Don Bankhead vs. Free Market Speech


Word has it that Mayor Pro Tem Don Bankhead was not so happy to see volunteers gathering signatures to recall him from office outside of Ralphs supermarket on Harbor Blvd. earlier this week.

YouTube Preview Image

Petition gatherers say that he and the Mrs. suggested that they shouldn’t be there and were then seen to be speaking to a store manager inside.  A couple of days later the signature gatherers were told by both the manager of Ralphs and the manager of the shopping center that they were not welcome there, and had to leave. Volunteers collecting signatures in front of Albertsons on Raymond Ave. were told the same thing.

Fortunately Fullerton Recall Coordinator Chris Thompson knew that petitioners have the right to collect signatures on some private property as long as they are not causing a disturbance. The California Supreme Court upheld this right in something called Pruneyard vs. Robins, that basically holds that any place that is normally open to the public, like a mall or shopping center, is covered by free speech rights, even if it is private property.

Thompson called the city of Fullerton and had none other than City Manager Joe Felz and the city attorney confirm that the signature gatherers had a perfect right to collect signatures in front of both Ralph’s and Albertsons. Thompson then met with police officers at Ralphs, who agreed. One of them even gave the signature gatherers his card and told them to call him if they had this problem again.

Don Bankhead, who has no problem giving away millions of dollars in public land to developers is suddenly bothered by a couple of people collecting signatures in front of a busy supermarket. I guess he hasn’t learned much since the last time he was recalled from the Fullerton City Council 17 years ago.

More about

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

  1. #1 by info warrior on September 15, 2011

    can’t view the video… anyone else or just me and my PC?

    • #2 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

      I didin’t see the video earlier when I saw this post, however I looked a half hour later and the video was posted. The recall effort is in full swing and the signature gatherers I’ve observed are having an extremely easy time getting voters to sign all three petitions and are eager to do so.

      • #3 by fedupwithmorons on September 16, 2011

        CASE LAW: PRUNEYARD V ROBINS, PROHIBITS RETAILERS FROM DENYING PETITION COLLECTION IN FRONT OF THEIR STORES. IT IS OLD CASE LAW GOING BACK TO THE 80′S.
        PETITION GATHERING IS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND THE CALIF. CONSTITUTION.

    • #4 by Meriblow on September 15, 2011

      I was at the protest in Saturday and approached the recall table and asked the signature gathers whag the recall was for and I got the response of ” I don’t know, I don’t live in this city I live in corona! It just goes to show that bushala

      • #5 by Meriblow on September 15, 2011

        And thompson are using all these morons as their personal puppets! These morons have no idea what cause they are supporting! They just keep drinking the cool aid!!! Haha

        • #6 by Chris Thompson on September 15, 2011

          Yeah, I sent out the moron Bat Signal and they all just came running asking what mindless task they could pursue for me. It’s just one of my many talents. What is it like to wake up to an immoral, losing cause every day of your life?

          • #7 by merijoe on September 15, 2011

            Chris, pay no attention to the baboon behind the curtain..you are doing a great job, Kelly would be proud

          • #8 by Citizen on October 2, 2011

            Plus, don’t all the signature gatherers have to be registered voters in Fullerton?

      • #9 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

        dickfor,
        I saw you there, and you still signed LMAO

      • #10 by Fullertongirly on September 15, 2011

        Meriblow, you have NO idea what you’re talking about and are obviously a big fat troll! I was a signature gatherer on Sat. And know all 3 shifts were manned by Fullerton registered voters. Legal, knowledgeable citizens. Chris and Tony are running this recall with very strict rules about who can sign, witness, etc. Your lame efforts to put negative vibes on the recall won’t work. Sorry.

    • #11 by TIGERMANLSU on September 15, 2011

      VIDEO is working find on this side.

    • #12 by Meriblow on September 15, 2011

      Hey all you fffers read the last two sentences in paragraph four if you can count that high. Funny when you need help you call the police even though you all said you are scared of the Fullerton police ! Funny Thompson called! So what was said was that the police were professional and did their job! All you idiots that have no clue as to what is really going on should stop posting! Put the ben and jerry’s down , get out of your parents house and get a life!!!

      • #13 by Save US from the Fullerton Cops on September 15, 2011

        Yeah, you’re right, Officer Mary Blows. They didn’t come and beat these 2 women into a coma (or give them the Officer Rincon pat down), so I guess they deserve freakin’ medals.

        The only “idiot” who should stop posting is YOU. You are simply an FPD apologist with nothing to say here other than to insult those who truly care about peace and justice. Now go back to your Ben&Jerry’s and choke on it!

        • #14 by Meriblow on September 15, 2011

          Save us! Really??? Great post, when you move to Fullerton then you can post!

          • #15 by Stud Lee on September 15, 2011

            “when you move to Fullerton then you can post!”

            You lose at life.

          • #16 by Save US from the Fullerton Cops on September 15, 2011

            Epic failure. I point out their your goons beat an unarmed man to death and you have another guy serially abusing women under the color of authority, and the best retort in your arsenal is GEOGRAPHY?? Simply pathetic!

            By the way, I don’t need a loser like you to give me permission to post.

          • #17 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

            Blowboy has to point out when officers actually do their job correctly. sad.

          • #18 by Save the FuIIerton Cops on September 15, 2011

            Fullerton gets federal tax dollars, ergo, stfu.

      • #19 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

        Not really sure who taught you comprehension of the English language, however when I read the sentences that you suggested we FFFF bloggers read, I understood the first sentence to say that Chris called the City of Fullerton and spoke with the City Manager and the City Attorney and confirmed that signature gatherers affiliated with the recall campaign have a constitutional right to gather signatures at a privately owned shopping mall as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s UNANIMOUS Pruneyard decision in 1980. The article then states that Chris Thompson met with officers at the Ralph’s who also confirmed the recall campaign’s legal right to collect signatures at a shopping mall that’s on private property and they continued gathering signatures in peace. My own personal observation is that the supporters of the City Councilman have engaged in name calling and heated exchanges with the signature gatherers and I have several videos as proof if needed.

        Thompson called the city of Fullerton and had none other than City Manager Joe Felz and the city attorney confirm that the signature gatherers had a perfect right to collect signatures in front of both Ralph’s and Albertsons. Thompson then met with police officers at Ralphs, who agreed. One of them even gave the signature gatherers his card and told them to call him if they had this problem again.

        • #20 by Jt on September 15, 2011

          It might be fun and elucidating for Honorable Don if someone explained this to him in person.

          Bankhead, Don
          1231 W. Valencia Mesa Drive
          Fullerton CA 92835
          (714)738-8683
          Honorable Don Bankhead
          Other Contacts: Mrs. Carol Bankhead

          • #21 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

            I know this may sound a bit far-fetched, and I honestly don’t want it to be true, however has anyone seriously looked into the possibility that Don Bankhead is actually suffering from brain tumors? He happems to live in an area that’s very close to a bunch of oil wells in the nearby hills that have been causing a higher than normal rate of brain tumor diagnosis’s in the local population, and I also remember reading a West Coyote Hills environmental impact report released a few years ago that mentioned that the Chevron workers underwent annual MRI’s to monitor for these sorts of tumors. It would truly explain or connect a few dots, because those with brain tumors have frequent blackouts, and if you’ve seen Don “Blankhead” during a city council meeting it sort of fits.

      • #22 by Citizen on October 2, 2011

        First of all, the protesters and petition signers are well aware of the fact that many of the officers are good at what they do. Secondly, the fact that people who are not very pleased with the department at the moment will freely point out when there have been positive interactions with officers in Fullerton just proves that they are rational…unlike those who are stubborn and can only see from one viewpoint.

  2. #23 by FPD=keystone cops on September 15, 2011

    Bankhead just dug his grave! If I were him i would quit now while he has some dignity left. He has to go, all of them.

    • #24 by Sean on September 15, 2011

      Wile he has some dignity left? …. ummm

  3. #25 by Disgusted on September 15, 2011

    Nice try, Douchebag!

  4. #26 by Get Real on September 15, 2011

    What a joke. So concerned about covering his own ass, that he doesn’t even know the laws. I would have expected more from a long term council person.

  5. #27 by The Inquiring Mind on September 15, 2011

    Hopefully this is the last time we have to recall this guy. Who is it that votes for him in the first place?

  6. #28 by RALPHY on September 15, 2011

    Get Real :
    What a joke. So concerned about covering his own ass, that he doesn’t even know the laws. I would have expected more from a long term council person.

    HE DOES NOT SEE THE LAW AS APPLYING TO HIS DEMANDS. FRANKLY, THE SUPERMARKET SHOULD BE THE NEXT TARGET OF A BOYCOTT.

    • #29 by Ex Fullerton Res on September 15, 2011

      Totally agree!

  7. #30 by Meriblow on September 15, 2011

    The best part about this recall is that 95% of the signature gathers are not even from Fullerton!! Funny how FFFF wants to recall FULLERTON city counsel but can’t even find Fullerton residents to gather the signatures! Good luck! Instead of wasting the money on a recall why doesn’t bushala and Thompson use the money for all the homeless I see passed out by the Kelly Thomas memorial and build them a shelter or all they have to do is go south across the street to 110 e walnut!

    • #31 by Joe Blow on September 15, 2011

      Does it matter where signature gathers are from? Nope! As long as they collect that 15% there will be a vote. Start clippin’ coupons.

      • #32 by FPD Rocks!!!! on September 15, 2011

        It does! Must be a resident of Fullerton and registered voter.

        • #33 by Joe Blow on September 15, 2011

          Are you talking about the people signing the recall or gathering the signatures? Obviously the 15% have to be confirmed Fullerton residents. I don’t see why it would matter who is sitting at the table. And I highly doubt the people in charge of this recall would overlook something like that.

        • #34 by Joe Blow on September 15, 2011

          I just looked it up & it does appear you need to be registered to vote in the jurisdiction, so I’d say proponents of the recall could have a field day with that if what Meriblow has posted is actually true.

          • #35 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

            ALL SIGNATURE GATHERERS MUST BE REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDING IN FULLERTON. TONY AND CHRIS ARE VERIFYING EACH AND EVERY SIGNATURE GATHERER IS A REGISTERED FULLERTON VOTER.

            FULLERTON RECALL HAS AVERAGED A FEW HUNDRED SIGNATURES PER DAY!

            THEY MAY HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES IN JUST A FEW SHORT WEEKS.

            GOODBYE BANKHEAD, JONES, MCKINLEY!

          • #36 by john doe on September 15, 2011

            The normal intelligent person would just know this and does not have to look it up..What a dumbass!!

    • #37 by Erik Wehn on September 15, 2011

      I gathered volunteers signatures and can say affirmatively that you have no clue what you are talking about. Besides the law requires recall signature gatherers to be city residents. Jackass.

      • #38 by Meriblow on September 15, 2011

        Erik who is the jackass? Read your last sentence! You just proved my point!!!

        • #39 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

          …although the city of Fullerton has written into the police officers contract that they encourage them to live and shop in Fullerton, the great majority of the police force lives outside of the city of Fullerton and the only shopping that they do here is when they’re supposed to be on-duty.

        • #40 by MeribIow on September 15, 2011

          Exclamation points make it true!!!

      • #41 by Meriblow on September 15, 2011

        Hey Erik, what city do you live in?

        • #42 by Sapporo on September 15, 2011

          This is bigger than just Fullerton. Yes the recall is Fullerton City Council. But the corruption goes all the way to the DA’s office.
          So if the corruption started in Fullerton and ended at the DA’s office, perhaps that is why other city residents are kind enough to get involved! And this isn’t just about Kelly Thomas, its about an abuse of power and continuing PD, City and DA cover-ups. Anyone who thinks this is just about Kelly Thomas is wrong. This is much much bigger…

        • #43 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

          Barry, where do live?

          • #44 by Meriblow on September 15, 2011

            Anonymous, the short yellow bus is out side waiting for you, don’t forget your helmet and drool cup! Really??? Great post moron!

          • #45 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

            pass the weaksauce Barry, or did you finish it already.

        • #46 by Erik Wehn on September 15, 2011

          I live in Fullerton. I’ve lived in Fullerton 30 years. My parents have lived in Fullerton 38 years. I worked for the City of Fullerton. My dad worked for the City of Fullerton for 34 years. What’s your point?

    • #47 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

      The best part is the 3 blind mice and their fatboy gang are scared.

      • #48 by TIGERMANLSU on September 15, 2011

        YOU BETTER BELIVE-thay are scared power to the good people of Fullerton down with evil.

    • #49 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

      Merblow sits behind a keyboard in north Dakota. Posts irrelevant.

      • #50 by MeribIow on September 15, 2011

        How the hell did you know?

        • #51 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

          We can see you

        • #52 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

          We can see youuuuu

        • #53 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

          Like the boys in the KKK, I noticed that you lost your pluck when you were un-masked?

  8. #54 by Get Real on September 15, 2011

    The next time the girl scouts are trying to sell Bankhead cookies in front of a grocery store is he going to try and get them removed?
    My point is he’s abusing his position for his own personal gain! he wants the petition gatherers removed because it benefits him personally. Isn’t that an abuse of power???

    • #55 by john doe on September 15, 2011

      Are you taking about Tony Bushala?

  9. #56 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

    Beavis and Bankhead, above the law, but below common sense.
    Who is the “Mark” dooshbag? more info pls.

  10. #57 by RALPHY on September 15, 2011

    Get Real :
    The next time the girl scouts are trying to sell Bankhead cookies in front of a grocery store is he going to try and get them removed?
    My point is he’s abusing his position for his own personal gain! he wants the petition gatherers removed because it benefits him personally. Isn’t that an abuse of power???

    NO WAY IS THIS GANG IN POWER STEPPING DOWN. THEY ARE JUST GETTING STARTED GET READY FOR THE CITY BOSSES TO COME DOWN HARD ON THE TROUBLEMAKERS.

  11. #58 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

    …the voting public here in Fullerton has ass/u/me(d) in the past elections, that candidates that were endorsed by the Fullerton Police Officers Association, or F.P.O.A., were the type of people that you would want to vote in for elected office. I foresee in the next election that candidates will all run the other way when they see that smarmy President of the F.P.O.A.,Barry Coffman, knocking on their door and offering the Fullerton Police Officers Association official endorsement.

  12. #59 by Ex Fullerton Res on September 15, 2011

    I just can’t believe this is all going down. You guys make me proud. We moved from Fullerton recently but I really wish we were still there to be a part of all of this.

    What can we do to help from other counties?

    • #60 by john doe on September 15, 2011

      No just stay there and start your own shit there.

      • #61 by Ex Fullerton Res on September 15, 2011

        That’s actually a great idea, I will contact our local media.

        • #62 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

          nice comeback Ex Fullerton Res!

        • #63 by john doe on September 15, 2011

          They don’t care.

  13. #64 by Sapporo on September 15, 2011

    I heard that Slide Bar is going to host a fundraiser for the councilmen getting recalled. If they do we need to protest that night.

    • #65 by One for the books on September 15, 2011

      Yes, protest the Slime Bar!! Another corrupt entity!

    • #66 by TIGERMANLSU on September 15, 2011

      NO yall stay away from the SLIME-BAR YOU ARE BETTER for it. The kind of S#+# thay are serving, Is for will give you STD,S

    • #67 by merijoe on September 15, 2011

      Gadz, that SnakeBar is corrupt too – they’re all in cahoots with the council-the connection needs to be looked in depth-my opinion

      Im sure there are other community businesses that are in on some shenangins too.

    • #68 by fedupwithmorons on September 16, 2011

      boycott and protest slimebar!

  14. #69 by MeYou on September 15, 2011

    Sapporo :
    I heard that Slide Bar is going to host a fundraiser for the councilmen getting recalled. If they do we need to protest that night.

    Or go there with video camera and videotape everyone who is there..

    SO in the future when one wants to do business in Fullerton they know who to avoid

    • #70 by TIGERMANLSU on September 15, 2011

      Now that,s a good one !

    • #71 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

      someone should video from the parking lot, as I would suspect you wont be treated well inside the slimeJar.
      zoom in on the entrance, lets put more names to faces.

  15. #72 by Ken on September 15, 2011

    I met with Bankhead through a church organization talking about low-income tenants living in squalor, one of the properties we were talking about he voted for the acquisition which created the mess in the first place. He was rude, condescending, couldnt care less about people having to go to the emergency room to pull cockroaches out of their ears. He was much more concerned about the more important fund raiser he was going to be late for. I will enjoy seeing him recalled the most!!

  16. #73 by disgusted on September 15, 2011

    BOYCOTT Ralphs

  17. #74 by Sapporo on September 15, 2011

    I would like to suggest that Police Union President Barry Coffman be referred to as just “Fat Boy” from now on. When i see his picture the name just fits.

  18. #75 by TIGERMANLSU on September 15, 2011

    Mr. Bankhead will need the head of the bank,soon to get a lone!

  19. #76 by merijoe on September 15, 2011

    I see girl scouts selling cookies, petitioners requesting politicial party signup, salvation army requesting dontanations and santa claus with a big red pot every holiday, all in front of a lot of different grocery stores, including ralphs, Albertons, Henry’s etc. Its okay for them but not us, why?
    And the people who are requesting signatures dont need to be fit -its not their job to run, except they may want to from the FPD

  20. #77 by merijoe on September 15, 2011

    And BTW, alot of the FPD are Fat loads that need to visit weight watchers instead of trying to score free food from businesses

  21. #78 by merijoe on September 15, 2011

    Maybe there is a job washing balls for the Bankheads.

    I wish I was there for the beligerent, evil cop licker property owners-it was their lucky day

  22. #79 by nomad on September 15, 2011

    TIGERMAN for the WIN

  23. #80 by mr. boo on September 15, 2011

    most excellent job in community advocacy, Mr. Thompson. Geez, Bankhead is a fucking tool.

    • #81 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

      ditto.

  24. #82 by nomad on September 15, 2011

    FYI I thought the women on the video (gathering signitures) were well spoken, conducted themselves like ladies, and not too hard on the eyes to boot! What more could ya ask for?

    • #83 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

      well done indeed

  25. #84 by Hollis Dugan on September 15, 2011

    This situation points out to me why the recall will likely happen. It seems as though every time the team comprised of FPD and the council members acts they do something that further embarrasses the group. The coup de gras is that the actions keep getting overturned.

    How long is the list of missteps now? Ticket horn blowers (voided), run off the signature gatherers (voided); two cops had broken bones from the fight (voided); Kelly Thomas had stolen property (not); Kelly was on drugs (see toxicology report); “No official source has confirmed a video tape exists (the cops all watched it multiple times); “i have seen worse from soldiers returning from Viet Nam and aircraft crashes” (Kelly was minding his own business in downtown Fullerton breaking no law, not returning from a mortar attack on the front lines); “I have had my eyes bloused before” (Kelly had multiple facial fractures and suffered brain damage) etc., etc., etc.

    Either these guys (Goodrich, Coffman, Sellers, Bankhead, Jones, McKinley) are writing a book on how to screw up a crisis for a public relations class of university professor or you can not argue these guys are an all time low of incompetence.

    Advise to gang of unstraight shooters: If you are going to be incompetent at least dont be malicious about it. People will tolerate a kind dope much longer than a belligerent ass%@#&.

  26. #85 by We Are All One on September 15, 2011

    Ha. I wish these ladies had videoed this happening, would’ve been awesome. Are signature gatherers allowed to video when being harassed? Well, I’m sure there is surveillance footage of it somewhere and no doubt will never be released.

    • #86 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

      Yes they are allowed to videotape, and they should fortheir own protection. These low-life rabble rousers scatter like roaches when you pull out your camcorder and begin filming. Ask Tony Florentine, owner of Florentine’s Bar and Grill who drove down to Smart and Final yesterday to specifically scream and yell at Tony Bushala who was sitting down minding his own business collecting signatures for the recall campaign. I personally will never set foot in Florentine’s after I witnessed this heated exchange.

  27. #87 by nomad on September 15, 2011

    Meriblow :Anonymous, the short yellow bus is out side waiting for you, don’t forget your helmet and drool cup! Really??? Great post moron!

    I dont usually respond to troll posts, as they offend my delicate sensibilities with thier nonsense, but I could not let the assinine post that was left on this board without responding. God bless everyone that struggles daily with disabilities, and thier loved ones as well, wether it be mental or physical infirmities, your efforts ought be lauded, not held up for ridicule.

  28. #88 by L on September 15, 2011

    The three men who visited our site yesterday made me feel intimidated and were indeed condescending. It was ugly. I’d be ashamed to be associated with their tribe. Truly, when I asked for the business card of the one speaking, he at first didn’t give it to me, then after asking a second time he did. He was not verbally battering us, but he threatened to call the police and loudly, determinedly repeated his dislike of our presence (I’m being mild) and was insistent that we leave. Then after reading the sign, demanded we remove our recall sign… There was more, but I haven’t the time now to submit further. After I told him (while the two goons stood by his side remained silent) “You didn’t have to be so condescending,” they left. They, we felt were bullies. I thought the man who said he was the property owner behaved like a misogynist as well. He may or may not be; however, when Thompson and a police officer arrived minutes later, the two goons had departed (perhaps after feeling shamed?) and the property owner TOTALLY changed his tone. If nothing else, he was a bully.
    The name on the card:
    Mark Perlmutter, DMP Properties, office located in Newport Beach.

  29. #91 by merijoe on September 15, 2011

    Whoops, I feel another blast to john and ken coming on

    • #92 by SDLocal on September 15, 2011

      Maybe J&K will give Mr. Perlmutter a call.

      They’re coming to Fullerton in the next week or two to help with the recall signature drive. I’ll be there for that, definitely.

      An estimated one million people listen to John and Ken, every day.

      • #93 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

        He sounds like a real punk if he talks to ladies as he apparently did.

  30. #94 by OOPS on September 15, 2011

    Shall you all voice your opinions on his actions?

    DMP Properties
    610 Newport Center Drive, Suite #660
    Newport Beach, CA 92660

    Main: 949-720-8166
    Fax: 949-720-8184

    Mark Perlmutter, Principal mark@dmpproperties.com

  31. #95 by RALPHY on September 15, 2011

    L :
    The three men who visited our site yesterday made me feel intimidated and were indeed condescending. It was ugly. I’d be ashamed to be associated with their tribe. Truly, when I asked for the business card of the one speaking, he at first didn’t give it to me, then after asking a second time he did. He was not verbally battering us, but he threatened to call the police and loudly, determinedly repeated his dislike of our presence (I’m being mild) and was insistent that we leave. Then after reading the sign, demanded we remove our recall sign… There was more, but I haven’t the time now to submit further. After I told him (while the two goons stood by his side remained silent) “You didn’t have to be so condescending,” they left. They, we felt were bullies. I thought the man who said he was the property owner behaved like a misogynist as well. He may or may not be; however, when Thompson and a police officer arrived minutes later, the two goons had departed (perhaps after feeling shamed?) and the property owner TOTALLY changed his tone. If nothing else, he was a bully.
    The name on the card:
    Mark Perlmutter, DMP Properties, office located in Newport Beach.

    THEY ARE VERY POWERFUL. THEY CAN ORDER BUSINESSES TO VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS. THE MARKET MANAGER SHOULD BE ASKED WHY HE WAS ACTING ON THE ORDERS OF THE CITY BOSS. PUT HIM ON THE SPOT.

  32. #96 by Jen on September 15, 2011

    After reading several posts/blogs, I have the distinct feeling Fullerton business owners are either intimidated by the police or are misreading their citizen’s sentiments. Were I a Fullerton resident, I wouldn’t patronize any business that is so clearly and blindly pro-murdering FPD. Which is it? Do they fear backlash from FPD/City Council or are they that out of touch?

    • #97 by citizen m on September 15, 2011

      As a signature gatherer, there were several people since monday that where wives of business owners, and they stated that they would sign, but fear the retribution- I asked specifically what one lady meant, and she said- and Im paraphrasing here- After I sign this, it goes to who?
      Me:Well we have to varify the signatures, then they ( meaning the current admin/city council) reviews the signatures to varify they are in fact valid.
      Lady: Well, alot of us hate these guys and have for a while …”Good Ol Boys club”….is horrible here.
      Me: So you wont sign…..
      Lady: I would love to, but people keep voting them in, and if we stand up to them, they will retaliate. And with the economy as bad as it is…we couldnt move locations……

      If you want to know whats going on in this city- spend 4 hours in front of a store and they will tell you everything from back in 72 when I first met that idiot bankhead………..or I love Mayor Jones and here is why- we have a freaking beautiful city and wonderful people…with awesome abilities, the talent in this city- and we cant seem to be come to the conclussion- we can do way better than this right? If we cant- we are screwed – THEY ARE THAT OUT OF TOUCH…

      • #98 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

        STORES CAN NOT PROHIBIT PETITION GATHERING AS IT IS PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, THIS IS CASE LAW AND I SUGGEST THOSE MANNING TABLES TO GATHER PETITIONS, PRINT OUT A COPY OF THIS LAW.

        Pruneyard Shopping Center v. RobinsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
        Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

        Supreme Court of the United States
        Argued March 18, 1980
        Decided June 9, 1980
        Full case name Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
        Citations 447 U.S. 74 (more)
        100 S.Ct. 2035; 64 L.Ed.2d 741
        Prior history Writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California
        Holding
        A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.
        Court membership
        Chief Justice
        Warren E. Burger

        Associate Justices
        William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
        Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
        Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
        William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens

        Case opinions
        Majority Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Stevens
        Concurrence White
        Concurrence Powell
        Concurrence Blackmun

        Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379).[1] In American constitutional law, the Pruneyard is famous for its role in establishing two important rules:

        under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
        under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
        This holding was possible because California’s constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution’s First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center.[2] The Pruneyard case, therefore, raised the question of whether an implied right of free speech could arise under a state constitution without conflicting with the federal Constitution. In answering yes to that question, the Court rejected the shopping center’s argument that California’s broader free speech right amounted to a “taking” of the shopping center under federal constitutional law.

        A typical “Please Do Not Contribute” sign at a California shopping center.Footnote two of the decision quotes the relevant portions of the California Constitution, which states in Article 1, § 2

        “ Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. ”

        and Article 1, § 3

        “ [P]eople have the right to . . . petition government for redress of grievances. ”

        The vote to uphold the California decision was unanimous, although three justices disagreed with part of the reasoning in Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the majority. Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, and Harry Blackmun filed separate concurring opinions.

        Because of the Pruneyard case, people who visit shopping centers in California may regularly encounter people seeking money or attention for various causes, including charitable solicitations, qualifying petitions for amendments to the state constitution, voter registration drives, and sometimes a beggar. In turn, many shopping centers have posted signs to explain that they do not endorse the views of people exercising their right to free speech, and that if patrons do not give them money, the speakers will go away.

        Contents [hide]
        1 Subsequent developments
        2 References
        3 Further reading
        4 External links

        [edit] Subsequent developmentsAlthough 39 other states have free speech clauses in their constitutions that look like California’s – indeed, California borrowed its clause from a similar one in the New York Constitution – at least 13 of those states have declined to follow California in extending the right of free speech into private shopping centers.[3] In refusing to follow Pruneyard, the state supreme courts of New York and Wisconsin both attacked it as an unprincipled and whimsical decision.[4] In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights also considered and refused to follow Pruneyard, in a United Kingdom case.[5] Only New Jersey, Colorado, and Massachusetts have followed California, albeit with some reservations. In a 2000 decision, Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory) also adopted Pruneyard’s right of free speech, although the case was complicated by the presence of a branch office of a government agency (Puerto Rico Telephone, since privatized) in the shopping center (the Mayagüez Mall).[6] Some commentators have suggested the Pruneyard rule could be applied to speech on the Internet, including speech activities in virtual worlds, like Linden Labs’ Second Life, although the courts have not addressed this theory.[7]

        In the two decades since Pruneyard was decided, the Supreme Court of California has become much more conservative, especially after three liberal justices (including Chief Justice Rose Bird) were removed by the electorate in 1986 for their opposition to the death penalty.[8]

        In the 2001 Golden Gateway decision, a 4–3 majority of the Court significantly narrowed Pruneyard by holding for a variety of reasons that California’s free speech right does not apply to private apartment complexes – yet, they also refused to overrule Pruneyard.[9] Thus, California’s right of free speech in private shopping centers still survives.

        Naturally, the shopping center industry strongly “detests” the Pruneyard decision (since it has resulted in numerous “test” cases by protesters in California and elsewhere trying to find the boundaries of the Pruneyard rule); shopping centers have regularly imposed restrictions on unwanted solicitors and appealed the resulting legal cases in the hope of convincing the California judiciary that Pruneyard should be overturned, or at least limited.[10] Since Golden Gateway, decisions by the intermediate Courts of Appeal have generally limited the scope of the Pruneyard rule to the facts of the original case. For example, starting in 1997, the parking lots of many Costco warehouse club stores in California became sites of conflict involving a large number of political activist groups who had gradually become aware of their rights under Pruneyard. In 1998, Costco’s management imposed several restrictions, including a complete ban on soliciting at stand-alone stores, a rule that no group or person could use Costco premises for free speech more than 5 days out of any 30, and the complete exclusion of solicitors on the 34 busiest days of the year.

        In 2002, these restrictions were upheld as reasonable by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, and the Supreme Court of California denied review.[11] Costco’s stand-alone stores lacked the social congregation attributes of the multi-tenant shopping center at issue in Pruneyard. As for the restrictions on the stores in shopping centers, they were held to be reasonable because Costco had developed a strong factual record at trial which proved that hordes of unwanted solicitors had significantly interfered with its business operations – they had damaged its reputation, obstructed access to its stores, and traumatized Costco employees.

        In 2007, the Supreme Court of California confronted the Pruneyard decision once more, in the context of a complex labor dispute involving San Diego’s Fashion Valley Mall and the San Diego Union-Tribune. On December 24, 2007, a 4-3 majority of a sharply divided court once again refused to overrule Pruneyard, and instead, ruled that under the California Constitution, a union’s right of free speech in a shopping center includes the right to hand out leaflets urging patrons to boycott one of the shopping center’s tenants.[12] Justice Ming Chin, in his dissent joined by Justices Marvin Baxter and Carol Corrigan, expressed his sympathy with several of the most common critiques of the Pruneyard decision: “Pruneyard was wrong when decided. In the nearly three decades that have since elapsed, jurisdictions throughout the nation have overwhelmingly rejected it. We should no longer ignore this tide of history. The time has come for us to forthrightly overrule Pruneyard and rejoin the rest of the nation in this important area of the law. Private property should be treated as private property, not as a public free speech zone.”[13]

        In 2010, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, in an opinion authored by then-Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (now Chief Justice of California), held that it is unconstitutional under Pruneyard for shopping mall giant Westfield Group to promulgate rules discriminating in favor of commercial speech in its malls and against noncommercial speech.[14] The plaintiff had been detained by Westfield security after attempting to discuss the principles of his Christian faith with strangers at the Westfield Galleria at Roseville.

        [edit] References1.^ Linda Greenhouse, “Petitioning Upheld at Shopping Malls: High Court Says States May Order Access to Back Free Speech,” New York Times, 10 June 1980, A1.
        2.^ Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972).
        3.^ Mulligan, Josh (2004). “Finding A Forum in the Simulated City: Mega Malls, Gated Towns, and the Promise of Pruneyard”. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 13: 533, 557. ISSN 10690565. → This article is an excellent overview of Pruneyard’s progeny.
        4.^ See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 488 N.E.2d 1211 (N.Y. 1985) and Jacobs v. Major, 407 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. 1987).
        5.^ Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 222, (2003) 37 EHRR 38 (6 May 2003)
        6.^ Empresas Puertorriqueñas de Desarrollo, Inc. v. Hermandad Independiente de Empleados Telefónicos, 150 D.P.R. 924 (2000).. The court’s decision turned on the fact that the PRT branch office in the mall was the only local PRT facility in the entire municipality where the unions could publicly demonstrate against the governor’s privatization proposal.
        7.^ Barger, James (July 2010). “Extending Speech Rights Into Virtual Worlds”. The SciTech Lawyer 7 (1): 18–22. ISSN 1550-2090. http://delawarevalleylawyer.com/sites/DVL/SciTech_Speech-in-Virtual-Worlds-Barger-Summer2010.pdf. Retrieved 2011-03-08. “In this new world, long-established property law and state constitutions may provide the best protection for a user’s right to express himself in sometimes controversial ways.”.
        8.^ Culver, John H. (1998). “The transformation of the California Supreme Court: 1977-1997″. Albany Law Review 61 (5): 1461–1490. ISSN 00024678.
        9.^ Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass’n, 26 Cal. 4th 1013 (2001).
        10.^ Joseph R. Grodin, Calvin R. Massey, and Richard B. Cunningham, The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993), 26.
        11.^ Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant, 96 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2002).
        12.^ Fashion Valley Mall, LLC, v. National Labor Relations Board, 42 Cal. 4th 850 (2007).
        13.^ Id. at 870.
        14.^ Snatchko v. Westfield, LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 469 (2010).
        [edit] Further readingAlexander, M. C. (1999). “Attention, Shoppers: The First Amendment in the Modern Shopping Mall”. Arizona Law Review 41: 1. ISSN 0004153X.
        Epstein, Richard A. (1997). “Takings, Exclusivity and Speech: The Legacy of PruneYard v Robins”. University of Chicago Law Review (The University of Chicago Law Review) 64 (1): 21–56. doi:10.2307/1600196. JSTOR 1600196.
        [edit] External linksCornell University Collection – U.S. Supreme Court decision
        California Continuing Education of the Bar Collection – California Supreme Court decision
        California Constitution from Official California Legislative Information Site – Article 1, Declaration of Rights (of which Section 2 was challenged in Pruneyard)
        [hide]v · d · eUnited States First Amendment case law

        [show] Establishment Clause

        Public funding Everson v. Board of Education (1947) • McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) • Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) • Marsh v. Chambers (1983) • Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) • Agostini v. Felton (1997) • Mitchell v. Helms (2000) • Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) • Locke v. Davey (2004)

        Public displays Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) • County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) • McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) • Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

        School prayer Zorach v. Clauson (1952) • Engel v. Vitale (1962) • School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) • Stone v. Graham (1980) • Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) • Lee v. Weisman (1992) • Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) • Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)

        Creationism Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) • Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa. 2005)

        [show] Free Exercise Clause

        Reynolds v. United States (1879) • Davis v. Beason (1890) • Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) • Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) • Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) • Sherbert v. Verner (1963) • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) • Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) • Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) • Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) • Employment Division v. Smith (1990) • Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) • City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) • Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) • Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) • Gonzales v. UDV (2006)

        [hide] Freedom of speech

        Sedition and
        imminent danger Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) • Schenck v. United States (1919) • Abrams v. United States (1919) • Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) • Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Whitney v. California (1927) • Dennis v. United States (1951) • Yates v. United States (1957) • Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

        Fighting words and
        the heckler’s veto Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) • Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) • Feiner v. New York (1951) • National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) • R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) • Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

        Freedom of assembly
        and public forums Hague v. CIO (1939) • Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) • Martin v. Struthers (1943) • Cox v. Louisiana (1965) • Brown v. Louisiana (1966) • Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) • Adderley v. Florida (1966) • Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) • Hill v. Colorado (2000)

        Symbolic speech United States v. O’Brien (1968) • Cohen v. California (1971) • Texas v. Johnson (1989) • United States v. Eichman (1990)

        Compelled speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) • West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) • Wooley v. Maynard (1977) • Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) • Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007)

        School speech Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) • Board of Education v. Pico (1982) • Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) • Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) • Morse v. Frederick (2007)

        Obscenity Rosen v. United States (1896) • United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) • Roth v. United States (1957) • One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) • Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) • MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) • Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) • Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) • Freedman v. Maryland (1965) • Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) • Redrup v. New York (1967) • Ginsberg v. New York (1968) • Stanley v. Georgia (1969) • United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) • Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) • Miller v. California (1973) • Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) • United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) • Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) • New York v. Ferber (1982) • American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) • Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) • Osborne v. Ohio (1990) • United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) • Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) • United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) • Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) • Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) • Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) • United States v. Williams (2008) • American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) • United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) • United States v. Stevens (2010)

        Public employees Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) • Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) • Connick v. Myers (1983) • Rankin v. McPherson (1987) • Waters v. Churchill (1994) • Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) • Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)

        Hatch Act
        and similar laws Ex parte Curtis (1882) • United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) • United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) • Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)

        Commercial speech Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) • Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) • Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) • Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) • Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) • Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) • Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n (1980) • Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) • San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) • 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)

        Campaign finance and
        political speech Buckley v. Valeo (1976) • First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) • Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) • California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) • Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982) • FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) • FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) • Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) • McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) • Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) • Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) • FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) • McConnell v. FEC (2003) • FEC v. Beaumont (2003) • Randall v. Sorrell (2006) • FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) • Davis v. FEC (2008) • Citizens United v. FEC (2010) • Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. (2011)

  33. #99 by The Orange County Register on September 15, 2011

  34. #100 by RALPHY on September 15, 2011

    Jen :
    After reading several posts/blogs, I have the distinct feeling Fullerton business owners are either intimidated by the police or are misreading their citizen’s sentiments. Were I a Fullerton resident, I wouldn’t patronize any business that is so clearly and blindly pro-murdering FPD. Which is it? Do they fear backlash from FPD/City Council or are they that out of touch?

    Exactly they have so many deals with the cops and city bosses, they have to take orders w/o question. I would too, these cops openly tortured a sick man w/o no concern for all cameras rolling.

    • #101 by Jen on September 15, 2011

      Chilling – seems so third world…

  35. #102 by We Are All One on September 15, 2011

    Boycott Ralphs.

    • #103 by Sean on September 15, 2011

      Boycott Fullerton.

      • #104 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

        I think it’s more effective to boycott only those businesses that have clearly shown that they will be dis-respectful of us eFullerton citizens exercising our constitutional rights. I have the utmost respect for the grocery stores like Stater Brothers on Euclid who have respected the signature gatherers rights and have even taken flak for it by agitators and supporters of the three blind mice we have currently sitting on the Fullerton City Council.

        • #105 by Sean on September 15, 2011

          While I do not advocate this, I will say that I think the only thing that will wake up the city, county, state, and country at large, is a full blown riot. Again, I am not in any way promoting this I just think that is the reality of the situation. Government agencies on all level’s seem to have forgotten the reason they exist. Protests are fine and good, but obviously in this case the Fullerton Government is too rooted in corruption and could care less how or why Kelly was killed. And at the core of the corruption is $$$$$$$. So however unlikely, before the worse case scenario of a violent riot does break out, I would think a city wide boycott might hit them where they care…nothing else seems to effect them. Maybe a lack of revenue for the City might be enough for them to realize this issue is bigger than one murder and one cover up and enlighten all of the public offenders to do the right thing while they still can. Just my 2 centz.

          • #106 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

            Sean I totally agree!

          • #107 by Reality Is on September 15, 2011

            Riots are great. More overtime. I don’t think white people in the US know to riot though.

    • #108 by SDLocal on September 15, 2011

      From what I just heard on KFI, it wasn’t the Ralph’s manager who harassed the signature gatherers; it was the actual property owner. His contact info is posted on this thread.

      Excellent interview, BTW. Congratulations on a fine job. Keep up the good work.

  36. #109 by MeYou on September 15, 2011

    The Orange County Register :
    Local bands to play for Kelly Thomas
    http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/thomas-317222-fullerton-death.html

    /tear of joy

    THANK YOU
    QUOTE
    The hot-button situation still has people divided, but several acts, including punk rock outfit Sederra (above), 80 Proof, Julian Porte, New Skool Kings, Mr. Mirainga and Robert Guta of the L.A. Philharmonic have put together a memorial concert and canned food drive in honor of Thomas, set for 3-8 p.m. Saturday in the Fullerton Downtown Plaza on Wilshire Boulevard. ENDQUOTE

  37. #110 by RALPHY on September 15, 2011

    Jen :
    Chilling – seems so third world…

    IF THE CORRUPT D A LET’S THESE COPS OFF THE HOOK, AND WITH THE DELAYING MOVEMENTS HE’S USING. HE’S HOPING TO DISAPPEAR INTO THE HOLIDAYS AND BEYOND. HE HAS BIG CONTRIBUTORS TO ANSWER TO. I WISH YOU FOLKS LUCK. IF THESE BASTARDS RETURN TO TEIR TERRITORIAL STREETS, GET READY FOR REVENGE.

    • #111 by Reality Is on September 15, 2011

      Yes!! Revenge rules!!

  38. #112 by MeYou on September 15, 2011

    We Are All One :
    Boycott Ralphs.

    Interesting.. I just noticed Ralphs is a Kroger company

    I shop at King Soopers here in Colordo.. another Kroger company.. I may let my local manager know what Ralphs Fullerton did and see about contacting their corporate offices

    http://services.ralphs.com/StoreLocator/StoreDetails.aspx?recordId=70300072
    RALPHS1121 N Harbor BlvdFullerton CA 92832Store Phone: (714) 992-2591

    http://www.thekrogerco.com/index.htm

    Executive Offices
    (please direct correspondence to the attention of a department or individual)

    1014 Vine Street
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-1100
    (513) 762-4000
    http://www.kroger.com

    Financial Information
    Email
    kroger.investors@kroger.com.

    Financial Materials Request (513) 762-1220

    Shareholder Services (513) 762-4808

    Investor Relations (513) 762-4366

    Stock Transfer Agent & Registrar
    The Bank of New York
    Shareholder Relations Department – 11E
    P.O. Box 11258
    Church Street Station
    New York, New York 10286
    (1 800 524-4458)

  39. #113 by TheFullertonWatcher on September 15, 2011

    I think it’s about time to find out how fat our police farce is. Public records request uniform sizes of police officers.

    They work for us it’s time to institue physical standards. I want a physically fit cop, not these xxxl cops like Goodyear oops I mean Goodrich and good ole Barry the fatass purple dinosar!

    • #114 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

      Absolutely. I see even the trolls are not attempting to defend the plus-sized.

      • #115 by john doe on September 15, 2011

        You think??

      • #116 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

        All PDs have fat people, skinny, muscled, old, young, ugly, cute. Fullerton is no different. When you get to be 40-45-50-55 people get fat or fatter. Look at the world today. Fat. Cops and every other job match the population.

    • #117 by john doe on September 15, 2011

      How about the two fatasses you had asking for signatures for your recall. At least put two hot looking chicks, you’ll do much better..Oh I forgot you don’t have any. All I’ve seen at the protest on Saturdays are trailer trash looking ones.

      • #118 by Garbage Man on September 15, 2011

        You get you hot chicks outside bars and throw ‘em into the backseat of you patrol car.

        Is it true Coffman wears size 46 pants?

        • #119 by john doe on September 15, 2011

          If I throw chicks in back of my own car, they don’t look like those hoe bags you guys have at your protest rallys or gathering signatures.

          • #120 by Save US from the Fullerton Cops on September 15, 2011

            “If I throw chicks in back of my own car…”

            Wow, you’re quite the romantic, aren’t you? Now these “chicks” whom you “throw” into the back of your car, would they be conscious yet or already chloroformed, Officer Rincon???

      • #121 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

        I’ll take an intelligent woman with a warm heart over a cold-hearted gold digger any day of the week.

      • #122 by ibon on September 15, 2011

        Sorry if not every person is to your liking, but our tax dollars don’t pay for them to be in shape. They are citizens standing up for what they believe in. Feel proud.

      • #123 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

        Protestors and signature gatherers can be fat. Seems like most of the protestors at the council meetings are fat and ugly. Fat cops are different. Oink.

    • #124 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

      Good luck. You won’t be able to do it. Discriminate fat people. Do race and age too then. You could try something for new employees but I don’t think you wil succeed. Research it.

  40. #125 by van get it da artiste on September 15, 2011

    Bankhead, Jones and McKinley just don’t get it. these three fullerton city council members, the bad government trinity, no longer have influence and power because their decades of deceit, and influence peddling and misuse of funds has been exposed by the FFFF. the public’s efforts to recall Bankhead, Jones and McKinley is the first step towards restoring representative government to the city of fullerton. Keep up the good work FFFF and God bless Tony Bushala and Chris Thompson for making our town a better place to live for all of us.

    • #126 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

      Why not the other two council people ? They voted the same way.

      • #127 by van get it da artiste on September 16, 2011

        I forgot about those non-entities

  41. #128 by ydoanyting on September 15, 2011

    If this could happen to one homeless man, it could happen to anyone of us down on our luck. If the Fullerton police can imprison 2 innocent people they could imprison any innocent person, it could be you next. If politics can be so corrupt in Fullerton, due to public union campaign tactics, it can happen to any small town in American. With the United States leading the world in incarcerations, we have indeed become a police state. Thank you FFFF to bringing to light and educating me to the potential corruption of unchecked political power and how it comes to be that way. And for showing us how “we the people” can take back that power with every local political election by keeping up the good fight.
    Let G-d bless all of us who stand for righteousness.

    • #129 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

      And just rememeber politics and unions are the same in every other city. It’s not just Fullerton. And it’s all not what people preach here either. :)

  42. #130 by 9c1copcar on September 15, 2011

    Next time, you might want to try petitioning in front of Walmart. The traffic is much heavier, and they should pay you no mind.

    • #131 by john doe on September 15, 2011

      No Walmart in Fullerton.

      • #132 by citizen m on September 15, 2011

        yes there is a walmart in fullerton……….new store just opened!

        • #133 by van get it da artiste on September 16, 2011

          where?

        • #134 by fullertongirly on September 16, 2011

          The new Walmart is technically in Anaheim, but is right across the street from Fullerton. Look at the city limits line…there is a little pocket that is Anaheim along Orangethorpe.

  43. #135 by Mainjet on September 15, 2011

    I think the two ladies are looking very pretty, and thanks for your service in this cause.

    • #136 by SDLocal on September 15, 2011

      Absolutely. I agree. I think you’re very brave, too.

      Thank you for your hard work in Kelly’s cause. Be careful out there, ladies.

  44. #137 by T N Z on September 15, 2011

    DMP Properties

    610 Newport Center Drive, Suite #660
    Newport Beach, CA 92660

    Main: 949-720-8166
    Fax: 949-720-8184

    Dan Perlmutter, Principal dan@dmpproperties.com
    http://www.dmpproperties.com/contact/

    …Enjoy

  45. #138 by 5150 on September 15, 2011

    I was just there Tuesday and signed all 3. I had also mentioned that anyone who got a ticket from any of the 6 should go to court and contest it. They can’t show up. Oh and the morons on the council have some nerve. This should be brought to the media’s attention so more people can realize how stupid they are!

    • #139 by john doe on September 15, 2011

      Yeah, don’t show up for your ticket..you’ll see.

    • #140 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

      They ripped the tickets up. If they go to court they won’t be on the calendar.

  46. #141 by R.D. on September 15, 2011

    Everyone tap your horn every time you drive by a FPD officer. Just be careful he doesn’t knows it’s you. I get more and more pissed off every time I read about some idiot defending the FPD. Justice, when? NOW!

    • #142 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

      Ok

  47. #143 by Nations watching on September 15, 2011

    The city council, Police Officer Association President, Barry Coffman, the mayor, The Bankheads, The idiot 6 stooges…

    There needs to be a Fullerton Reality Show.

    “F’d up in Fullerton.”

    “Fullerton Shores”

  48. #144 by john doe on September 15, 2011

    Save US from the Fullerton Cops :
    “If I throw chicks in back of my own car…”
    Wow, you’re quite the romantic, aren’t you? Now these “chicks” whom you “throw” into the back of your car, would they be conscious yet or already chloroformed, Officer Rincon???No they are conscious and willing..no romance.

  49. #145 by Mainjet on September 15, 2011

    I met one of these ladies at the signature table this afternoon, and I will say she is even prettier in person. I also met Tony and he is very cool. Keep up the good work FFFF.

  50. #146 by Caroline on September 15, 2011

    So a city council member (and former police officer, I believe) is convincing store managers to break the law by forcing legal signature gatherers to leave? That in itself should be enough to kick him out of office.

    • #147 by The Desert Rat on September 15, 2011

      Good point. The Spank will do anything to avoid being recalled (again). I can’t wait ’til they trot out Flory and McClan’tahan and the ghost of Buck Catlin.

      It won’t help.

  51. #148 by support the ladies on September 15, 2011

    ladies you are brave and they are afraid of you- keep up the good work- you are beautiful wonderful people= thanks for all you do!!1 fullerton citizen!

  52. #149 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

    Depends.

    Save US from the Fullerton Cops :
    “If I throw chicks in back of my own car…”
    Wow, you’re quite the romantic, aren’t you? Now these “chicks” whom you “throw” into the back of your car, would they be conscious yet or already chloroformed, Officer Rincon???

  53. #150 by We Are All One on September 16, 2011

    Reality Is :
    All PDs have fat people, skinny, muscled, old, young, ugly, cute. Fullerton is no different. When you get to be 40-45-50-55 people get fat or fatter. Look at the world today. Fat. Cops and every other job match the population.

    How many fat soldiers do you see? Are they allowed to be out of shape while serving? Not so far as I now they’re not.

    • #151 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

      Ratio of 45-55 year old field soldiers to younger? I thought so. :)

      • #152 by Anonymous on September 16, 2011

        I’m sorry but Fullerton in paticular has a big problem. I lived in Irvine for years and all were in tip top shape. I think only the OCSD is giving fullerton a run for their money, with regard to weight issues…

        And believe it or not, just because you’re over forty is no excuse. They need to be able to protect and serve, not just beat on small ill people.

    • #153 by Pull It Out on September 16, 2011

      55? You slacker retire at 50. And by the look of it you’re all lard asses!

  54. #154 by Hog Wild on September 16, 2011

    Reality Is: That really you or did you get hijacked again?

    • #155 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

      Me.

    • #156 by Sean on September 16, 2011

      You can’t tell it’s her from all of the brilliant come-backs?

  55. #157 by TIGERMANLSU on September 15, 2011

    THE LADY,S YOU SAY ARE FAT HAHA will thay are not trained to serve and protect. Like the FPD are! And thay are not eating at the tax payer,s trof like the pig,s are!

  56. #158 by fullerton lover on September 15, 2011

    You sound like the same off-duty Fullerton cop that I saw at a recall booth the other day that said, “I think your all idiots!” My observations are that policeman seem to use that word on civilians quite a bit when others don’t agree with them, and like mi amigo Will Shakespeare said,” when you are pointing one finger at others, you have three porky little fingers back at yourselves” (O.K. maybe that’s not verbatim, but you get my drift eh?)

  57. #159 by Jen on September 15, 2011

    I suppose if those two ladies had murdered a homeless man, then yes…that would be hypocrisy and your post would be relevant. I don’t think the good citzens of Fullerton are protesting the FPD because they are the fattest bunch of law enforcement officers I’ve ever seen.

  58. #160 by john doe on September 15, 2011

    Will thay are….huh???

  59. #161 by Reality Is on September 16, 2011

    Oink oink

Comments are closed.