Motion for Reconsideration
Motion for Reconsideration [Full Text PDF]
Motion for Reconsideration addresses the current Opinion which overlooks and misapprehends several important points of fact and law. RAP 12.4(c). Most importantly, however, the current Opinion neglects to decide several issues that require resolution, even if the Court’s decision relative to the merits does not change.
The current Opinion overlooks the fact that Trummel was found in contempt and spent four months in jail, not for listening at a door, but because of unconstitutional content-based restrictions on his web site.
- The trial court’s content-based restrictions on Trummel’s speech and publications are unconstitutional. Those portions of the antiharassment order(s) should be vacated regardless of whether this Court affirms the findings of contempt.
- The trial court had no jurisdiction to issue an order for the benefit of anyone other than petitioner Mitchell. Those portions of the antiharassment order(s) must be vacated regardless of whether this Court affirms the findings of contempt.
- Mitchell’s petition failed to establish the necessary elements of harassment and should have been dismissed.
- Like the trial court, this Court has failed to exclude constitutionally protected activities, and has impermissibly relied on Trummel’s constitutionally-protected publications in finding harassment.
- The trial court abused its discretion in denying Trummel’s request for a continuance to obtain counsel.
- The distance restrictions were and are excessive and unnecessary.
- Trummel did not violate the "surveillance" provision of the order (19 Apr 01).
- The trial court violated Trummel's right to counsel at the contempt hearing (27 Feb 02).
- Trummel never argued that written findings were required in an antiharassment proceeding.
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration [Full Text PDF]
Motion to Publish [Full Text PDF ]
Council House lawyers brought a motion to publish the appellate opinion. Simply put, an unpublished opinion cannot be used as a precedent in law by other attorneys. However, a published opinion creates a legal precedent which, in this case, has negative ramifications for journalists. The court denied the motion for publication.
By that, Court of Appeals created a catch-22. If it allowed publication of its irrational, illogical, and unconstitutional opinion then the precedent could affect journalists and anyone else who writes or publishes anything in the US. Given the notoriety of this case, and the important First Amendment and due process issues involved, it should concern everyone that the Court did not issue a decision that it felt worthy of publication.
The implications for journalists have become increasingly serious. A spate of anti-harassment lawsuits to controvert constitutional rights under the First Amendment have occurred during the past few years. Most state laws specifically exempt constitutionally protected speech. [Introduction]
Answer to Motion to Publish [Full Text PDF]
Denial of Motion to Publish [Full Text PDF]
Efforts to Transcribe Hearing (20 Mar 01) [Full Text PDF]
|
