding our elected officials accountable. No mayor or government official should be able to unilaterally issue executive orders that infringe upon our constitutional rights.

The fight for justice continues, and I urge you all to stay tuned for further updates and support the cause for transparency and accountability in government.

Keywords

First Amendment rights
Executive order
Facial insufficiency
Right to Monitor
New York Penal Law 14.05
Judge Taneka Frost
Transparent government
Constitutional rights

FAQ

1. Why were you arrested? I was arrested for trespassing when I refused to stop recording inside the City Hall in SKC, as per an executive order by Mayor Gary McCarthy.

2. What’s the main argument in your motion to dismiss? My motion to dismiss focuses on facial insufficiency, unlawfulness of the executive order, and violation of the New York State Right to Monitor Act.

3. What was the judge’s response to your motion? The judge found the complaint facially sufficient and refused to consider the constitutionality of the executive order, stating that my arguments were “made in the wrong venue.”

4. What’s next? My trial is set for August 27th, where I will continue to fight the charges. If necessary, I will pursue an appeal.

5. How can people support you? Sharing this information and advocating for transparency and accountability in government is the best way to support the cause.

Stay informed, stay connected, and let’s ensure our rights are protected.