Comments on: Attorney Submissions (PDF) http://vandenbergwitness.org Resistance to Missile Testing, Space-based Weapons, and the U.S. War Machine Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:06:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Vandenberg Witness » MOTION FILED http://vandenbergwitness.org/attorney-submissions#comment-1867 Vandenberg Witness » MOTION FILED Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:55:36 +0000 http://vandenbergwitness.org/?page_id=12#comment-1867 [...] Attorney Submissions (PDF) [...] [...] Attorney Submissions (PDF) [...]

]]> By: Carol Johnson http://vandenbergwitness.org/attorney-submissions#comment-3 Carol Johnson Mon, 26 May 2008 21:34:52 +0000 http://vandenbergwitness.org/?page_id=12#comment-3 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. 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.

]]>