LEARN ABOUT THE BUSH/KNOLLENBERG WAR ON THE MIDDLE-CLASS



Thursday, March 06, 2008

Lennox receives reprimand from CMU

CMU student, Dennis Lennox, who has been stalking Congressional candidate, Gary Peters around CMU's campus, officially received a reprimand for breaking school rules yesterday.

Posted by at
Labels: ,

5 comments:

Chetly Zarko said...

Let's put these "rules violations" on a scale.

Fealk arrested by Troy Police for resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and trespass during a private event.

Lennox reprimanded for passing out literature at a public event.

Hmmm. Interesting to look at them side by side.

3/06/2008 02:00:00 PM
MIKE said...

By all means, let us "look" at these issues side by side. The "student" has been charged by a governing body -CMU - to have violated that institution rules. I assume he has an avenue to challenge their contention. An appeal process I have no doubt exists. Now, as for Mr. Fealk, his day in court is yet to come. His "appeal" has yet to happen. So "looking at them side by side" one reasonable person would have to conclude they both will have their day in court.
You state that Lenox was reprimanded for passing out literature at a public event. Is that any differant then Mr. Fealk videotaping on PUBLIC property which is in dispute as to how you can consider it a "private event". The "event" was held at a Troy facility that belongs to the city of Troy and is considered public property.
As for the other charges, knowing Mr. Fealk as I do, I believe they are trumped up charges. It is a sad day for this country when a police force allows itself to be used by a partisan political group - namely the Republican Party of Oakland County.
Your wordsmithing zark-vader sounds like it came from the Karl Rove playbook. Should I accuse you of being unpatriotic, a terrorist lover, a Constitution killer, a Bush lackey? Heavens no - you are just exercising your Constitutional right to express your opinion!

3/06/2008 02:47:00 PM
Chetly Zarko said...

Yeah, go ahead and accuse me of those irrelevant things.

Here's the thing I've heard - Fealk will have a hard time even getting the ACLU on his side because the facts just aren't on his side. That's a very good indicator of the facts here - if Fealk has a hard time getting pro-bono help then its not such a clear case. If the charges are so "trumped" up, Fealk will fight it to the end and big guns on the left will join. But they are not, and I predict an early end to this one, because it would be a waste of time for the ACLU or other group to get behind this case (by all means, I'd prefer they waste they're resources though and make the case more interesting).

The event was held at a Troy facility that allows private parties of all types to rent space. The Troy Democratic Club in fact did so last year and used its private claim to prohibit me from videotaping - - while I objected, I was socially graceful enough not to continue until police showed up, and legally smart enough to know the case was not a clear First Amendment issue.

And that was in a situation starkly "more public" because the Troy Dems had candidates for City Council debating, and they allowed another TV news agency to videotape.

But even if Fealk and you are right about the public property argument (and that isn't really clear, if the property was privately rented and everyone has an equal opportunity to do so) - that the property is public and the rule the Community Center enforced is unconstitutional, that doesn't get him out of the assaulting a police officer charge, or even refusing their orders. If he didn't like the rule, once the Community Center agent explained it to him, he should have turned the camera off and filed civil litigation against the Center and City - - there was no need to resist police who were enforcing. It's a marginally interesting question as to whether the Troy Community Center's rules are Constitutional - but Bruce chose exactly the wrong, and illegal, means to challenge those rules.

As to CMU - it has an appeal process, but the process does not meet Constitutional standards for reasons I've outlined ad nauseum on my website. It's funny how you loving accept "institution rules" when they come from a university, but not when they apply to your buddy, Bruce. I'd defend Bruce's rights if and when he has a legitimate beef with government. But I witnessed the events personally and know that he violated legitimate laws.

3/06/2008 03:14:00 PM
MIKE said...

zark - you bring up some interesting legal issues. Since I'm not a lawyer, it would be imprudent for me to judge them. Hopefully the judge Bruce sees this month will take all this into account and rule accordingly. You say you were a first hand witness - yet knowing Bruce, I question your interpetation of him "assaulting" a police office. I find that impossible to believe. So how objective are you being!! You say you attempted to do the same thing during a Democratic gathering there - and ceased when ordered to do so. Perhaps you missed an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of that edict. That is the primary differance between the Left and the Right. The Right accepts power blindly - the Left challenges it. I submit it is healthier for a Democracy to challenge unfettered power then to acceed to it.

3/07/2008 09:57:00 AM
Chetly Zarko said...

I hardly accept power blindly. Anyone who knows me on the left or right would get as big of a laugh out of that as I did.

Ask the University of Michigan or Michigan Education Association if I accept power blindly. Ask about the 6 FOIA lawsuits I've been engaged in (5 U-M, one the MEA filed against me as a "reverse FOIA").

And I'd go to jail for my beliefs in a heartbeat - but I also try to pick and choose my battles, and I carefully and prudently study the issues, the law, and the morality of my challenges before I make them. That's the difference between conservative activism and (albeit some, the generalization from Bruce to the rest of the lib sphere would be unfair) liberal activism. As to assault, you may "know" Bruce and not believe it, but assault is a simple charge - all Bruce would have to do is touch the officer or make a threatening move, particularly since he was being resistant. There may have been no battery or battering intent, but when you go down the road of not cooperating with the police you are very easily get into a position where the police need to use force and human instinct makes resistance likely. Do I think Bruce was "attacking" the police? No. Do I think his non-cooperation made it more difficult? Yes. Do I know whether that meets the legal definition of the charges against him? No. That's what his day in court will be for.

I didn't miss an opportunity because it wasn't a good opportunity.

3/07/2008 12:57:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)