City of Fullerton Is Suing Me And This Blog

You may have already seen the story and/or press release from the City of Fullerton articulating their lawsuit against myself, Friends for Fullerton’s Future and others.

You can read the Voice of OC’s write up on this lawsuit from the city [HERE]:

“Fullerton city attorneys are heading into Orange County Superior Court Friday to ask a judge for a temporary restraining order against resident Joshua Ferguson and a local blog to keep them from deleting city records they obtained and also asking a judge to appoint someone to comb through electronic devices for the records.”

That lawsuit from the city is retaliation for a Public Records Lawsuit I filed against the city last week which was written up by the Voice of OC [HERE]:

“Fullerton residents may soon find out exactly how former City Manager Joe Felz was given a ride home by Fullerton police officers after hitting a tree and trying to flee the scene following drinking on election night in 2016, after resident Joshua Ferguson filed a lawsuit against the city to produce police body camera footage from that night.”

I will have more details in the near future but our current response is HERE]:

“The basic purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from imposing prior restraints against the press. “Regardless of how beneficent-sounding the purposes of controlling the press might be,” the Court has “remain[ed] intensely skeptical about those measures that would allow government to insinuate itself into the editorial rooms of this Nation’s press.” (Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 560-561.)

“Consistent with that principle, over the last 75 years, the United States Supreme Court repeatedly has struck down prior restraints that limited the press’ right to report about court proceedings. The Court has made clear that a prior restraint may be contemplated only in the rarest circumstances, such as where necessary to prevent the dissemination of information about troop movements during wartime, Near, 283 U.S. at 716, or to “suppress[] information that would set in motion a nuclear
holocaust.” (New York Times, 403 U.S. at 726 (Brennan, J., concurring).)

“This case does not come close to presenting such extraordinary circumstances. Thus, the City cannot prevail as a matter of law, regardless of how the records were originally obtained. The City’s requests are flatly unconstitutional in and Defendants, therefore, respectfully request this Court denying the City’s request in its entirely.”

More to come as these two cases play out in court.

60 Replies to “City of Fullerton Is Suing Me And This Blog”

    1. Really hogerweasel? You shouldn’t assume that Josh has no cajones simply because you’re a neutered lock step liberal. God damn! Grow a pair.

        1. They have an attorney. It’s right there. It says KELLY AVILES ATTORNEY FOR FRIENDS FOR FULLERTON’S FUTURE.

          Wow you’re a few short.

      1. Once you start using political labels as an insult, I automatically think you have incestuous sex with your sister.

        Your multiple lobotomies and subsequent IQ of a box of hair should disqualify you from access to a computer.

        -A US Navy veteran

  1. Fullerton’s lawsuit is outrageous and taxpayers are paying for this!

    I hope the electorate takes this into account at the next electorate.

    Take names and continue to publish.

  2. Who is CHRISTOPHER TENNYSON? Has he ever written for the FFFF blog? Or is the city simply suing random people, hoping that adding more people to the lawsuit will make their non-existent case somehow look good?

  3. Does this blog log IP addresses of commenters? Now would be a good time to know….. Don’t want the City coming after me. It’s the next step of government repression of free speech.

    1. Also…..I’m not seeing a copy of the City’s lawsuit anywhere. Am I missing a link somewhere? It would be nice to read.

    2. “Does this blog log IP addresses of commenters?”

      I *believe* it does, though I do not know. I posted an anonymous comment before and FFFF immediately outed me, no hesitation, and the content wasn’t at all specific to me. I suppose they could guess, being the only liberal in Fullerton willing to comment here, or maybe I used one of my vocabulary words, but I don’t think that was it.

      In any event, if you’re going to post online you should always assume it can be traced back to you unless you use an anonymizing proxy.

      1. Wait a minute, you tried to be an anonymous coward, failed miserably, and now run around the internet labelling people anonymous cowards?

        Another proud moment for mom.

        1. No need to wait I already explained. No anonymity here, even though FFFF gives its visitors that impression.

          And again, who’s posting anonymously? You.

            1. Let me explain to you… you’re posting anonymously when you’re not anonymous even though it has been explained to you. So you’re just hiding from your neighbors.

              But I guess if I behaved as badly in public as you do I’d hide from my neighbors too.

              1. But we tried hiding from our neighbors, too. So what you’re saying is because we failed at being an anonymous coward it’s now a bad thing?

  4. The First Amendment protects again government interference with freedom of speech.
    The Supreme Court has been especially critical of government actions that impose prior restraint on expression.
    The City of Fullerton has to prove that FFFF publishes the article with actual malice to damage a specific public person. It seems FFFF motive was to just inform the public and get some transparency from FPD.

  5. One of the most famous cases concerning prior restraint was New York Times v. the United States (1971).
    The so-called Pentagon Papers case. The Times and the Washington Post were about to publish the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the U.S. government’s involvement in the Vietnam War (1965-1975).
    The documents had been obtained illegally by a disillusioned former Pentagon official.
    The government wanted a court order to bar publication of the papers, arguing that national security was threatened and that the documents had been stolen.
    The newspaper argued that the public had a right to know the information contained in the papers and that the press had the right to inform the public.
    The Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of the newspapers’ right to publish the information.
    This case affirmed the no-prior restraint doctrine.

    -Base on this case, let us ask ourselves, does the FPD and the local city’s documents are more important than the Pentagon papers case?

  6. Well, I am not an attorney. However, it is my belief that the documents published in FFFF were from FPD, not from City. Therefore the city has no legal standing to sue FFFF, as they are two different entities.

  7. I forgot council Florin is part of the Fullerton City, now, I get it, her specialty is to play dirty pool to silence their political opponents. No to ethical behavior to be an attorney.

  8. “They now have possession of confidential and privileged information,” Barlow said. “I can’t protect the privacy of my police officers and other employees … the possible harm is to thousands of people in thousands of ways.”
    – The Privacy privilege is taken away when the individual is trying to commit fraud.
    – Your police officers have a long background of hiding evidence, alteration police reports, lie in police reports, and obstruction of justice. Moreover, Council Florin has participated in the past helping police officer to get away with crimes and intimidate political opponents. Base on the facts City of Fullerton loses its confidential privacy privilege. the City can not use the excuse of privacy to cover up the truth.

  9. “They now have possession of confidential and privileged information,” Barlow said. “I can’t protect the privacy of my police officers and other employees … the possible harm is to thousands of people in thousands of ways.”
    In order to prove damages, the city must be specific which damages.
    it can not just be so broad, and use the terminology of: ‘Possible harm’, to thousand of people, in thousands of ways’. Oh Wow, how much it’s going to be for the damages Miss. Barlow?
    Can anyone cite a law case, where the plaintiff won for Possible Damages? with this similars facts? Wow!
    No damages, no case, you do not have all the elements. Period.
    let’s break it out. I know complicate things confuse the city,
    Case Facts
    – ” Possible harm”.
    – “To Thousands of people”
    – “In thousands of ways” …
    – Conclusion, very convincing case. Incredible Facts … where is that law school, so I will make sure to do not go there.

  10. Why is Barlow still working the Fullerton beat?

    She was sent packing years ago to work outside of Fullerton for fabricating (lying) her version of “the law” to the planning Commission.

  11. It’s easier for the City Attorney, City Manager, police leaders and city council members to do this. They have no conscience; lying is their native tongue. They will say anything and abuse whatever power or authority they have to get what the want and to protect themselves from harm.

    You better gear up and get ready to play hardball. These people are not smart but their are well armed, cunning and devious and they have deep (our) pockets. You’re trying to expose them and they know if you win, they will all end up in bad circumstances. Keep fighting the good fight and DO NOT HOLD BACK. You will have to put your boot squarely on their throats and APPLY MASSIVE PRESSURE to beat them.

  12. Looks like FFFF is in trouble. And Whaddya know?…you were right. What do you guys always say? Something about chickens coming home to roost? LOL

    1. Well, somebody is in trouble and it’s going to be the taxpayers, once again, who have to bail out dirty cops and incompetent bureaucrats.

      1. The City may be incompetent, but the fact is taxpayers will now have to fund the defense (and most likely settlements) for lawsuits brought about by FFFF irresponsibility. Thanks for the favors guys. Way to look out.

        1. Soooo…FFFF is to blame for demanding transparency? FFFF is to blame because Flory, Fitzgerald and Silva decide to harass law-abiding citizens who bring to light their own incompetence?

          Hmm, You’ve just earned a lot of asshole points.

        2. If the City hadn’t decided to cut a cover-up deal with Hamel instead of firing her there would be no legal problems for them at all. So in the first place the responsibility for all this is on Dumb and Dumber.

  13. I love you guys and would love to help. I am scared you are being represented by the female Greg Diamond.

    What kind of attorney works out of a Postal Annex in La Verne? Maes the kitchen table look like the Newport towers.

    1. “What kind of attorney works out of a Postal Annex in La Verne”

      That’s funny!

      Better than the back of a nail salon, I guess.

  14. The Opposite Party must prove that the emails posted on FFFF are a product of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product.
    The emails and documents posted on this blog, do NOT meet the elements required for the work of an attorney-client privilege.
    The conversation on those emails is not directly from an attorney but from employes that do not work for a law firm directly, such as police chief and officers. the work obtained from those e-mails were not done during the course of attorney work.
    the attorney-client privilege is one of the most common privileges asserted. However, a claim of attorney-client privilege is not a blanket claim but must be made and sustained on a document-by-document or question-by-question basis.10 When called upon to examine a party’s claim of privilege, a court must examine each claimed communication independently and reach its conclusion for each of those communications. It is the burden of the party asserting the privilege to establish its application to a particular communication.

  15. I recommended you to contact Civil Rights Commissions, which would a least give you advice, even if it does not wish to take up your case.
    Also, the state attorney general’s office may have a division dealing with civil rights.
    The Civil rights commission enforcement of federal and state civil rights laws. Civil right issues, discrimination base on status, hate crimes,
    under the California Transparency in Supply chains Act, police practices,
    including Police Misconduct.
    Protection of Free Speech.

    1. Yea, how about consulting with the people you’ve defamed and slandered on this blog about civil rights. You poor thing.

      1. Naaaah, we have the evidence dude!
        Waiting for the court day to bring the evidence 🙂

      2. Name one. Name a single person from 2008 ’til now who has not had either the truth or an honest opinion expressed about him.

        We know what libel and defamation are. They’ve been done to us but not by us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *