All you who write letters and call your representative....

[RightIsWrong]

Is this really where we are heading as a country? If you demand that those that are hired to protect the rights of the citizens actually do their job....YOU get arrested and fined!

Once again...thank you ACLU for taking up the cause of Americans and our guaranteed rights.

Source

It seems as if every town has one -- the local rabble-rouser who takes up a cause and bombards public officials with angry letters and phone calls until they respond.

Last year, Bridgeville officials responded to Marshall Pappert's repeated complaints about pollution and noise from a cement plant across the street from his home. But it wasn't the response he expected.

Police charged him with harassment, after he told borough Manager Lori Collins to resign in a voice mail message.

Common Pleas Judge Robert C. Gallo upheld Mr. Pappert's conviction on the charge last week.

Now the American Civil Liberties Union is appealing the judge's decision to Superior Court, calling it a violation of Mr. Pappert's free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"People are allowed to be angry at their public officials. It doesn't make any sense that anger and frustration alone can cross the line into criminal conduct," said Bruce Boni, an attorney who represented Mr. Pappert before Judge Gallo.

"That provides a chilling effect, not just for [Mr. Pappert], but for anyone else in the borough who wants to complain."

But borough officials argue that Mr. Pappert's complaints did cross a line. Although his voice mail message to Ms. Collins didn't explicitly threaten her or use any obscenities, it had a "threatening tone," said Richard Ferris, the borough solicitor.

Ms. Collins handed the tape over to the Bridgeville police chief, who decided to press charges. In March, District Judge Elaine McGraw found Mr. Pappert guilty.

On July 16, Judge Gallo upheld the conviction. He ordered Mr. Pappert to pay a fine of $300 and said he would impose a jail sentence if Mr. Pappert had any contact with Ms. Collins in the following 90 days.

Mr. Pappert, 56, a lifelong Bridgeville resident who owned a plumbing business until an injury forced him to stop working several years ago, said the borough had "trampled on my rights and tried to silence me."

"This is her job," he said of Ms. Collins. "She's supposed to help us."

Yet dust and noise from Silhol Builders Supply on Union Street continue to concern Mr. Pappert and at least a dozen of his neighbors, he said. Some have started to complain of medical problems, and he has developed breathing difficulties.

The Allegheny County Health Department has issued two citations against the company in the last year, but nothing has changed, Mr. Pappert said. He wants the borough to enforce local pollution ordinances.

Mr. Ferris said the plant has been there for decades without problems.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

If he was calling her office(or gov't supplied phone of any sort) then there is no case. IF however he was caller her at her home or on a personal phone then I think the charge is fine.

Basically there just isn't enough info in the article.

 

[Vette73]

But borough officials argue that Mr. Pappert's complaints did cross a line. Although his voice mail message to Ms. Collins didn't explicitly threaten her or use any obscenities, it had a "threatening tone," said Richard Ferris, the borough solicitor


Oh no the old mans "tone" was scary. We need to lock him up. :roll:

 

[brandonb]

Funny.

When I started to remodel my home, my neighbhor who we never got along with the last 25 years decided to call the city on us daily (inspectors office) and the guy would have to come out to verify we had a permit for construction, and to verify we were doing things ok. Basically to harrass us. We filed a tresspassing order on her (because she'd come to the house and harrass the handyman preventing him from working). The policeman said he couldn't give her a trespassing order because it was within her right to call the city on a daily basis to harrass us by proxy.

I guess its open to interpretation.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Funny.

When I started to remodel my home, my neighbhor who we never got along with the last 25 years decided to call the city on us daily (inspectors office) and the guy would have to come out to verify we had a permit for construction, and to verify we were doing things ok. Basically to harrass us. We filed a tresspassing order on her (because she'd come to the house and harrass the handyman preventing him from working). The policeman said he couldn't give her a trespassing order because it was within her right to call the city on a daily basis to harrass us by proxy.

I guess its open to interpretation.

They couldn't give her a trespassing order because, even though you think your property extends to the street curb, it only stops at your frontdoor. The city owns your frontyard.

 

[brandonb]

No, they don't. I own the land around the house back and front. Its not communism yet in my neighbhorhood where the state owns everything.

Even though its pretty darn close as is. She is a communist, so it doesn't suprise me that she thinks that way, and her best friend is the mayor. I did get a tresspassing order against her, after I convinced another cop to call the city inspector and the inspector said to have her stop because he is sick of coming out to the house. He said he got a call from her every hour on the hour every single day.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: brandonb
No, they don't. I own the land around the house back and front. Its not communism yet in my neighbhorhood where the state owns everything.

Even though its pretty darn close as is. She is a communist, so it doesn't suprise me that she thinks that way, and her best friend is the mayor. I did get a tresspassing order against her, after I convinced another cop to call the city inspector and the inspector said to have her stop because he is sick of coming out to the house. He said he got a call from her every hour on the hour every single day.

I remember when FIOS was coming to my family's neighborhood they call to complain about all the digging going on. But Verizon said the city gave them permission to do so and the city owned everything up to the house. If you own the land, though, it's a different story.

 

[herm0016]

the city only owns as easement usually, so.. when you bought your land you only bought the land your house is sitting on right? the 1500 sq feet or whatever, i bet you own more than you think, you should look up the deed to the property. Many cities do have rights to the dirt underneath your house/land though, depending on how your property deed is worded.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: brandonb
Funny.

When I started to remodel my home, my neighbhor who we never got along with the last 25 years decided to call the city on us daily (inspectors office) and the guy would have to come out to verify we had a permit for construction, and to verify we were doing things ok. Basically to harrass us. We filed a tresspassing order on her (because she'd come to the house and harrass the handyman preventing him from working). The policeman said he couldn't give her a trespassing order because it was within her right to call the city on a daily basis to harrass us by proxy.

I guess its open to interpretation.

They couldn't give her a trespassing order because, even though you think your property extends to the street curb, it only stops at your frontdoor. The city owns your frontyard.

Internet legal opinions, gotta love 'em. Worth the paper they are written on.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: brandonb

Internet legal opinions, gotta love 'em. Worth the paper they are written on.

what paper?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: Thump553

Internet legal opinions, gotta love 'em. Worth the paper they are written on.

what paper?

nothing gets by you

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

But borough officials argue that Mr. Pappert's complaints did cross a line. Although his voice mail message to Ms. Collins didn't explicitly threaten her or use any obscenities, it had a "threatening tone," said Richard Ferris, the borough solicitor

Oh no the old mans "tone" was scary. We need to lock him up. :roll:

Man, that's a pile of crap. I hope they get sued and lose big

Then I hope they're voted out of office.

Fern

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

But borough officials argue that Mr. Pappert's complaints did cross a line. Although his voice mail message to Ms. Collins didn't explicitly threaten her or use any obscenities, it had a "threatening tone," said Richard Ferris, the borough solicitor

Oh no the old mans "tone" was scary. We need to lock him up. :roll:

Man, that's a pile of crap. I hope they get sued and lose big

Then I hope they're voted out of office.

Fern

:thumbsup:

A load of crap indeed. If the guy threatened her or called her at all hours of the night or something, then fine, but otherwise, he should be well within his freedom of speech rights.