Local Panama City, Florida, Attorney Rick Albritton (@RickAlbritton) Phone: (850) 215-0200, advised that Panama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]) Florida Police Corporal advised one Street Musician, Monday, May 22, 2017, before 1:00 p.m., that May 8, 2017, Complaint filed, was that Street Musician “allegedly” requested a “TIP” from a passerby; which is a Blatant LIE, and the Musician was advised NOT to return to the place in Front of the Rest Rooms Building on Front Beach Road, Pajama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]). Good Luck with that P.C.B.P.D.❗️

Complaints may be directed to the following individuals, who are responsible for the DISDAIN for your protected United Statrs Constitutional First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression

Mayor Mike Thomas
(850) 233-5100 Phone
(850) 233-5108 Fax
mthomas@pcbgov.gov

John Reichard
Councilman, Ward 1
(850) 233-5607 Phone
(850) 233-5108 Fax
jreichard@pcbgov.com

Phil Chester
Councilman, Ward 2
(850) 819-7301 Phone
(850) 233-5100 Phone
(850) 233-5108 Fax
pchester@pcbgov.com

Josie B. Strange
Councilwoman, Ward 3 and Vice-Mayor
(850) 234-6665 Phone
(850) 233-5108 Fax
jstrange@pcbgov.com

Hector Solis
Councilman, Ward 4
(850) 238-8038 Phone
(850) 233-5108 Fax
hsolis@pcbgov.com

City Hall
110 South Arnold Road
(850) 233-5100 Phone

Mario Gisbert
City Manager
(850) 233-5100 Phone
(850) 233-5108 Fax
mgisbert@pcbgov.com

The City Council will meet May 25, 2017, 9:00 a.m., at which public comment (complaints) can be directed to the Council’s attention for three (3) minutes per person

Sec. 16-11. Trespass Warnings on Public Property

(b) Trespass warnings shall be in writing and issued for a period of one (1) year

(c). A copy of the trespass warning shall be provided by mail or hand delivered to the individual given the warning

The written trespass warning shall advise of the right to appeal and the location at which to file the appeal

Ord. 1407
Page 2 of 4

ORDINANCE NO. 1311

Musician has NOT attempted or completed a transaction involving solicitation or peddling to the occupant of a vehicle

Musician does NOT use aggressive solicitation or peddling; which includes approaching or following pedestrians, the abusive language, uninvited physical contact, intentional or negligent blocking of pedestrian or vehicular traffic and similar actions

Musician does NOT solicit or peddle to persons in places or circumstances where it is difficult or impossible for the person approached to exercise his or her own right to decline simply by leaving

Musician does NOT engage in peddling and solicitation of tourists in congested places or circumstances where the tourist’s freedom of movement is restricted, and aggressive peddling and solicitation anywhere

Chapter 19 STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES

ARTICLE I. PEDDLING AND SOLICITATION

Sec. 19-2. Definitions

“Peddling” means to personally and directly sell …

The word “peddle” and its forms does not include Solicitation

“Solicitation” means to personally and directly request of another, orally or in writing, money …

The word “solicit” and its forms includes begging and panhandling, and the seeking of a donation where the person solicited receives an item of nominal or no monetary value

Solicitation does not mean the act of passively standing still, or sitting, with a sign or alms cup indicating that a donation is being sought, and without any vocal request other than a response to an inquiry by another person; provided that pedestrians may freely pass without obstruction or having to take evasive action

Solicitation Ordinance 1311
Page 1 of 12

Panama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]) Florida Police advise, Monday, May 22, 2017, before 1:00 p.m., that May 8, 2017, Complaint filed, was that Street Musician “allegedly” requested a “TIP” from a passerby; which is a Blatant LIE (Welcome to the Revolution)

Local Panama City, Florida, Lawyer Rick Albritton @RickAlbritton (850) 215-0200, has been contacted to deal with this false police report that has been filed with the Panama City Beach Police

Next, I’m sure someone will be complaining that everyone who passed in front of the Rest Rooms Building on Front Beach Road was asked by a Street Musician, for alms for the poor

I will pay for the LIAR who filed this false police report to take a lie detector test administered by a trained professional, but the LIAR is probably anonymous

Instead of wasting the time of the two Panama City Beach Police Department personnel, maybe the P.C.B. City Council should have the police handle actual crime issues

_________________________________________________
Where’s the Revolution ❓
………………………………………………..

——————————————————————
Welcome to the Revolution
………………………………………………..

——————————————————————
99 Revolutions
………………………………………………..

_________________________________________________
Panama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]) Florida visitors and workers show their appreciation for Street Musicianship
………………………………………………..
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-1tk
——————————————————————
Panama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]) Police in Florida Report Panama City Beach Workers Offended that Street Musician and Homeless Person have First Amendment Right to Exercise Freedom of Expression by the Rest Rooms Building on Front Beach Road
………………………………………………..
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-1t8
——————————————————————
Panama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]), Florida, does NOT appreciate Street Musicianship, your First Amendment Constitutional Right of Freedom of Expression (Freedom of Speech), and thinks you are STUPID (PCB … We Have a Problem❗️)
………………………………………………..
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-1sx
——————————————————————

Panama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]) Florida visitors and workers show their appreciation for Street Musicianship

THANK YOU❗️

April – May 21, 2017

The City of Panama City Beach, Florida, shows its appreciation for Street Musicianship

Panama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]) Police in Florida Report Panama City Beach Workers Offended that Street Musician and Homeless Person have First Amendment Right to Exercise Freedom of Expression by the Rest Rooms Building on Front Beach Road

Saturday, May 20, 2017, before 11:45 a.m., two polite, professional Panama City Beach Police officers; a female and male, had the dubious honor of advising two members of the public of this breaking development

What is amazing, is that the Panama City Beach Police would be called upon to have two members of their fine Department waste their time delivering such a message

Maybe the Panama City Beach City Council should exempt the PCBPD from such menial unimportant tasks, and instead, create a flowchart showing the proper forwarding of information like this to file thirteen storage

If you have NOT served in one of the branches of the Armed Services of the United States, and you are whining about the fact that someone who protected YOUR RIGHTS and FREEDOM is exercising their First Amendment Freedom of Expression Constitutional Rights, here’s some advice for you:

SUCK IT UP

GROW A PAIR

ACT LIKE AN AMERICAN

and

QUIT ACTING LIKE A LITTLE BEACH, PLEASE

If you can’t handle that, I’ve got TWO WORDS FOR YOU

Panama City Beach (Pier Park [beachside]), Florida, does NOT appreciate Street Musicianship, your First Amendment Constitutional Right of Freedom of Expression (Freedom of Speech), and thinks you are STUPID (PCB … We Have a Problem❗️)

Monday, May 8, 2017, a street musician was told by an unidentified male individual; driving a city of Panama City Beach, Florida, white pick-up truck, to remove himself from the front (street side) of the Rest Room building on Front Beach Road at Pier Park

The individual said that it was considered “loitering”

The individual said a “complaint” had been received, but did NOT state what kind

The individual alleged that the musician had “collected” funds, though the musician did NOT request that people freely leave of their own will, funds

The individual suggested that as an “alternative” the musician could find an empty place on the beach, set up a chair, and play his instrument

Alternatively, the individual suggested that the musician could check about playing his instrument at any of the business establishments

The musician was NOT using an amplification speaker

The individual did NOT advise the musician if a “complaint” had been received about the amplified music being played by musicians on the patio at Margaritaville; which can be heard across Front Beach Road on the beachside

The individual also did NOT advise the musician if a “complaint” had been received about the amplified music being played by musicians at Tootsies; which can be heard outside the establishment

Nor did the individual advise the musician if a “complaint” had been received about the amplified music being played through the sound system outside Dave and Buster’s

Additionally, the individual did NOT advise the musician if a “complaint” had been received about the amplified music being played through the sound system throughout Pier Park
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
… PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of … MUSIC is CLEARLY WITHIN the SCOPE of PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT EXPRESSION
………………………………………………..
“… public performance of … music is clearly within the scope of protected First Amendment expression”
_________________________________________________
Goldstein v. Town of Nantucket
………………………………………………..
477 F. Supp. 606 (at 608)

(D. Mass. 1979)

Civ. A. No. 79-1455-Z

September 25, 1979

U.S. District Court, Massachusetts
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/477/606/1418488/
_________________________________________________

………………………………………………..
parks
plazas
sidewalks
walkways
central business district
public property
performances
sidewalk performances
city permits
permit scheme
sidewalk ban
reasonable time restriction
reasonable place restriction
reasonable manner restriction
_________________________________________________
Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia
………………………………………………..
748 F2d 208

No. 83-2222

November 6, 1984

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
——————————————————————
http://m.openjurist.org/748/f2d/208/davenport-v-city-of-alexandria-virginia
_________________________________________________
710 F.2d 148
(4th Cir. 1983)
No. 81-709-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 16 1983)
………………………………………………..
http://m.openjurist.org/710/f2d/148
_________________________________________________
683 F2d 853
(4th Cir. 1982)
………………………………………………..
http://m.openjurist.org/683/f2d/853/davenport-v-city-of-alexandria-virginia
_________________________________________________


………………………………………………..
performers
street performers
street performances
ordinance
regulates
public areas
permit system
noise provisions
six feet
electric amplification
electronic amplification
battery operated amplification
_________________________________________________
Friedrich v. Chicago
………………………………………………..
619 F. Supp. 1129

N.D. Ill. 1985

September 18, 1985

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

No. 84 C 7719
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/619/1129/1798066/
_________________________________________________


………………………………………………..
amplifier
amplifiers
musicians
instrument
artistic performances
musical performances
_________________________________________________
Carew-Reid et al. vs. NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al.
………………………………………………..
903 F.2d 914

No. 1172, Docket 90-7143

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

May 18, 1990
——————————————————————
http://m.openjurist.org/903/f2d/914/carew-reid-v-metropolitan-transportation-authority-r-l
_________________________________________________


………………………………………………..
sidewalk
boardwalk
public way
musician
performance artist
expressive acts
solicits donations
_________________________________________________
Harry Perry and Robert “Jingles” Newman v. Los Angeles Police Department
………………………………………………..
Case No. 96-55545

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 25, 1997
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1246214.html
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
street musician
street musicians
public spaces
permit
permits
permittees
sound permit scheme
sound permitting scheme
sound amplification permit
reasonableness
_________________________________________________
Turley v. NYC
………………………………………………..
988 F. Supp. 667 and 675

US 2nd Cir

United States 2nd Circuit

Appeal

98-7114

January 26, 1999

Docket Nos. 98-7114 (L)
98-7176 (XAP)
98-7526 (CON)
——————————————————————
https://casetext.com/case/turley-v-police-dept-of-the-city-of-new-york
_________________________________________________
http://www.communityartsadvocates.org/CAAsiteMap.html
_________________________________________________
http://citylore.org/urban-culture/resources/street-performers/
_________________________________________________
https://hobo4jazz5alive.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/street-music-legal/
_________________________________________________
artistic expression
street performers
musician
safety
_________________________________________________
American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii v. Waikiki, Oahu, Hawaii
………………………………………………..
2001

Judge Virginia Crandall

42-page opinion
——————————————————————
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-wins-artistic-expression-lawsuit-behalf-waikiki-street-performers
_________________________________________________
street performances
playing musical instruments
public streets
rights-of-ways
playgrounds
public ways
roadways
ordinance
regulation

42 U.S.C. 1988
court costs
attorney’s fees
_________________________________________________
St. Augustine, Florida
………………………………………………..
District Judge
Henry Lee Adams Jr.

Injunction

2003

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
——————————————————————
http://www.buskersadvocates.org/

_________________________________________________
street performer
street performers
street performances
city’s authority
public forum
permit
badges
restrict expression
safety concerns
_________________________________________________
“Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions”

Clark v. Comty, for Creative Non-Violence

468 U.S. 288, 293

104 S.Ct. 3065

82 L.Ed.2d 221

(1984)

Such restrictions must satisfy three conditions to be enforceable:

(1) they must be

“justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech,”

(2) they must be

“narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest,”

and

(3) they must

“leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information”
_________________________________________________
Seattle Center

Berger v. City of Seattle

No. 05-35752

January 9, 2008

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
………………………………………………..
2005
——————————————————————
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/24/05-35752.pdf
_________________________________________________
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1241365.html
_________________________________________________
http://ncac.org/resource/significance-berger-v-city-of-seattle
_________________________________________________
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/appeals-court-punctures-seattles-attempt-to-regulate-balloon-artist/
_________________________________________________
http://web.kitsapsun.com/archive/2005/05-01/45112_seattle_must_pay_performer__20_0.html
_________________________________________________
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/judge-rejects-seattle-center-rules-on-buskers/
_________________________________________________
http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2005-April/008967.html
_________________________________________________


_________________________________________________
18 USC 241

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 241

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
………………………………………………..
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
_________________________________________________
18 USC 242

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 242

U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
………………………………………………..
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
_________________________________________________

Henry D. “Butch” Binford, Circuit Judge, 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Houston County (Civil Division, Dothan) Alabama, HEARING on MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY on Friday, April 20, 2017, at 1:30 PM (38-CV-2015-900261.00)

Attorney Jerry Michael Blevins presented to the Court:

Seventh Wonder v. Southbound Records

and

Cassioppi v. Damico

for the proposition that Judgment should have been rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, since Defendant had failed to appear at trial
_________________________________________________
A judgment entered after one party fails to appear at trial is treated as a default judgment

See Cassioppi v. Damico, 536 So.2d 938 (Ala.1988)

(default judgment entered when defendants failed to appear at trial)

Seventh Wonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So.2d 1173 (Ala. 1978)

(parties failing to appear on the day the case was set for trial were in default);

see also,

Rule 55, Ala. R. Civ. P., Committee Comments
_________________________________________________
Alexander v. Washington
………………………………………………..
707 So.2d 254

(1997)

November 7, 1997

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
——————————————————————
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1997961707So2d254_1945/ALEXANDER%20v.%20WASHINGTON
_________________________________________________
Judge Henry D. “Butch” Binford asked if prior case law addressed Liability (Damages)

Lawyer Jerry Michael Blevins presented to the Court:
_________________________________________________
“When the facts are such that all reasonable conclusions to be drawn from them are the same, they present a mere question of law for the court”
_________________________________________________
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Perry
………………………………………………..
3 Ala. App. 247

(1911)
——————————————————————
As cited in:

Batson v. Birmingham Trust

241 Ala. 629 (1941)

4 So.2d 307

6 Div. 675

October 16, 1941

Alabama Supreme Court

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3251262/batson-v-birmingham-trust-savings-co/
_________________________________________________
When the facts are admitted or are undisputed, and are such that men of ordinary intelligence may reasonably differ with each other as to the conclusion to be drawn from them, such facts, as a general proposition, present matters for the determination of the jury, and not a mere question of law for the court

It is only when the facts are such that all reasonable conclusions to be drawn from them are the same that they present a mere question of law for the court
_________________________________________________
Batson v. Birmingham Trust
………………………………………………..
241 Ala. 629

(1941)

4 So.2d 307

6 Div. 675

October 16, 1941

Alabama Supreme Court
——————————————————————
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3251262/batson-v-birmingham-trust-savings-co/
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Henry D. “Butch” Binford, Circuit Judge, 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Houston County (Civil Division Dothan) Alabama issues ORDER for hearing on MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY on April 20, 2017, at 1:30 PM (38-CV-2015-900261.00)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-1rU
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Henry D. “Butch” Binford, Circuit Judge, 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Houston County (Civil Division Dothan) Alabama, invited to ALTER or AMEND his NOVEL LEGAL THEORY Judgment, Monday, March 27, 2017 (3/27/2017) 9:50:07 AM (38-CV-2015-900261.00)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-1rI
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Henry D. Butch Binford, Houston County Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Circuit Judge, Dothan, Alabama (since February 12 2008) Huntingdon College (@HuntingdonColl) University of Alabama School of Law (@UALawSchool) former Veteran Prosecutor, in the Assault and Battery Civil case: Plaintiff v. Brian Ralph Beasley, Defendant (of Daleville, Dale County, Alabama) WHO FAILED TO APPEAR on the DAY the CASE (38-CV-2015-900261.00) WAS SET FOR TRIAL (February 21 2017) on February 23, 2017, espoused a NEW LEGAL THEORY when he ENTERED JUDGMENT for the DEFENDANT CONTRARY to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP) VII. JUDGMENT Rule 55: The rule eliminates the requirement of notice prior to entry of JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT when the DEFAULT arises from FAILURE TO APPEAR on the day the case is set for trial
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-1rB
_________________________________________________

Henry D. “Butch” Binford, Circuit Judge, 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Houston County (Civil Division Dothan) Alabama issues ORDER for hearing on MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY on April 20, 2017, at 1:30 PM (38-CV-2015-900261.00)


_________________________________________________
Unified Judicial System

State of Alabama

AlaFile E-Notice

38-CV-2015-900261.00

Judge: Henry D “Butch” Binford

To: Blevins Jerry Michael
ATTYJMBlev@LawOfficeOfJerryMBlevins.com
_________________________________________________
NOTICE OF COURT ACTION
_________________________________________________
In the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama

v. Brian Ralph Beasley

38-CV-2015-900261.00

A court action was entered in the above case on 3/31/2017 1:11:07 PM

ORDER

[Filer: ]

Disposition: Other
Judge: HDB
Notice Date: 3/31/2017 1:11:07 PM

Carla H. Woodall
Circuit Court Clerk
Houston County, Alabama
P.O. Drawer 6406
Dothan, AL, 36302
334-677-4859

Filing – 2
_________________________________________________
DOCUMENT 53

In the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama

Plaintiff,

v.

Beasley Brian Ralph,
Defendant

Case No.: CV-2015-900261.00

ORDER

MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY filed by Plaintiff is hereby set for hearing on April 20, 2017, at 1:30 PM

DONE this 31st day of March, 2017

/s/ Henry D “Butch” Binford
Circuit Judge

Electronically Filed
3/31/2017 1:10 PM
38-CV-2015-900261.00
Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama
Carla H. Woodall, Clerk
_________________________________________________
Henry D. “Butch” Binford, Circuit Judge, 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Houston County (Civil Division Dothan) Alabama, invited to ALTER or AMEND his NOVEL LEGAL THEORY Judgment, Monday, March 27, 2017 (3/27/2017) 9:50:07 AM (38-CV-2015-900261.00)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-1rI
_________________________________________________
Henry D. “Butch” Binford, Houston County Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Circuit Judge, Dothan, Alabama (since February 12 2008) Huntingdon College (@HuntingdonColl) University of Alabama School of Law (@UALawSchool) former Veteran Prosecutor, in the Assault and Battery Civil case: Plaintiff v. Brian Ralph Beasley, Defendant (of Daleville, Dale County, Alabama) WHO FAILED TO APPEAR on the DAY the CASE (38-CV-2015-900261.00) WAS SET FOR TRIAL (February 21 2017) on February 23, 2017, espoused a NEW LEGAL THEORY when he ENTERED JUDGMENT for the DEFENDANT CONTRARY to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP) VII. JUDGMENT Rule 55: The rule eliminates the requirement of notice prior to entry of JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT when the DEFAULT arises from FAILURE TO APPEAR on the day the case is set for trial
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-1rB
_________________________________________________

I'll Make You Famouser