I was wondering how long it would take for Mayor Alan Autry to suggest the Federal Court is part of some sort of commie conspiracy, and then I read metro columnist Bill McEwen's blog on the Autry hearing this morning before Judge Oliver Wanger. Autry said he has the right to speak out and doesn't think he's in the Soviet Union, which in Autry-speak means that he thinks he is -- at least when he's in a federal courtroom. There it is -- the communist conspiracy.
Autry was summoned into Wanger's court after the mayor made public statements disparaging the court and the ACLU following the announcement last week that the city had settled a multimillion-dollar case over Fresno's homeless.
The key part of this settlement -- and pay attention here -- was that this was a settlement approved by the city and the ACLU. The court did not negotiate it. Then Autry criticizes the settlement that his government agreed to, and blamed the court for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Autry the strong mayor? He sure looked weak criticizing a settlement that his city agreed to.
Reporter John Ellis in this story says the mayor was defiant at times this morning and was unapologetic for the comments he made following the tentative settlement. But he told Wanger that he and the city were committed to the agreement and its implementation.
So if this settlement is so bad, why doesn't the mayor stand on principle, and take the case to trial? Autry, of course, likes to have it both ways. So in the end, he talked tough, but said he accepted the settlement.
But while Autry's legal position was weak, his political position was rock solid. The best way to make political points, especially in the conservative Valley, is to criticize the courts as being liberal-leaning, commie-loving and out of touch with real Americans.
Autry brought this mess on himself -- and city taxpayers -- with several poor decisions on the homeless issue. Now he's deflecting the blame, and it's working.
So in the mayor's world, all you need to know is this is America, and we don't need any stinking courts to tell us what to do.
It's getting increasingly absurd. It tickles my funny bone. What would our demagogues do without the long shadows of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union??? Since it would be a little hard to invoke the Bible here......
The Judge needs study the constitution and be reminded that even the president doesn't make that much money. Attorneys make the bigs when they get theirs in the public pocket. Amen to the Mayor for standing up for his first amendment right.
Our "esteemed" mayor should know better than to make the silly comment he made. But then it is not first of its type to come from him. The Bee Blog is right on. Wanger is a good judge who follows the law, even when he does not like it (think the environmental rulings that gave fish priority over farms for water). The court does not generally get involved in settlements other than to approve them in some cases or to assist with a settlement conference in some cases. To my knowledge, this was just an out-of-court settlement between the parties. I consider it over the top and unfortunate, but Autry has no one to blame but himself! Victoria S.
Unless Mayor Autry was speaking metaphoricly, MOI has a news flash for him. The Soviet Union is gone.
Mind, Mayor Aurty is an actor and he probably thought he was on a Hollywood sound set.
Jim Boren! What are the "3" responses, and where are they? If comments get transported to the great cyberspace in the sky, I don't want to play anymore in this 2 cents worth free for all opinion game.
de minimis non curat lex;
can easily be applied to the constituion; which does not concern itself with amounts for lawyer fees.
Where were the city attorneys who should have known whether the rights of the homeless were being infringed upon or not? Why didn't they advise the city?
Exploitation?
The ACLU "settles" with the city for $2,335,000 minus $850,000 for fees and services (ACLU gets 3/4 million bucks of that $850K)
That leaves almost $1,500,000 worth of possessions to be reimbursed for the homeless. That equates to $15,000 for each of 100 homeless people or $7,500 for 200 homeless people. My question is this: what possessions do homeless people own that add up to $7,500-$15,000--on the average?
How did the ACLU convince all parties that a group of homeless people owned $1.5 million worth of possessions? Here's how: the City of Fresno was coerced to pay out a "nominal" amount of 2.25 million to avoid a likely defense fee of $500,000 to $1,000,000 PLUS paying the million-plus ACLU fees if it went to court. In other words, the city paid far less to settle than to go to court, and the ACLU knows the city wanted to avoid a lengthy courtroom drama and its associated costs.
Autry didn't relinquish his first amendment rights upon his election, and he is allowed to express his opinion as much as every one of us on this website. He sees the actions of the ACLU to nab $750,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money for their "protection of our liberties" as a sham.
If the ACLU is so interested in protecting the Constitution, where are they when the 2nd amendment is threatened? Why won't the ACLU "protect" traditional Judeo-Christian religious rights that are in the Bill of Rights? And who is this judge to call Autry to the carpet for expressing his opinion and threaten him with contempt for exercising his rights? That's how non-democratic governments exert their power, and our legal system is becoming far too enabled to flex its muscle.
As an attorney, I am brooding over what Judge Wanger did. It was on extremely short notice. And it relied on things happening outside his courtroom, so to probe contempt he would need a factual hearing. That would need to be noticed. Also, if he felt Autry was in contempt, he would have to be given his Fifth Amendment rights before he spoke, I suspect. So this wasn't a contempt hearing. Was it a hearing on the settlement? Only attorneys generally are allowed to speak in court where they represent someone other than witnesses properly sworn. Was Autry sworn as a witness?
And think of the huge power of a human being (Wanger) who can summon another human being on one day's notice to explain a perceived insult. Ollie Wanger was a superb trial attorney and no doubt is a great judge (I retired before his appointment.). However, the legal basis of this non-event is not clear, and could even have a flavor of personal pique by the judge. Does "All power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely?"
I feel that Mayor Autry's public comments were unwise at best and were designed primarily to deflect public criticism over the sze of the settlement, and the City's role in dismanteling the homeless encampments. Of course, the mayor as a citizen has the right to make public comments over the issues of the day. But he does also have the duty to not promote disrespect for our legal system. Some of his comments suggested that the Judge personally participated in sponsoring the "exhorbitant" legal fees agreed to by BOTH side's attorneys before the Judge received the settlement. In effect, for political gain, Mayor Autry was publically hinting that a Federal Judge was corrupt, which is a very serious charge indeed. The Mayor deserves to be rebuked for making such unfair and unwise charges. As noted by numerous people including the Bee's Editorial staff, the Mayor, through the City's own legal staff, had already negotiated and approved the settlement in all it's terms, so his comments about the Judge's role in the fee settlement were out of line.
But as noted by Mr. Fullerton above, the Judge's response may have also been heavy handed and unwise, giving Autry more political ammunition. The power of the Courts to stifle dissent can be considerable, so should always be used with caution and discretion. In retrospect, there were better ways for Judge Wanger to find out whether Mayor Autry would honor the settlement without the high profile of a hastily-called public hearing.
At this juncture, a public statement by the Mayor, minus the defensiveness of his recent statements, agreeing to honor the settlement, apologizing for any misunderstandings of his sincere respect of the Judge's role in the settlement, and possibly including a "request" that the ACLU Attorneys consider a fee donation to homeless programs, would help greatly diffuse the hard feelings amongst all participants. Let this be a good civics lesson for future politicians.
now people know how I feel when we have to pay out big attorney fees when the city provided representation for the cops who abused the Rodriguez family who settled for a million bucks last year in Oct. Why didn't the mayor make a fuss then?
Gloria h/fresno
Bingo. Mr. Fullerton summed up exactly what was troubling me about this whole affair. Autry's comments were not well-chosen, but that's just Bubba being Bubba. To question why he accepted a settlement he doesn't like is neither here nor there. Sometimes you have to accept something you don't like to prevent something worse from happening. It was Judge Wanger's actions that bothered me the most. As Mr. Fullerton pointed out, that's an significant exercise of raw power to haul someone into court like that. Such awesome judicial power ought to be exercised a bit more judiciously.
Phil--I was in court, inside the bar, observing what was happening. To answer your questions....
This was a hearing on an order to show cause why the settlement talks should not be terminated and the case proceed to trial on June 17th (see the court's order which was posted on The Bee's website Monday).
This was not a hearing to show cause why Autry should not be held in contempt of court.
Mayor Autry was an individually-named defendant in the case.
His public statements suggested to Judge Wanger that he/the City might not intend to honor the settlement.
Judge Wanger did not "order" the parties to settle this case. The first time he knew there was a tentative settlement was on Friday June 6th. Federal law requires in a class action lawsuit that the judge make certain findings; that's what he did on the 6th.
Autry's statements about "the court" (which by the way is not the same as Judge Wanger) "exploiting the homeless" implied criminal wrongdoing by the U.S. District Court. Judge Wanger wanted to know what evidence, if any, Bubba had to support that statement. Bottom line--Bubba had none--just a blustering mouth.
I agree the City lost this case through their own stupidity. A low-level police officer was allowed to formulate policy without it being vetted. This same police officer came up with a "creative solution" to protestors during the circus several years ago at Selland Arena that the City Attorney quietly admitted was illegal.
I notice that President Bush is publicly disagreeing with the Supreme Court decision on the rights of prisoners held at Gitmo, although he also says he'll abide by it.
Do you think Chief Justice Roberts will order the president to appear before the court on less than a day's notice to explain his criticism?
Lets be sure we get the situation correct on the homeless. They were breaking the law and they were told to move. They did not and the city took care of the situation.
Our Mayor was right on to say to the Judge and ACLU that what took place was wrong. Our Mayor had to agree with the settlement so as not to cost the city even more. That does not mean he agrees with the settlement. The issue was simple. The Judge got his feathers ruffled and he used his position to "make" the Mayor appear.
Good for the Mayor. We can call our President ever name in the book, accuse him of everything that is evil and know one does anything because of the Freedom of Speech, which our original founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could hear what man says because of Freedom of Speach. But, thats the law. The Judge should have taken it in stride and gone on with his life. But as we know, judges have become far more than their position was intented to be.
Sad Sad day.
Even if they were breaking the law (is it illegal to be homeless in this city?), that didn't give the city the right to confiscate their belongings. If you were trespassing on your neighbor's property, would that give the police the right to take everything you own and throw it away? Of course not.
There's no doubt the city was wrong to do what they did. The city agreed to a settlement, so that's moot now anyway, whether Autry likes it or not. The only issue to me is whether Judge Wanger abused his power to haul Autry into court for expressing his opinion.
Excuse the length or passion on this but this just was shocking for me to read about how a 'small town' touting community service, and 'values' could let this happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who cares who said what to whom and what they may have or may have not meant?
Every day people sit and waste time pointing fingers or placing the blame so they can pass the buck.. and another person becomes a little more lost, or closer to death.
The original clean-up action taken against these people, was horrifying whether with notice or without. These items regardless of what condition they were in, were all that were left of these people's lives. Every day governing personnel drive by most who simply want a voice again or to be noticed and the most they can do is to sweep them under a rug? Who does that to another human being? Shame on Fresno, and those that are quibbling about who pays what .. or for that matter who is to blame.
It was cruel, wrong, and even more of a crime every day they are out there trying to get to the next day with no hope of doing so.. espcecially with those in charge thinking everyone would be better if they just 'went away'. Regardless of the mental, hygiene, or health issues if not by the grace of powers that be.. there go you? It happened to the dot coms living out of their cars in the 80's and with foreclosures, spiking costs of gas, food, and drop in employment.. this is not a 'problem' that is going to go away.
Stop with the passing of the buck and get out there to see what other communities (State or Nation-wide) have done to ASSIST these people and NOT combat them like they are crimminals and aren't worth knowing. Personally I don't care who did what to whom when it comes to offending the court or not offencing some judge or the Mayor. No one seems to be seeing the bigger issue.
Then again the Fresno State Bulldogs made the World Series of Baseball so I can see how one's priorities as to saving a life or a hundred lives could be put on hold till that major event is played out.
Seriously.. When does a person's shattered life warrant being the 6th story of the evening news, being out ranked by baseball, graduations, and happy news? It's just beyond me how people in this 'small' town could be so thoughtless and self involved. When temperatures start to reach over 100, where will this city be then, to help these poor people get to the next day? This is not the Fresno I grew up to know many, many years ago. Back then it wouldn't matter who said what to whom. It woudl be a matter of just fixing the problem instead of treating the symptom. However now things come too easy to, too many so heaven forbid they break a sweat or thought process to try to help out others less fortunate than themselves.
Sincerly I hope someone realizes the time is now.. not the next Administration, in which to step up and do everything possible to fix this NOW. Thank you for your time.
Kudos to Rita. I too was raised in a kinder, less punitive era and environment. Love thy neighbor became official policy by the words and actions of a statesman of yesteryear.
Every member of human society, needing help is entitled to help, and we, human society have the God ordained duty to render that help. The self-procclaimed super Christians (with hearts as hard as flint) probably never read the Sermon on the Mount. Too busy polishing their halos and gathering stones to cast on their less fortunate and/or misguided neigbors.
I am no sister Theresa, butI resent that my tax dollar is spent on persecution of any kind,
or paying the wages to City employees who violate human rights.