Tag Archives: Regulation

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
_________________________________________________

Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.), Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and its amendments (P.R.A.), and IRS Form 2555 Foreign Earned Income (O.M.B. No. 1545-0067)

IRS Form 2555 Foreign Earned Income
The PRA required that when the IRS requested information from the public; from more than X amount of people, that that “information collection request” have a number assigned to it by the Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.)

That number is generally referred to as an “OMB control number”

The P.R.A. required the I.R.S. to publish their “information collection requests” in the Federal Register for public comment

If the “information collection request” was approved after any public comments, it was assigned an O.M.B. control number and published in the Federal Register

The IRS publishes the OMB control numbers in their regulation 602.101

26 CFR 602.101 – OMB Control numbers

Internal Revenue Code section 1 imposes the United States Government’s Federal Income Tax and is titled “Tax imposed

26 U.S. Code § 1 – Tax imposed

Internal Revenue Service regulation 1.1-1

26 CFR 1.1-1 – Income tax on individuals

When the IRS first published the OMB control number assigned to regulation 1.1-1, what Form was that OMB No. Assigned to❓

Form 2555 — Foreign Earned Income

UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS:

Who are They ❓

1. CITIZEN TAXPAYERS RESIDING or DOING BUSINESS ABROAD

2. FOREIGN TAXPAYERS DERIVING INCOME from SOURCES WITHIN the UNITED STATES

3. TAXPAYERS who are REQUIRED to WITHHOLD TAX on INCOME FLOWING ABROAD to NONRESIDENT ALIENS and FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

and

4. EMPLOYEES of the UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
——————————————————————
United States Taxpayers
Who are They❓

http://wp.me/p5tuFO-Ih
——————————————————————
Americans like Billie Murdock of Utah started asking questions the I.R.S. wasn’t interested in answering

Lawyer Lowell (Larry) H. Becraft Jr., Huntsville, Alabama

Leaving Valley Forge And – HiWAAY Information Services

home.hiwaay.net › ReasonableAction

Patriot Successfully Prosecutes I.R.S.Agent – Ms. Billie Murdock
Salt Lake City, UT 84115

image

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ReasonableAction.pdf

======================================
Linchpins of Liberty v. United States
Case 1:13-cv-00777
October 18, 2013
——————————————————————
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/second-amended-complaint-filed-redacted.pdf
======================================
I.R.S. ʟ I a R S
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-v1
——————————————————————
UNDEMOCRATIC
How Unelected, Unaccountable Bureaucrats are Stealing Your Liberty and Freedom
======================================
Why is the Internal Revenue Service Corrupt❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-sT
======================================
BACKASSARD ALABAMA BLOG ARTICLES
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/P5tuFO-1
======================================

Police State ARIZONA (U.S.A.)

Police State Arizona (U.S.A.)
======================================
ARIZONA
_______________________________________________
FREEDOM of RELIGION – FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
………………………………………………..
LESSON: Don’t have private Religious activities on your property, because it’s not really your property; if it was actually your property you would be able to do what you want to on it, it’s the property of the Authoritarian Totalitarian Fascist wannabes who want to wield POWER over the slaves (“taxpayers“) of the ARIZONA POLICE STATE, and they can’t control you unless you meet at a POLICE STATE approved location and have obtained a FEDERAL POLICE STATE number; because separation of Church and State is paramount, and how else are they going to be able to find out if Electioneering is going on if it’s a private religious meeting❓

Sarcasm … Deal with it

It’s okay to have friends over for a private reading of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in POLICE STATE Phoenix ARIZONA (U.S.A.), just not the Bible

After all, POLICE STATE Phoenix ARIZONA (U.S.A.) is more concerned with private religious get-togethers than it is concerned about United States Federal Government military veterans receiving the care they deserve and haven’t received from President Barack H. Obama, and Senator John McCain and the Do Nothing Congress
_______________________________________________
Phoenix, Arizona Wins Religious Land Use Suit | RLUIPA Defense
Jul 30, 2015
Zoning, and the Courts
Home Land Use Regulation
Phoenix, Arizona Wins Religious Land Use Suit
——————————————————————
https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/07/phoenix-arizona-wins-religious-land-use-suit/
_______________________________________________
[PDF] NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF – U.S. Courts
US Courts (.gov) › ca9 › cdn › 2015/01/02
Jan 2, 2015
MICHAEL SALMAN and SUZANNE. SALMANs,. Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. CITY OF PHOENIX
——————————————————————
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2015/01/02/12-16497.pdf
_______________________________________________
MICHAEL SALMAN V. CITY OF PHOENIX, No. 12-16497 (9th Cir
law.justia.com › 12-16497-2015-01-02
Jan 2, 2015
No. 12-16497 (9th Cir. 2015) case opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-16497/12-16497-2015-01-02.html
_______________________________________________
Michael Salman v. City of Phoenix, – CourtListener.com
https://www.courtlistener.com › opinion
Mobile-friendly
Jan 2, 2015
Opinion for Michael Salman v. City of Phoenix,
Salman v. City of Phoenix,
12-16497 (9th Cir. 2015)
——————————————————————
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2766406/michael-salman-v-city-of-phoenix/
_______________________________________________
Michael Salman – The Rutherford Institute
Newsroom · Constitutional Corner · · » Issues » Overcriminalization
………………………………………………..
The Rutherford Institute :: The Overcriminalization of America:
Aug 6, 2012
What happened to Michael Salman—armed police raids of his property, repeated warnings against
Of course, these zoning officials had no problem with group gatherings for family
——————————————————————
http://rutherford.org/issues/overcriminalization/michael_salman
________________________________________________
The Rutherford Institute :: Rutherford Institute Warns Sheriff Arpaio
https://www.rutherford.org › rutherford_institute
Jul 24, 2012
Rutherford Institute
Warns Sheriff Arpaio, Tents Jail Officials Against Interfering with
Michael Salman’s
——————————————————————
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_warns_sheriff_arpaio_tents_jail_officials_against_inte
________________________________________________
Michael Salman’s “Last Hope” for Getting Out of Jail Denied
Phoenix New Times
Jul 23, 2012
See also: Michael Salman wants to build a church in his backyard See also:
Michael Salman Is Not in
——————————————————————
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-salmans-last-hope-for-getting-out-of-jail-denied-by-arizona-supreme-court-6629711
_______________________________________________
Next: Arizona Supreme Court denies writ of habeas corpus in case
http://www.examiner.com
Jul 23, 2012
Supreme Court
in Arizona denies writ of habeas corpus
in case of jailed pastor
In the ongoing case of Michael Salman, a pastor jailed
San Diego Christianity & Culture Examiner
——————————————————————
http://www.examiner.com/article/arizona-supreme-court-denies-writ-of-habeas-corpus-case-of-jailed-pastor
_______________________________________________
[PDF] writ of habeas corpus – The Rutherford Institute
Jul 17, 2012
Bible studies (not open to the general public) and religious worship at their residence in Phoenix
——————————————————————
https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/07-17-2012_Salman_Memorandum.pdf
_______________________________________________
The Rutherford Institute :: Rutherford Institute Petitions for Writ
@Rutherford_institute
Jul 17, 2012
On The Front Lines —Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court
habeas corpus from the Arizona Supreme Court
http://www.rutherford.org
——————————————————————
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_petitions_for_writ_of_habeas_corpus_asking_arizona_sup
_______________________________________________
Wilenchik & Bartness Files Petition for Habeas Corpus in Pastor
http://www.wb-law.com
Jul 17, 2012
Wilenchik & Bartness Files Petition for Habeas Corpus in Pastor Michael Salman Case
News Articles
Email: contactwb @wb-law.com
——————————————————————
http://www.wb-law.com/news/wilenchik-bartness-files-petition-for-habeas-corpus-pastor-michael-salman-case/
_______________________________________________
Bible studies on one’s property
………………………………………………..
Michael Salman, Phoenix Pastor, Jailed For Holding Church Services Without Proper Permits
………………………………………………..
Huffington Post
@HuffingtonPost
Timothy Stenovec
@TimSteno
7/16/2012 July 16, 2012
——————————————————————
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/michael-salman-phoenix-pastor-jailed-bible-study-video_n_1677943.html
_______________________________________________
Michael Salman, Phoenix Pastor, Jailed – Huffington Post
Jul 16, 2012
And he told us with all the evidence that it was a church
For their part, and despite the guilty verdict
——————————————————————
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1677943
_______________________________________________
Phoenix Officials Release ‘Fact Sheet’ in Jailed Pastor’s Home
12 jul. 2012
The City of Phoenix on July 12 released a fact sheet and timeline
Michael Salman, an ordained pastor of Church of God
Atheist Group Appeals
Decision Allowing 40-Foot Cross
——————————————————————
http://m.christianpost.com/news/city-of-phoenix-release-fact-sheet-in-michael-salman-jail-pastor-home-bible-study-case-78153/
======================================
_______________________________________________
12-16497 Michael Salman v. City of Phoenix – YouTube
YouTube › watch › v=WoXssRDdDSo
Duration : 35:19
Posted : 10 oct. 2014
——————————————————————

_______________________________________________