Resistance to Missile Testing, Space-based Weapons, Drones, and the U.S. War Machine
267 Campodonico Ave.
Guadalupe, CA 93434
(805) 343-6322 info@vandenbergwitness.org


Menu:

Recent Posts

Links:

Archives


Meta

Attorney Submissions (PDF) Submenu

Attorney Submissions (PDF)

Apel, Eddy, & Kelly Motion to Dismiss Order

Wisniewski-Motion

Apel motion

exhibit01

exhibit02

exhibit03

exhibit04

exhibit05

exhibit06

exhibit07

exhibit08

exhibit09

exhibit10

exhibit11

exhibit12

exhibit13

exhibit14

exhibit15

exhibit16

exhibit17

exhibit18

exhibit19

exhibit20

exhibit21

exhibit22

exhibit23

exhibit24

exhibit25

exhibit26

exhibit27

exhibit28

exhibit29

exhibit30

exhibit31

exhibit32

ACLU Letter to Vandenberg re: Wisniewski-02-15-2008

Vandenberg response re: Wisniewski-04-14-2008

Lancet – Iraqi Deaths – 10-11-2006

Rand Report – U.S. Military PTSD Victims -04-2008

Air-Force-surpasses-1-million-sorties-in-GWOT – 05-01-2008

Cheney/Bush et al Lied – 06-05-2008

Comments

Comment from Carol Johnson
Time: May 27, 2008, 3:34 am

I read the letter from Lt. Col. Vincent Buquicchio to Mr. Eliasberg. Speaking about Mr. Wisniewski, he stated that the defendant was standing in the easement, but that the purpose for which he was using the easement was not permitted by the government. I assume Mr. Wisniewski was standing on the ground holding a sign. The sign protested the activities inside Vandenberg AFB. Am I right so far? I want to know how such an activity is said to be “not permitted by the government”. I’ve been assuming that this is a free democracy, and that when we the people (aka the government) want to take issue with any laws or activities we do not agree with, that we are, by law, allowed to protest against such laws or activities using signs and marches as long as the protest activity is peaceful and endangers no person or property. For a government office to say that peacefully standing and holding a sign on an easement road that is not close to the entrance of any building on VAFB is NOT PERMITTED, seems like an egregious violation of the civil rights of the American people. I didn’t read that any of the protesters were trying to force their entry into a building or plow through a gate, or in any way do anything other than STAND IN PEACEFUL PROTEST. I’m appalled that Lt. Buquicchio’s argument is made on this basis: that the defendant, standing on an easement, was using the easement for an event NOT PERMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The event in question was a peaceful protest, which is protected by our Constitution. Thus, it appears that our government DOES NOT PERMIT PEACEFUL PROTEST! How is this possible? Has the Constitution been changed without my knowledge? Shame on the Lt. Col. from VAFB.
_________________________________________________________
The issue concerns the “easement” and whether or not that strip of property in front of the base is actually U.S. Military property or State of California property. The ACLU has an interest in this issue and will at some point, hopefully, clarify it through the court. Currently Vandenberg officials claim it is military property, in which case federal law stipulates that protesting is prohibited on U.S. government property by someone with a “Ban & Bar” letter against them, as Mike does.

Pingback from Vandenberg Witness » MOTION FILED
Time: August 1, 2010, 7:55 am

[…] Attorney Submissions (PDF) […]

Write a comment