The Democratic People’s Republic Of Farragutstan Vs Murphy (Op-Ed By Sean Murphy)

Image Credit: Sean Murphy

By Sean Murphy [Uncontrolled Opposition] –

You probably know by now that the totalitarians in the Democratic People’s Republic of Farragutstan (DPRF) took your favorite East Tennessee host (Talk Radio 2.0) to local Farragut court to have me fined for putting up a yard display criticizing the Three Stooges of the DPRF: Mayor Ron Williams and Aldermen Louise Povlin and Scott Meyer.

Here are some of the low-lights of the night.

—When attendees arrived, they were wanded for weapons. I spoke to a local resident in attendance and this is unprecedented. It is my opinion that this was done for the sole purpose of attempting to intimidate me.

—The DPRF’s enforcement officer revealed that some local Realtor complained that my display cost him/her a sale. This was never disclosed and is a due process violation. There was only 1 home that has been on the market anywhere near the Center For Free Speech and Yard Art and it closed in February 2023. The display was posted in April.

—The DPRF enforcement officer has passed by the Center For Free Speech and Yard Art aka my home 35 times in 3 months. Talk about having nothing better to do. At what point is this harassment and stalking? Where is the Town Administratior David Smoak managing employees?

—The enforcement officer sent a letter with the wrong ordinance in it, as well as unlawfully convicting me of a violation without any hearing. Notices are potential violations. This should surprise no one that Farragut hires such unprofessional staff that they cannot even get basic facts right in a complaint. The section that covers Temporary Parcel Sign should be (5) not (1). This matters when summoning someone and these errors can be grounds to dismiss a complaint.

The enforcement officer calls this display a temporary parcel sign. A temporary parcel sign is defined by the DPRF as discussing an event or an activity. See below for the most recent photo of the beautiful yard art. Stevie Wonder can see that this has nothing to do with an event or an activity. Thus, there was no grounds to even bring this to court. This is called abuse of process.

—The summons was solely to define this beautiful display as a “temporary parcel sign”. This does not qualify as a sign for an event nor an activity, as the town defines this as. At this point, this should have been immediately dismissed. The judge in this case knew this and ignored it. I spoke to numerous friends and supporters in the audience afterward and every one of them stated this proceeding was a farce.

—In the judicial system, when someone is summoned to court, they are only there for the guilt or innocence of what they were summoned for. The government can add or modify to the summons, but they must do so with advance notice to the accused. This pesky due process requirements again. Corrupt Farragut Town Attorney Tom Hale attempted to argue a separate ordinance: 109-12, which was not on the summons.

All signs shall comply with the following regulations. Any sign that is not specifically permitted shall be prohibited.

As stated above, the town cannot add an additional violation to argue. They should have stated they were also arguing 109-12.

What we really had is the classic “we have the criminal, let’s find a crime” game.

I want to thank the dozens of friends and supporters who showed up to watch this joke of a hearing. I would have had a better chance of having a fair hearing in North Korea.

To sum up the gross abuses:

—Intimidating attendees by searching them for weapons. This is unheard of in Farragut Court. Ironically, late arivals were not searched.

—The DPRF admitting hearsay by quoting statements from people not named and not present to testify. We have a right to face our accusers.

—The DPRF refusing to disclose their evidence before the hearing.

—The DPRF’s summons had the wrong ordinance information, which is grounds to throw out the summons.

—The DPRF summoned a resident to court over a violation that does not apply to them. The display is not temporary, and not a parcel sign by their definition (neither for an event nor an activity).

—The DPRF admitting that the ordinance I was summoned to court did not apply.

—The enforcement officer admitted to driving by the Center For Free Speech and Yard Art 35 times in 3 months.

—The enforcement officer admitting she has never measured the display. The display is the 3 memes, not what it is mounted on. Neither the DPRF nor the judge has any idea their size. How can someone violate a size restriction without an actual meaurement?

—The DPRF argued a seperate ordinance that was not cited on the summons. Another due process violation.

—The DPRF Town Attorney Tom Hale also argued that a ruling from the 6th Circuit overrides action by the US Supreme Court. This is absurd. No ruling by a federal court overrides a decision by the US Supreme Court.

This is just a summation of the kangaroo court that went on July 19th. Below I will get into some of the case law relating to this. The DPRF identified their criminal, yours truly, and found an ordinance to drag me to court over that did not apply and they knew it when they summoned me. The corrupt judge ignored due process and the most basics of the law and found me guilty anyway of an ordinance the town admitted in court did not apply to me.

There are other significant matters involved in this as well. They will be covered below:

First, let us go back to 109-12.

All signs shall comply with the following regulations. Any sign that is not specifically permitted shall be prohibited.

There has been settled case law by the US Supreme Court for decades on this. I dealt with this when I was an elected zoning commissioner over 10 years ago. The DPRF is saying with this clause that unless they define content, any sign or display is prohibited. This is content discrimination, which is explicitly prohibited.

A municipality cannot pick square footage for any sign based on the content of it. If you listen to Sheri’s recap, she has some of the audio. Unfortunately, the DPRF’s town attorney Tom Hale simply does not understand and know the law. His behavior should result in his termination and disciplinary action.

By the DPRF saying a temporary parcel sign is allowed 6 square feet, they are violating the 14th Amendment and picking content. Below are other sign ordiances.

109-12 (b), (1)

Signs permitted on land for residential uses. The following signs are permitted on land used for residential purposes. Recreational facilities developed as part of a residential development shall also follow these regulations:

(b), (1), (a)

Sign area. A subdivision is permitted a total of 40 square feet per single-family or multi-family development entrance, with either one ground-mounted sign not to exceed 40 square feet or two ground mounted signs not to exceed 20 square feet each.

(b), (2) and (3) allows 32 square feet for a subdivision entrance.

(4) Permanent parcel sign. Each individual house lot shall be permitted one non-illuminated permanent wall mounted sign not to exceed two square feet.

Yet if you are a commercial property, you are allowed more signage for the same temporary parcel sign.

109-12 (d), (2), (a)

(2) Temporary parcel sign. Unless provided for otherwise in this chapter, each tenant is permitted one temporary parcel sign provided the following criteria are met:

a. Such sign does not exceed 20 square feet in area and six feet in overall height and is placed at least 20 feet from the back of the public street curb or edge of street where curbing is not provided. Temporary parcel signs shall be a minimum of ten millimeters (.39 inches) in thickness and supported by metal t-posts. Banners, pennants, streamers, and similar flexible or wind activated signs shall not be permitted.

Feel free to personally verify this in the codes.

The DPRF has banners all over town on light posts. I bet those are equal to or larger than each of the wonderful memes in the Center For Free Speech and Yard Art’s display . Why does the town get more display square footage than the rest of us? Answer because they do whatever they want and ignore the law. The DPRF Town Attorney Tom Hale actually stated in a legal opinion a few months back that the DPRF can ignore its ordinances. How North Korean of them!

By defining allowed square footage of a sign by what is on it, the DPRF is in direct violation of settled US Supreme Court case law. There is no dispute on this.

There are numerous other arguments that can be made, but at this point it is overkill.