This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake, a former television news anchor and Emmy Award winner turned Republican nominee, has responded to former President Bill Clinton's comment about her looks with a zinger.
She's too old for him.
"Doesn't he like interns," Lake, in her 50s, said of Clinton, now rapidly approaching his 80s.
It started with Clinton, campaigning for the left, saying Lake believes "politics is a performance art."
But he conceded she was "physically attractive."
Lake, seeking the Senate seat from Arizona, responded shortly after.
"I found out he paid me a compliment," she explained to a rally audience. "He was here campaigning … he said I was physically attractive. I woke up to this news this morning. First of all, you know what, as a middle-aged woman, I'm flattered. I'm flattered, okay?
"I don't get those kinds of compliments every day…"
But, she said, "I thought I was a little too old for him. Doesn't he like interns?" she said.
She also explained she is happily married to her husband, and also, "Nobody in their right mind wants to cross Hillary Clinton."
Vice President Kamala Harris is struggling in the final stretch before Election Day and everyone knows it, and some of her top allies are even admitting it.
According to the New York Post, former President Bill Clinton spent last week stumping for Harris in the swing state of Arizona, where he admitted to the small crowd that Harris is "vulnerable."
The admission was nothing less than a major thorn in the side of the Harris campaign, which has spent considerable time downplaying the reality of Harris' situation.
Clinton also made a curious remark about Republican Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who he described as a "physically attractive" person.
Both of Clinton's remarks came during a speech to a rally crowd in Arizona when he compared the presidental race to the gubernatorial showdown between Lake and her Democratic challenger, Rep. Ruben Gallego.
"This is like a beautiful microcosm of the campaign that Kamala Harris is running for president," Clinton said.
He added, "You got a person [Gallego] that grew up under sometimes challenging circumstances, who made something of his life, running against someone [Lake] who is physically attractive but believes that politics is a performance art."
Clinton made yet another bizarre word stumble when he attempted to compare Lake to Sen. J.D. Vance, stumbling over the word "prostrate."
"Like JD Vance, she has to be prostrate before the master," Clinton said.
Bill Clinton calls Kari Lake, ‘someone who is physically attractive’ https://t.co/nnvlmaSGLG pic.twitter.com/n2vqeYSRMT
— New York Post (@nypost) October 24, 2024
Lake had plenty of fun with Clinton's remarks, even invoking Clinton's fondness for White House interns.
"He said I was physically attractive. I woke up to this news this morning,” Lake said.
"As a middle-aged woman, I’m flattered. I’m flattered, OK?” Lake added. "I don’t get those kind of compliments every day. Two, I thought I was a little too old for him. Doesn’t he like interns?"
At another Arizona campaign event, Clinton admitted Harris is vulnerable.
The former president explained that there is only “a sliver” of voters that have yet to make up their minds about which presidential candidate to support, “and what they think of [Harris] largely depends on what they think of President Biden.”
“But she is extremely vulnerable,” Clinton said. “More vulnerable than she deserves to be, through crazy attacks.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A hospital in New Mexico has been put on notice that it is not allowed to just change its "rules" and by that means push its employees into violating their constitutionally protected religious rights and become part of the region's lucrative abortion industry.
The dispute is being reported by the American Center for Law and Justice, which has written to Presbyterian Hospital there about its scheme.
The ACLJ reported, "We sent a critical legal letter explaining that the hospital's new policy of refusing religious accommodations violates several provisions of federal law and Supreme Court precedent. If Presbyterian Hospital does not comply with the law and grants our clients a religious accommodation not to participate in an abortion in any situation, we are prepared to take aggressive legal action to defend their rights. No one should be forced to take the life of an innocent human being."
The plan is similar to the process that the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration repeatedly has used to force an extreme agenda on Americans.
For example, they decided simply to redefine the word "sex" to mean "gender identity" to create new ways to persecute those individuals who don't subscribe to the "woke" LGBT ideology. Their result is that they claim members of Congress, when they were creating sex non-discrimination laws 50 or 60 years ago meant "gender identity" instead of sex, that being male or female.
The legal team explained it is three ultrasound technicians who soon could be forced to choose between following their faith or keeping their jobs.
The report said the facility this year "started working with an abortionist in the area and is now assisting that abortionist in performing abortions. Due to its religious roots, the hospital had never provided abortions before."
In that relationship, the abortionist has been giving "orders" for ultrasound techs to help in the abortions.
The hospital addressed this by "changing its religious accommodation policy, which previously fully exempted employees from participating in abortions against their conscience."
The legal team explained hospital officials were trying to "carve out" exceptions "so it could force all of its employees to assist in abortions."
However, "Assisting with abortions goes against the employees' conscience and is a violation of their religious freedom. Because the hospital receives federal funding, it is subject to the federal conscience laws that, in the words of the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine ('AHA'), 'allow doctors and other healthcare personnel to refus[e] to perform or assist' an abortion without punishment or discrimination from their employers.'"
The legal team noted the hospital can't even force the technicians to help with abortion "in emergency" situations, as "the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) does not override federal conscience laws," according to the Supreme Court.
The policy change attempted by the hospital infringes on the worker's civil rights under federal law, the report said.
The high court's opinion noted, "An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is 'undue.'"
The ACLJ reported, "Even if the hospital does not understand the ultrasound technicians' strong stance against abortion, it cannot deny the request for religious accommodation. The burden of not accommodating the employee's religious practice would not be substantial on the hospital, but it would greatly infringe on the employees' freedom of religion."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit has been filed that accuses Norfolk, Virginia, officials of using a network of 170 cameras to impose a warrantless surveillance scheme on residents, and visitors.
The Institute for Justice case charges that the actions violate the Fourth Amendment rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The system allows police "to monitor the comings and goings of all drivers in the city," the legal team said.
Lee Schmidt, a plaintiff, said, "I don't like the government following my every movement and treating me like a criminal suspect, when they have no reason to believe I've done anything wrong."
And another, Crystal Arrington, charged, "My work requires me to drive around Norfolk very often, and it's incredibly disturbing to know the city can track my every move during that time."
The institute explained that in 2023, Norfolk police partnered with a company called Flock Safety, Inc. to install 172 automatic license plate reading cameras across town.
The locations were chosen to provide a "curtain of technology" which would allow police to watch anyone "drive anywhere" without being observed.
"Unlike traditional traffic cameras—which capture an image only when they sense speeding or someone running a red light—Flock's cameras capture images of every car driving by, which it retains for at least 30 days. Artificial intelligence then uses those images to create a 'Vehicle Fingerprint' that enables any Flock subscriber to both track where that vehicle has gone and identify what other vehicles it has been seen nearby," the institute noted.
"Norfolk has created a dragnet that allows the government to monitor everyone's day-to-day movements without a warrant or probable cause. This type of mass surveillance is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment," said IJ lawyer Michael Soyfer.
Making the violation worse, the institute noted, is that since Flock "pools its data in a centralized database, police across the entire country can access over 1 billion monthly datapoints. That means not just tracking drivers within a particular jurisdiction, but potentially across the entire nation."
"Following someone's every move can tell you some incredibly intimate details about them, such as where they work, who they associate with, whether or not they're religious, what hobbies they have, and any medical conditions they may have," said IJ lawyer Robert Frommer. "This type of intrusive, ongoing monitoring of someone's life is not just creepy, it's unconstitutional."
The scheme gives police the ability to spy on people without any judicial oversight, either.
And abuse already has been documented, the IJ said.
'In Kansas, officials were caught using Flock to stalk their exes, including one police chief who used Flock 228 times over four months to track his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend's vehicles. In California, several police departments violated California law by sharing data from their license plate reader database with other departments across the country. And as is the case with other databases, these can be susceptible to hacking, which can reveal private data," the institute said.
Similar agendas already have been condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Everybody knows former President Barack Obama isn't a huge fan of Vice President Kamala Harris, or even the Biden-Harris administration.
While he's playing it cool for the party's future, his true feelings about Harris -- and Biden -- have crept out during a few campaign events, including one recently in North Carolina.
According to the Washington Examiner, Obama admitted during a recent stump speech for Harris that prices are "still too high" in the state but assured those in attendance that Harris has a plan for that.
Many took to social media to question why Harris couldn't have done anything about it during her last nearly four years in the White House.
Obama tried to act as if he knows the pain of the average, working-class voter by admitting that prices for everything are still too high.
"Many folks here in North Carolina and across the country are struggling to pay the bills, and now understand — it’s important. Wages are steadily growing, unemployment is low, inflation is finally slowing, but the price of everything, from healthcare to housing groceries, it’s still too high, and that hurts," Obama said.
Obama then decided to go for the standard playbook for any Democratic candidate -- blame Trump.
He also had the audacity to take credit for Trump's economy, saying that it was only good because it was "my economy" that Trump inherited.
“Traveling around the country, I talked to some people. Some people say, ‘Well you know what? I remember the economy being pretty good when Donald Trump first came into office.’ Yes, it was pretty good because it was my economy,” the former president said.
Unfortunately, the people at the rally either don't know any better or are so stricken with Trump Derangement Syndrome that they clapped and hollered after Obama's remark.
After the former president attempted to steal credit for Trump's economy, he promised those in attendance that Harris has a plan to get things back on track. But of course, he failed to provide even a single detail.
"So if somebody tells you this election doesn’t matter, explain, no, it does matter. It makes a difference when you have a leader who sees you and cares about you and thinks about you. They don’t need to be perfect, but they need to try," Obama said.
Obama added, "If enough of us make our voices heard, we will leave no doubt about the outcome of this election, we will leave no doubt about who we are and what America stands for, and, together, we will keep building a country that’s more fair and more just and more equal and more free."
Something tells us that Obama can't wait to get off Harris' campaign trail and back to the basketball court.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Dick Lamm was the governor of the leftist state of Colorado for 12 years. He likely worked hard on building up his version of the Rocky Mountain state.
But he's remember for one comment, during his campaign to push physician-assisted suicide.
That was that elderly people who are terminally ill have a "duty to die and get out of the way" instead of trying to prolong their lives through medical innovations.
Online resources reveal Lamm, who died in 2021, made his comment in 1984, and it generated a lot of controversy, even after he tried to explain he was "raising a general statement about the human condition, not beating up on the elderly."
His comment was, "We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."
But Lamm's influence was just talk. The Christian Institute in the United Kingdom is warning that government action there could make a "duty to die" more than rhetoric.
It is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who said legalizing assisted suicide "could open the door to yet more pain and suffering for those we are trying to help."
He said, "Even where there is no abuse, the pressure to end one's life early could be intense and inescapable if the law were changed" and that "the right to end your life could all too easily – and accidentally – turn into a duty to do so."
He continued, "I don't want the people I love – or anyone, for that matter – to be made to feel a burden in their final months on earth. Dying in pain is not inevitable. Good palliative care can provide us with the dignity and compassion we are all searching for. My mum's last days were eased by advice and medication from a hospice. She died peacefully, heavily sedated and deeply loved. That, to me, is dignity in dying."
The UK's most senior Roman Catholic, the Archbishop of Westminster, has urged churches to contact their MP on the issue, the report said.
"In a letter, Cardinal Vincent Nichols said assisted suicide pressures 'those who are nearing death, from others or even from themselves, to end their life in order to take away a perceived burden of care from their family, for the avoidance of pain, or for the sake of an inheritance,'" the report noted.
He explained, "What is now proposed will not be the end of the story. It is a story better not begun."
The institute's reporting also documented how doctors have warned that such a plan could kill people who actually have years left to live.
Professor Katherine Sleeman, Laing Galazka Chair in Palliative Care, pointed out that the Department for Work and Pensions reviews its benefits for terminally patients every three years — even though they must be expected to die within twelve months to qualify for support."
She said a six or twelve-month prognosis ":is an arbitrary line in the sand," as it is "not possible to accurately determine someone's prognosis as a number of months."
Actor and filmmaker Mel Gibson has revealed that he's backing former President Trump to win back America's White House in 2024. A recent video shows Mel Gibson being asked about the presidential race while he was at the airport in Los Angeles.
"I don't think it's gonna surprise anyone who I vote for," Mel Gibson said.
Gibson then joked that Donald Trump would be a "pretty good guess." Mel was then asked what "the world would be like" if Donald Trump was able to get into office for a second term.
The "Lethal Weapon" star almost seemed more concerned about the dangers of Kamala Harris:
"I know what it'll be like if we let her in," Gibson said. "That ain't good. A miserable track record, an appalling track record, no policies to speak of, and she's got the IQ of a fence post."
If you've been paying attention, you're probably not too surprised that Mel Gibson is going with Donald Trump. The "Hacksaw Ridge" director was spotted making conversation with Donald Trump at a Dana White-owned UFC event in 2023.
Mel Gibson may be one of the biggest names, but he's far from the only star in America who's endorsed Trump recently. The list is growing longer as more and more celebrities realize what's at stake for the future of America.
Ever since RFK Jr. dropped from the race, the "Shazam!" star has been open about who he wants to vote for. He even served as a moderator for a recent Trump Campaign event.
"In a perfect world, in whatever that would look like, perhaps I would have voted for Bobby," Levi told the audience. "But we don’t live in a perfect world. In fact, we live in a very broken one. We live in a country that has been hijacked by a lot of people who want to take this place way off the cliff, and we’re here to stop that."
"We are going to take back this country. We are going to make it great again, we’re going to make it healthy again. And so I stand with Bobby and I stand with everyone else who is standing with President Trump. Of the two choices that we have, and we only have two, President Trump is the man that can get us there," Levi added.
Despite the famous actor previously discussing some reservations he had about Donald Trump, Dennis Quaid is leaving no doubt about who he's voting for in 2024.
"As president, the only thing I liked about Trump was everything he did," Quaid said. "It just makes sense. I was ready not to vote for Trump until what I saw as — more than politics — I see a weaponization of our justice system and a challenge to our constitution."
Kid Rock is another of Donald Trump's most famous supporters. When Trump experienced his assassination attempt, Kid Rock was one of the people vocal about his support for the former president.
Do you think that these celebrity endorsements like Mel Gibson will help tip the scales in Trump's favor? For the sake of America, let's hope so.
While most of the mainstream media has worked overtime to not cover the bombshell story involving second gentleman Doug Emhoff allegedly slapping an ex-girlfriend, the reported victim just broke her silence.
According to the Daily Caller, the Daily Mail nailed the exclusive interview with the woman, who wanted to be called "Jane," and she confirmed the disgusting allegations.
"Jane" confirmed to the outlet that Emhoff, in 2012 at a party, "slapped her so hard she spun around."
Those allegations were made by three friends of the alleged victim, and according to the victim, the reports from her friends are accurate.
The alleged victim explained that Emhoff has "fabricated" his persona presumably to not appear as the monster that he is behind closed doors.
"What’s frightening for a woman that’s been on the other end of it, is watching this completely fabricated persona being portrayed," the alleged victim said.
Doug Emhoff's ex-girlfriend speaks out telling how Kamala's husband forcefully slapped her for flirting with another man https://t.co/hATb8qcMx4 pic.twitter.com/h5jLEwseXe
— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) October 24, 2024
The Daily Mail revealed the story about the events that led to the alleged slapping incident.
The outlet noted:
Jane told the outlet she and Emhoff, whom she started dating in March 2012, took a “fairytale” trip to the amfAR gala dinner south of France on May 24, 2009. A long taxi line outside the Hotel du Cap around 3 a.m. prompted Jane to try to pay a valet $100 to let her and Emhoff skip the line — but she alleged a drunken Emhoff reacted violently when he incorrectly assumed she was flirting with another man.
The alleged victim told the outlet the full story, which is shocking, to say the least.
"As I’m talking to him, Doug got out of the line, comes up, turns me around by my right shoulder. I’m completely caught off guard. I’m not bracing,.I’m in four inch heels, wearing a full-length gown, and it’s between 2-3 a.m.," Jane recounted.
She added, "He slaps me so hard I spin around, and I’m in utter shock,” she alleged. “There had been no fight, no argument. It had been a completely fantastic event. I am so furious. The only thing I could think to do was slap him back. I slapped him on one side, and on the other cheek with the other hand."
"In that moment, his mask had dropped and I saw his dark side," she continued.
The reported ex-girlfriend said she only stayed silent on the matter for such a long time because she was scared to go public with it.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has stunned officials in the state of Virginia with an order that they put a list of 1,600 people, removed from voter rolls under a state program that cracks down on election fraud, back on the voter rolls.
Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin promised an immediate appeal of the scheme that could undermine election integrity.
It is WRIC that reported on the ruling from a Joe Biden-appointed judge, District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, who claimed that Virginia's state program to work on keeping its voter rolls clean was "systemic," not "individual."
Her claim is that because of her determination, the rolls were cleaned within 90 days of an election, and that's in violation of the National Voter Registration Act.
It was the Biden administration, which has run a program of open borders for the nation for nearly four years now, removing obstacles that would prevent illegal aliens from simply walking onto U.S. land and taking advantage of the multitude of social and financial benefits programs, that sued the state for trying to remove those who are not eligible to vote.
Also participating in the lawsuit were leftist advocacy groups like the Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, and the League of Women Voters of Virginia. They claimed that state data showed those voter registrations were canceled by the state, as part of a "systemic" campaign.
The broadcast outlet explained a Protect Democracy email confirmed the judge "ordered that purged voters be added back to the rolls and that the state must send corrective mailings to those voters."
Youngkin's order requiring the updates of voter lists was based on a 2006 state law signed by Tim Kaine, a Democrat who then was the state's governor.
He said that is not in violation of the federal statute.
"Let's be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls," he said in a statement. "Almost all these individuals had previously presented immigration documents confirming their noncitizen status, a fact recently verified by federal authorities."
He said lawyers are working to petition the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals immediately.
The report noted Ryan Snow, counsel with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which also promoted the noncitizens being on the voter rolls, oddly said, "All of the eligible voters who were wrongfully purged from the voter rolls will now be able to cast their ballots."
Those suing claimed that eligible voters also were removed from the rolls.
Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said it was a "shameful, politically motivated stunt" by the Biden-Harris administration.
"It should never be illegal to remove an illegal voter," he charged. "Yet, today a Court – urged by the Biden-Harris Department of Justice – ordered Virginia to put the names of non-citizens back on the voter rolls, mere days before a presidential election."
The state program, in fact, has a guardrail that if people believe they are eligible, they can contest the evidence the state uses to determine they are not.
Just the News noted Miyares pointed out, "The Department of Justice pulled this shameful, politically motivated stunt 25 days before Election Day, challenging a Virginia process signed into law 18 years ago by a Democrat governor and approved by the Department of Justice in 2006.
"More concerning is the open practice by the Biden-Harris administration to weaponize the legal system against the enemies of so-called progress. That is the definition of lawfare. To openly choose weaponization over good process and lawfare over integrity isn't democracy: it's bullying, pure and simple, and I always stand up to bullies. In the meantime, I encourage every Virginian to exercise their right to vote. Rest assured, I will never stop fighting to preserve the integrity of our election process. The Commonwealth of Virginia will appeal this decision – to the Supreme Court, if necessary."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials in the town of Surprise, Arizona, have been humiliated by a public scolding from a judge in Maricopa County in a case in which they ordered a woman at a public meeting arrested because they didn't like what she was saying.
The Constitution's First Amendment, of course, was written in order to protect speech that someone doesn't like, and in this case the comments were about the ability – or ineptitude – of a tax-paid city official.
Rebekah Anne Massie came to the public meeting to express her displeasure, and got arrested for her words.
Judge Gerald Williams now has dismissed the charges fabricated against Massie, with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled, ever.
The issue pending before him was whether the charges would be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the city could pursue the case again, or not.
His conclusion was definitive: "IT IS ORDERED THAT this case is dismissed with prejudice, in the interests of justice," he wrote. "The defendant should not have faced criminal prosecution once for expressing her political views. The court agrees that she should never face criminal prosecution, for expressing her political views on that date, at that time, again. Nor should she be forced to encounter additional attorney feeds should this matter be re-filed…"
He continued, explaining the city's actions "regulated not just speech; but political speech. It regulated not just the time, place, and manner of the speech. It regulated the content of political speech… No branch of any federal, state, or local government in this country should ever attempt to control the content of political speech … In this case, the government did so in a manner that was objectively outrageous."
Massie, in a statement released by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Express, which is representing her in a lawsuit against the town, said, "For more than two months I've been living with the threat of punishment and jail time — being taken away from my kids, even — for doing nothing more than criticizing the government. Free speech still matters in America, and I can't tell you what a relief it is to have people on my side standing up for our rights with me."
Conor Fitzpatrick, of FIRE, said, "This is an incredible win for Rebekah and an important message to government bureaucrats around the country that the First Amendment bows to no one. The fight goes on in Rebekah's lawsuit against the city of Surprise, Mayor Hall, and Officer Schernicoff. We want to make it crystal clear to governments across the United States that brazenly censoring people and betraying the First Amendment comes with a cost."
WND reported weeks ago when FIRE officials brought an action against the town on behalf of Massie.
And the report was posted when Mayor Skip Hall ordered resident Massie arrested for her speech during a portion of a government meeting set aside for residents' concerns.
She was opposed to a city decision to give its lawyer even more money.
"I have concerns with allocating the more funds to him specifically for a few different reasons," she explained. Her public records requests are under "review" regarding the actions of lawyer Robert Wingo, already one of the highest paid city officials in the Phoenix region at $265,000.
The FIRE case challenges the city's decision to overrule the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution at council meetings.
Hall threatened her for making comments, and Massie responded, "You are violating my First Amendment rights."
Hall rebuked her with, "That's your opinion."
And he threatened, "Do you want to be escorted out, Ms. Massie? Because that's what's gonna happen. And it's gonna happen in the future also," he responded.
Ultimately, she was arrested, cuffed and accused of trespass, as she shouted: "Are you kidding me?" and "Do not put your hands on me!"
The dispute arose because of city officials' own insistence that an anti-First Amendment rule be imposed on residents. It states, "Oral communications during the City Council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the City or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by name or by any other reference that tends to identify him/her."
The complaint, filed in federal court in Arizona, lists Rebekah Massie and Quintus Schulzke as plaintiffs and the city and officials Skip Hall and Steven Shernicoff as defendants.
It states, "The Supreme Court has made clear that 'one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights' is the sacred promise to every American, enshrined in the First Amendment, that citizens enjoy the freedom to complain about their leaders. … But Defendants Surprise, Arizona and its mayor, Skip Hall, broke that promise, arresting Plaintiff Rebekah Massie in front of her 10-year-old daughter for criticizing a public official at a city council meeting.
"Video of the arrest speaks for itself. On August 20, 2024, during the public comment portion of the Surprise City Council meeting, Massie spoke in opposition to a planned pay increase for Surprise's city attorney. But Mayor Hall interrupted her remarks, scolding her for violating a City Council policy prohibiting 'complain[ing]' about public officials. Massie insisted—correctly—that the First Amendment protected her comments. Mayor Hall didn't care…"
Hall then ordered a police officer, Shernicoff, to detain and eject Massie, and he did.
The complaint charges, "When Massie exercised her constitutional right to criticize officials at a city council meeting, a right 'high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values,' Lozman, 585 U.S. at 101, the Council Criticism Policy and Mayor Hall ensured she left the meeting in handcuffs. That might be how repressive regimes treat government critics, but it's an affront to our Constitution. Surprise's sudden move to arrest dissidents and enforce the Council Criticism Policy is casting a cloud of fear over the city. Plaintiff Quintus Schulzke, a frequent speaker at City Council meetings, now fears criticizing Surprise officials, knowing he, like Massie, now risks arrest when he exercises his constitutional rights."
The complaint charges the city is in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
And, in fact, state law allows the public "to criticize members of a public body during a public comment period."
Massie opposed paying the city lawyer more money, expressing her opinion that he had failed to comply with the Constitution, state law, and his duties of professional conduct.
"Defendants injured Massie by silencing, detaining and arresting her because she criticized government officials – an exercise of rights 'high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values,'" the case charges.
The case accuses of Hall of using government power to "suit his own whims."