IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA

) Superior Court No. ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) MAYOR BOB WALKUP, for the City of ) ) Tucson, ) Oral Argument Requested Respondent, ) ) and ) ) ) THE CITY OF TUCSON, ) ) Real Party at Interest ) ROY WARDEN,

PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION TO THE PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Roy Warden, Petitioner In Forma Pauperis 1015 W. Prince Road #131-182 Tucson Arizona 85705 roywarden@hotmail.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Citations Jurisdictional Statement Statement of the Issue Statement of the Facts Argument Conclusion Prayer Certificate of Compliance Certificate of Service Transcript September 07, 2011 Transcript September 13, 2011 Transcript September 20, 2011 3 3-4 4 4-7 7-13 14-16 17 20 21 22-26 27-33 34-37

TABLE OF CITATIONS CASE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sabelko v City of Phoenix, 846 F. Supp 822 Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 Revised Arizona Jury Instructions Rule 3(b), (c) of Rules of Procedure for Special Action Hynes v Mayor & Council of Oradell, 96 S.Ct. 1755 Grayned v City of Rockford , 92 S.Ct. 2294 Wright v U.S Army, 307 F.Supp.2d 1065 Cox v State of Louisiana, 85 S.Ct. at 463 State v. Brown, 207 Ariz. 231 Gregory v City of Chicago, 89 S.Ct. 946 Arizona Right to Life Political Action v Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002 Boos v Barry, 108 S.Ct. 1157 PAGE 4, 10, 11 4, 11, 12 8 10, 11 1 10, 11, 12 11 11 10, 12, 13 15 15 15

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 1. The foundational issue of this case, in which Tucson City Mayor Bob Walkup has arbitrarily and capriciously employed the Civility Accord and a Mayor and Council Meetings Public Participation rule, (hereinafter referred to as The Rule,) to block public commentary he deems uncivil, impertinent and slanderous, presents constitutional issues of great public significance. and. statewide importance.

2. The underlying facts which give rise to the pure issues of law

presented in this Petition are not in dispute. The foundational issue concerns the employment of the vaguely worded and overbroad Rule regulating public speech during the Call to the Audience portion of Tucson City Council meetings; a rule which now gives the Mayor absolute power to decide who may speak and who must remain silent, what words are impertinent and what words are lawful, in direct violation of he Constitutions of the State of Arizona and the United States of America. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE During the Call to the Audience Portion of Tucson City Council Meetings, May the Mayor of Tucson Employ a Vague and Overbroad Rule Regulating Public Speech to Arbitrarily and Capriciously Decide What Public Commentary is Permitted and What Public Commentary is Proscribed? STATEMENT OF FACTS
3. The City of Tucson presently employs the following rule to

regulate public speech and conduct during the Call to the Audience portion of Mayor and City Council Meetings, as set forth on September 13, 2011 by Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin:

Citizens attending meetings shall observe rules of propriety, decorum, and good conduct. Any person making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, or becomes boisterous while addressing the governing body, may be removed by the Sgt. at Arms as directed by the Chairman.
4. On September 07, 2011 during the Call to the Audience portion

of the Tucson City Council Meeting1, Petitioner, upon invitation, addressed the Mayor and Council regarding a federal jury verdict in 2006, finding three Tucson City Officials employed in their official capacities, including Tucson City Manager Richard Miranda while employed in his former capacity as Tucson City Police Chief, had (1) engaged in acts of First Amendment Retaliation, (2) had inflicted emotional distress, and (3) the jury awarded Petitioners $900,000.00 to compensate them for their consequential damages, including $500,000.00 for emotional distress.
5. Moreover; on September 07, 2011 Petitioner informed the Mayor

and Council that, in additional to the consequential damages, in

The Tucson City Council is a limited public forum, in which public commentary and conduct is subject to reasonable time, place and manner regulation; however, commentary on matters of public concern may not be limited on the basis of content or viewpoint. Sabelko v City of Phoenix, 846 F.Supp. 822 (Ariz. 1994), citing Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992)
1

2006 the federal jury had awarded the Plaintiffs nearly two million dollars in punitive damages because Defendants, including Richard Miranda, had acted with an evil hand guided by an evil mind, which, in sum and substance, is the requisite standard for granting punitive damages in the State of Arizona.
6. Additionally; on September 07, 2011 Petitioner further informed

the Mayor and Council that Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin had unlawfully used approximately seven hundred thousand dollars of public funds to satisfy a portion of the punitive damage judgment against the Tucson City Officials. (Exhibit One)
7. On September 13, 2011, during his Call to the Audience address,

Petitioner was arrested by TPD Officers and removed from the Chamber as he attempted to read the standards required for the jury award of $500,000.00 for emotional distress, as set forth in Arizona Case Law, and, as they applied to the conduct of Tucson City Manager Richard Miranda acting in the performance of his official duties as Assistant Tucson City Police Chief. (Exhibit Two)

8. Outside the Mayor and Counsel Chamber, one of the arresting

officers, Officer Couch, aggressively confronted Petitioner and told him: Get out of here! Youre just a troublemaker!
9. On September 20, 2011 the Mayor and City Council held a public

study session in which they addressed the particulars of The Rule. Moreover; both Mayor and Council were advised as to the legality of The Rule by Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin.
10. Significant to the issue before this Court, but beyond the

jurisdiction of this Court to resolve, was Mr. Rankins assertion that The Rule was lawful and substantially similar to the rules employed in numerous other Arizona jurisdictions.
11. On September 20, 2011, subsequent to the study session, Tucson

City Attorney Mike Rankin, at the behest of Respondent Mayor Walkup, read The Rule at the beginning of Call to the Audience.
12. On September 20, 2011 when he was so invited, Petitioner

addressed the Mayor and Council and specifically read the words

he was about to read the week before prior to his arrest, to wit: Arizonas standards for granting damages for emotional distress2.
13. On September 20, 2011, in light of the 2006 federal jurys verdict

as set forth above, Petitioner applied these words to question Richard Mirandas fitness to hold public office as Tucson City Manager.
14. On September 20, 2011, subsequent to Petitioners presentation,

Mayor Walkup made additional commentary, said Petitioners personal attack was in violation of The Rule, and stated in sum and substance, that at future council meetings he would arrest anyone who continued to address the council in a similar fashion. (Exhibit Three) JURISDICTION
15. Regarding this Courts jurisdiction and the Rules of Procedure for

Special Actions, Rule 3 (b), provides relief when the defendant has proceeded or is threatening to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction or legal authority, and (c) when a
To grant damages for emotional distress, the finder of fact must determine the defendants acts were so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (Civil) 4th for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
2

determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

16. Petitioner respectfully submits: During Call to the Audience

Respondent Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup, acting arbitrarily and capriciously in excess of his jurisdiction and the lawful powers delegated to him as Tucson City Mayor, has applied, and is continuing to apply, The Rule, a vaguely worded, overbroad rule, to determine what public commentary is lawful and what commentary is not, in violation of the peoples rights to free public speech guaranteed by the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of Arizona, the publics right to petition their government for a redress of grievance, and the publics right to address their Mayor and Council regarding matters of public concern. STANDING
17. Regarding standing, Petitioner respectfully submits; If (The

Rule) may cause persons not before the Court to refrain from engaging in constitutionally protected speech, then (Petitioner)

has standing to challenge (The Rule.) State v. Brown, 207 Ariz. 231, 237
18. Here, in the case before the Court, Petitioner has already been

arrested, and threatened with future arrest, for violation of The Rule.
19.

Moreover; regarding Respondent Tucson Mayor Walkups actions in excess of lawful jurisdiction, Petitioner also respectfully submits: the specific wording of Rules for Special Action, Rule 3 (b) grants Petitioner standing to bring this matter before this Court for just resolution.

STANDARD FOR REVIEW

20. The most stringent of scrutiny is applied to the examination of a

statute for vagueness (and overbreadth) when the statute induces a chill on free speech. Sabelko v City of Phoenix, 846 F.Supp. 822 (Ariz. 1994), citing Hynes v Mayor & Council of Oradell, 96 S.Ct. 1755, 1760 (1976).
21. Petitioner respectfully submits: The standard for review for the

case at bar is strict scrutiny.

10

LIMITED PUBLIC FORUMS

22. Regarding the Tucson City Council Chambers and limited public

forums, (a)ny law which regulates the time, place and manner of protected speech must not be based on the content of the message. Sabelko at 818, citing Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992) ARGUMENT VAGUENESS
23. It is a well settled principle of law that (a)n unconstitutionally

vague law delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and (mayors) for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Sabelko at 822, citing Grayned v City of Rockford , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99
24. Moreover; a statute which, on its face, is so vague and indefinite

as to permit the punishment of protected free speech, is anathema to the Fourteenth Amendment concept of liberty. Wright v U.S Army, 307 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1075 citing Cox v State of Louisiana, 85 S.Ct. at 463.

11

25. And finally: a statute is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to

give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he or she may act accordingly, or if it allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by

failing to provide an objective standard for those who are charged with enforcing or applying the law. Brown at 237, quoting Grayned v. Rockford, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99.
26. Regarding the current rule limiting speech during Call to the

Audience; how may the public determine which words are personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks and which words are not?
27. The true meanings of these words are subjective in nature, and as

set forth in The Rule, the meanings of these words are to be determined by the Mayor of Tucson alone, on the basis of whether or not the Mayor is pleased, or is not pleased, with the content of the public speakers communications.
28. Moreover; (The Rule)allows for arbitrary and discriminatory

enforcement by failing to provide an objective standard for those

12

who are charged with enforcing or applying the law, in violation of the rule of law set forth in Brown in paragraph 21.
29. Furthermore; regarding the prohibition of speech against what the

Mayor may now consider to be slanderous remarks, Petitioner respectfully submits; any public official who feels so aggrieved may lawfully file a lawsuit and ask the Court for a just determination, but under the American Rule of Law he may not become judge, jury and executioner by applying the formidable police powers of the state to stop public speech that he deems slanderous.
30. And finally, regarding conduct the Mayor may consider to be

boisterous which The Rule now proscribes, Petitioner respectfully submits; Tucson City Council meetings are well attended by armed members of the Tucson Police Department. Petitioner, and the rest of the public, may only guess as to what conduct is boisterous and what conduct is not; however Tucson Police officers are well trained in making determinations and taking action when they consider public conduct to be a breech

13

of the peace, without promptings from Respondent Mayor Walkup, who is untrained in such matters.
31. Petitioner respectfully submits; The Rule must be struck down

as unconstitutionally infirm because its wording is so vague it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he or she may act accordingly, (and) it allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by failing to provide an objective standard for those who are charged with enforcing or applying the law. OVERBREADTH
32. It is a well settled principle of law that (a)n overbroad statute is

one designed to burden or punish activities that are not constitutionally protected, but includes within its scope activities 237, quoting Grayned v. Rockford, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99.
33. Petitioner respectfully submits; The Rule must be struck down

as unconstitutionally infirm because, along with regulating non protected speech and conduct, it includes within its scope

activities that are protected by the First Amendment, as set forth in paragraph 32 above.

14

CONCLUSION To borrow a phrase from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Black, this Petition tests the ability of the United States to keep the promises its Constitution makes to the people of the Nation. Gregory v City of Chicago, 89 S.Ct. 946, 948. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy, in a speech at the White House, 1962. It is undeniable and black letter law that (t)he First Amendment reflects a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. Arizona Right to Life Political Action v Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1008, citing Boos v Barry, 108 S.Ct. 1157. Moreover; (w)hatever differences may exist about

interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. Arizona Right to Life at 1008, citing Boos. And finally, In the modern police state

15

the greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil Dickens loved to paint (or in the dank cellars of the Lubiyanka by thugs named Beria), butin clear, carpeted, warmed, well lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. --C.S. Lewis Petitioner respectfully submits; Respondent Tucson City Mayor Bob Walkup, in the name of The City of Tucson and the Civility Accord, now employs an overbroad and vaguely worded rule, and the police, to silence public dissent regarding the present operation of Tucson City government. Moreover; in the name of civility Respondent Mayor Walkup expects the people to refrain from offering robust commentary when they find one of their officials, on the basis of cronyism and other self interest, appointed to the high position of Tucson City Manager, Richard Miranda; an individual who, in performance of his official duties as Tucson Assistant Police Chief, acted with an evil hand guided by an evil mind and otherwise engaged in acts (that were) so outrageous in character, and extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community, as determined by a federal jury in 2006.

16

Petitioner, who observed first hand the functioning of a police state during his many years living in North Africa in the Kingdom of Morocco, respectfully submits: many of the aspects of a modern day police state are employed by Tucson City Officials today. However; in America, betwixt the indictment and the execution, sits the courts and a judge with the power to protect the Rule of Law and the power to decide matters of great importance, including the constitutionality of the current Tucson City Policy regarding public participation in the Call to the Audience portion of Tucson City Council sessions, a policy herein referred to as The

Rule, which the Tucson Mayor now employs to decide who may speak and on what subject, and who must remain silent. Petitioner respectfully submits: Respondent Mayor Walkups application of such capricious and arbitrary authority to regulate public speech is repugnant to the foundational concept of liberty here in America, a liberty our forefathers3 paid dearly for by the shedding of their blood, the essential meaning of that liberty set forth with clarity by wise men who wrote the United States Constitution the
One of Petitioners distant forbearers was a Lieutenant in the Revolutionary War.
3

17

Constitution of the State of Arizona, the full, unfettered scope of that liberty now set forth and protected by the wisdom and authority of American judges4 and clearly written case law, as cited above. PRAYER Petitioner herein prays the Court to: a. Strike down as unconstitutionally infirm the present Mayor and Council Meetings Public Participation rule, herein referred to as The Rule, and b. Provide such additional relief the Court deems proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 03rd day of October 2011. BY ____________________ Roy Warden, Petitioner

State of Arizona County of _____________

Several of Petitioners more recent forbearers were gun wearing, horseback riding California Circuit Court Judges in the days of the Wild, Wild West.
4

18

On this ____day of ____________________, 2011, before me the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Roy Warden, known to me to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed. My Commission Expires:_______________ ___________________ Notary

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I Roy Warden, Petitioner in the above captioned Special Action, do herein certify that this document was prepared in compliance with all the Rules of the Court and the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, including the following:

19

1.

This document was prepared in Microsoft Word, using a double line spaced, proportionally spaced typeface, 14 Point Times New Roman.

2.

The total number of words used, except those excluded as provided by Ariz. R. Crim. P. Rule 31.12 and 31.13, is 2,502.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 03rd day of October, 2011. BY ___________________ ______ Roy Warden, Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Roy Warden, Petitioner in Warden v. Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup and The City of Tucson as Real Party in Interest, do herein Declare, Swear and Affirm as follows:

20

On October 01st, 2011 I served upon the parties named above my Petition for Special Action, my Motion for Waiver or Deferral of Fees, and my Declaration in Support of Motion for Waiver or Deferral of Fees by handing copies of the above described documents to the following: The Constable

____________________ Roy Warden

EXHIBIT ONE

21

TUCSON MAYOR AND COUNCIL TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 07, 2011

Mayor Walkup: Roy Warden.

22

Roy Warden: Good afternoon. Roy Warden, I do live here in Tucson. You know, its really amazing, there are a lot of people out here, a lot of colorful people, got up and had some general things to say about public corruption, and how unhappy they are with city government, and so forth, how they are unhappy with some of you folks up here. Uh, everyones got an opinion. But sometime you can move away from opinion down to specifics, move away from generalities down to cold, hard facts. And when it comes to opinions, or attitudes, towards Richard Miranda over here, Deputy City Manager, its not a matter of opinion. You see: the verdict is in. The verdict was found, by, over in federal court, by I believe 8 or 9 or 10, jurors Im not sure how many sit on a federal jury. In 2006 they sat for three weeks. Everyday they listened to testimony how Richard Miranda, former Chief Smith, Assistant Chief Ochoa, lied, cheated and stole the livelihood from a Tucson citizen who had performed admirably for many years on behalf of the police department. Lied, cheated, and stealed (sic). And the jury looked at him straight in the face for three weeks, listened to his own testimony, and by the time

23

the case was over it was kind of surprising, because, one of the important things for lawyers is to quantify damages: how much money was actually lost. How do you quantify that: sometimes sometimes its not so easy. This case it was pretty difficult. And, so the lawyer gets up there and says, You know? I dont know what to tell you to give. Look to your heart. Look to what they did, look to the way they lied to you on the stand, look to the way they acted on behalf of, of, Gilmartin, the Plaintiff, and make your mind up. Boy, it took them less than half a day! And they came back with 2.7 million dollars, actually 2.9 million dollars: nine hundred thousand dollars owed by the City of Tucson and 2 million dollars in punitive damages owed personally by him, Smith and Ochoa. Punitive damages are not paid by municipalities, by law, they are paid by individuals. Yet, old Mikey Rankin here, went together, this lawyer of the year you guys were clapping for, four or five months ago, won an award, put together a slick little deal by which the people, the taxpayers of the City of Tucson here, paid seven hundred thousand dollars, between five hundred and seven hundred thousand dollars, of those punitive damages. its easy,

24

Put together the deal, documents are in place, trial transcripts are over there in, actually upstairs at the Clerks Office. I read every page of it, you people should read it, its an astonishing document. Because it begs the question: When the people of Tucson speak through a verdict after listening to testimony for three weeks, and they Mayor Walkup: Were all finished. Thank you very much Roy Warden: say hes a liar and a scumbag, how do you guys get off hiring him? Mayor Walkup: Next speaker is Robert Kleg. Roy Warden: Yeah (unintelligible comments) Councilman Kozachik: I would just like to say, while Mr. Kleg is coming up, itd sure be nice when people could come up to these microphones and start making their points without being so personally disrespectful, not only to the rest of the council members but to the City Staff.

25

Uh, make, make your point but get off the, the personal attacks. And if you cant do that just keep your bile at home. Roy Warden: (in background) (unintelligible comments)

EXHIBIT TWO

26

TUCSON MAYOR AND COUNCIL TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

Mayor Walkup: Ok, before I get started, Id like to, were going to change some of the rules of call to the audience and also with regards to public hearingsand its called Decorum and how we treat each other and how we really, around the country, asking everybody to get

27

back to the original intent of call to the audience and public hearings. In January of this year I submitted to the Council of Mayors in Washington DC what we call the Civility Accord. The Civility Accord says its time for us to start treating each other with dignity and respect and understanding and decorum. Theres been about 250 mayors around the country thats said Now, its time for us to get back to how we really treat each other. That represents about 43 million people, uh, from a governance standpoint, uh, implementing within city council meetings, respect for each other. So there is an impact on Call to the Audience, that we are going to allow people to talk about things that we disagree on, but we want to really get back to city issues. We like to, on Call to the Audience, to have people tell us whats happening in our city, so we can get better govern the actions of the council. But were not going to tolerate any longer any personal attacks on any individuals of the council or the city staff. Its just inappropriate. So these are some changes that were implementing, uh, starting tonight.

28

Ive asked the City Attorney if he would, lead, uh, read a Statement of Decorum. City Attorney Mike Rankin: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council: There are existing Mayor and Council Rules and Regulations for participation of the public in the Mayor and Council meetings. Uh, and it reads as follows: Citizens attending meetings shall observe rules of propriety, decorum, and good conduct. Any person making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, or becomes boisterous while addressing the governing body, may be removed by the Sgt. at Arms as directed by the Chairman. So those are your existing rules, uh, that have been in place for many, many years. And thats what the Mayor is referring to. Mayor Walkup: Let have, Uh, lets start Call to the Audience. I do have two cards. So at this time we will have Call to the Audience. Be make sure you have read the information thats on back of these cards.

29

Be mindful of what Ive just indicated are going to be the rules of Call to the Audience. And with that lets start with Keith Van Hannigan. (Skip to Roy Warden) Mayor Walkup: Roy Warden. Roy Warden Good Evening. Roy Warden, Tucson Arizona. Now, you know it really is astonishing to me. The Arizona Constitution says it so clearly, so compellingly, the purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of the people. But you, Mr. Mayor, have turned that upside down. And basically youve restated it such as, the purpose of the people is to submit to the unlawful dictates of the government. Youve assumed this power upon yourself. Youve assumed the power to overturn hundreds of years of first amendment law. You should read the Terminillo Case, because it states the kind of language which is very appropriate, very angry but very appropriate, in public debate and in addressing people like you.

30

I know the comments last week made by Mr. Kozachik were directed at me. I thought, this is really astonishing. A couple of years ago hes a citizen. Now hes a member of government, and hes taken over the meeting, and he says youre not going to talk in a certain way. Hes attempting, and he probably has, chilled public debate on these issues. And you think youre going to get away with it. Youre angry because Ive called Miranda here MAYOR WALKUP: Whup, WhupNow youre in, now youre into here personal Roy Warden: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely Im there (TPD Officers approach Roy Warden) MAYOR WALKUP: Now Lets get to. Roy Warden: (Raising his voice and referring to U.S. District Court Judge Frank Zapatas instructions to the Gilmartin Jury regarding the punitive damage standard for Arizona)

31

They said he (Miranda) acted with an evil mind. They presentedthey were presented with clear Mayor Walkup: Ok, very well Roy Warden: This is from the court case. This is from the court case... Mayor Walkup: Lets go on to item number seven Roy Warden: Am I under arrest? Am I under Arrest? MAYOR WALKUP: Item seven please. Roy Warden: Why? Explain to me, explain to me why? Explain to me, because MAYOR WALKUP: Reports from the City Manager...on the consent agenda are received into (Acknowledging nod from TPD officers to remove Warden)

32

Yes, Please. Roy Warden: Unintelligible utterance TPD officers take Warden from the chambers.

EXHIBIT THREE

33

TUCSON MAYOR AND COUNCIL TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 20, 2011

Mayor Walkup: Roy Warden Roy Warden: Good evening, Mayor and Council, Roy Warden, Tucson Arizona.

34

Im quite delighted that tonight weve gone a long way into clarifying the issues that separate us because it will make it much easier for a judicial determination over in Superior Court and one following that in Federal Court. I want to complete the comments I was going to make last week, Im going to complete tonight, try to complete. We had a young lady up here, that read a chapter from a book, thats OK, I have no complaint about that. Im going to read some very specific language from Arizona Case Law, the standards regarding emotional distress, and the specific language that was used regarding the conduct of a particular member thats in this room here. Now, you folks expect the public to treat you with decorum and respect, and so forth and so on. Lawful behavior. We expect the same of you. Regarding behavior; part of this is subjective. Opinion, and so forth and so on. However. Mr. Miranda here, was the subject of a law suit. And two other public officials. He went before a jury in 2006. They listened to 17 days of testimony. And then they rendered their verdict.

35

And before that verdict was read, or, or rendered, the jury had to consider this, regarding the conduct of Richard Miranda: If they were to reach a verdict on emotional damages, which they did, they had to find that Mr. Mirandas acts were so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Thats law. Those are the legal standards that jury had to consider before they rendered a verdict on emotional damages and held him and two other public officials liable for $500.000.00 in that particular aspect of the case, of the verdict, in emotional damages. Outrageous conduct. Utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Thats the type of behavior he engaged in. Thats the type of behavior that the jury found he engaged in, and Im sure he didnt raise his voice when he did the things he did. Im sure he was quite calm about it. And youre looking at the clock Mr. Mayor. I will be done. You got to ask yourself this: If the public has expectations, ah, of government, how can you justify your employment of Mr. Miranda when citizens of this community have rendered such a verdict?

36

Ill be back next week. Mayor Walkup: I must warn you: that is precisely what the, the rules prohibit, is the repetitive, personal assaults. So, I want you to recognize it. And, Im giving you a fair warning. That I consider that to be a violation of our rules. Everybody gets a bite, tonight, but next week I would like you to stick to our rules. And with that is the end of Call to the Audience

37