Phoenix Park Ranger Sotomayor Sued

Just shooting the Girls of NORML calendar!

This is not a commercial calendar, but rather a non-profit grassroots effort by members of NORML who are involved in political activity attempting to use our First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press to help us end the insane "war on drugs" and re-legalize marijuana.

Park Ranger Carlos Sotomayor orders us to stop shooting photographs

I should say the name written on his Park Ranger shirt was G Sotomayor and I later found out his name was Carlos Sotomayor by calling the Parks and Recreation Department.

If Park Ranger Carlos Sotomayor had bothered to think first, instead of kicking butt first and thinking last, or not at all he would have discover that our photographic activity did not require the stupid $100 permit he ordered us to get.

The Phoenix law doesn't require us to get a permit!!!

There are numerous exceptions cited in the law and non-profit groups who are not engaged in commercial photography are one of those exceptions.

Another exception to the permit requirement is that anybody shooting for news purposes is not required to get the permit. And the same goes for people exercising their free speech political rights.

And of course we qualified under all of those exceptions, and if Park Ranger Carlos Sotomayor and used his brain before shaking us down he would have figured that out not shut us down.

Many cops, like Park Ranger Carlos Sotomayor, are bullies!!!

And I suspect that is why Park Ranger Carlos Sotomayor decided to shake us down, for the fun of pushing us around, not because we needed a permit to shoot photos.

They made up the law out of thin air???

Imaginary law making guns illegal in Phoenix parks

Ricky saw a sign in a Phoenix park saying something like:

No guns allowed in park - ARS 13-xxx

Instead of making guns illegal in parks the law said something like "no littering" which had absolutely nothing to do with guns.

An imaginary law to run homeless people out of Phoenix parks

“No Shopping Carts Allowed - CC 24-26”

When you look up the law CC 24-26 you will see it says absolutely nothing about making shopping carts illegal in Phoenix city parks.

If you go to the Phoenix city code books you will see that CC 24-26 says:

Sec. 24-26. Prohibition of wheeled devices in public parks.

A. No person shall operate a skateboard, conventional or in-line roller skates, bicycle, wagon, or other wheeled vehicle or device in a public park where one or more signs are posted prohibiting such activity, or in a manner which causes injury to any person or damage to public or private property.

The law says it is illegal to operate bicycles and other wheeled devices in a reckless manner.

I guess the laying government bureaucrat who ordered the signs up saying it is illegal to have shopping carts in city parks could have posted something like:

Shopping carts are not allowed to be operated in a reckless manner - CC 24-26”

Don't get me wrong here, I am not condoning the theft of shopping carts. Stealing is wrong, and stealing shopping carts is also wrong.

But making up imaginary laws to run homeless folks out of parks is also wrong. Just as wrong as stealing the shopping carts.

An imaginary law requiring a permit to take photos in the park!!!

Philip Bradstock told me that Phoenix city code G-1403 required that people who shoot static, still photos in Phoenix parks are required to get a $100 permit to shoot the photos.

When I read Phoenix city code G-1403 I discoved that it didn't say a word about shooting static, still photos in Phoenix parks and only required a permit when films or motion pictures were being shot.

At the time I didn't think that Phoenix Film Office manager Philip Bradstock had lied to me and made up the law, I simply thought that he quoted the wrong law.

When I got back to Philip Bradstock he told me I was correct in that the Phoenix city code G-1403 didn't say a word about taking still static photos and only covered motion picture.

Philip Bradstock then give me what I suspect is one huge line of BS and said that since the law G-1403 allows him to make rules about how the law is implemented, he can totally redefine the law and make it apply to static still photos.

If you ask me that is 100 percent BS.

Initially I suspected that Philip Bradstock is just a government bureaucrat who decided make up the part about requiring a permit for static, still pictures to raise revenue for his department.

While that could be true Philip Bradstock gave me Administrative Regulation 5.42 which seems to be crated by the Phoenix City Manager on October 1, 2008.

In Administrative Regulation 5.42 or AR 5.42 as the government bureaucrats at the city of Phoenix call it, the Phoenix City Manager magically mandated that the words "motion pictures" and "television productions" now also mean "all film and digital media activities for commercial purposes, including features, television, industrial, educational, documentary, still photography, commercials and web casts".

So from Administrative Regulation 5.42 it sounds like Philip Bradstock didn't make up this imaginary law, and that the imaginary law was made up by whoever was the Phoenix City Manager on October 1, 2008.

Some real laws on taking photos in Phoenix parks

Other incidents where Phoenix police shook down people for taking photos.

More on my talk with Phoenix Film Manager Philip Bradstock

Philip Bradstock told me we only needed a permit if we were selling the photos for money. Here is what I found out from Phil Bradstock.

He also said that the city code that covers shooting photos is G-1403.

I am a bit confused on that because G-1403 only talks about shooting movies and videos. G-1403 doesn't say a word about shooting static photos.

I suspect the law which allows private citizens to take photos, but which requires private citizens who are taking fotos for "commercial use" violates the "equal protection" clause of both the US 14th Amendment and of the Arizona Constitution.

The Equal protection clause of the Arizona Constitution says:

13. Equal privileges and immunities

Section 13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I am going to file this lawsuit against Phoenix

I will be filing the lawsuit in Federal Court.

It will be a Title 42 §1983 lawsuit pretty much like the one Rodney King filed against the LAPD for beating him up. It is also pretty much the same type of lawsuit that the owners of the Phoenix New Times, Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin filed against Sheriff Joe and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas for false arrest and civil rights violations.

Here is a list of all the different versions of the lawsuit. Of course only one of these versions will be filed in Federal court.

Letters & E-mails about this issue

Here is the letter or e-mail announcing photo shoot.

When you listen to people running for office they usually give you a line of BS about how they are going to be a "public servant" and work for you the taxpayer who pays their salary.

Sadly once these jerks get elected to office they usually turn into royal rulers who no longer consider themselves the "public servant" they promised you they would be, but suddenly consider themselves "royal rulers" who are their to micromanage your life and spend you money, not to help you, but to spend it on stuff that benefits themselves and the special interest groups that helped them get elected.

I have pretty much have had that problem with all of the people that I have written emails to in the city of Phoenix government asking questions about the laws on this issue.

I had to write 2 letters to Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton before he responded to any of my letters.

It also took 2 letters to the Phoenix Police before they responded to my questions.

And as of now I have written 3 letters to the city of Phoenix Clerk who is Chris Meyer. As of yet Chris Meyer has not responded to any of my emails.

While Phil Bradstock has responded to my emails he has not given me any of the public records I requested as of now.

I still don't have a copy of the law that gives him the power to force people to pay $100 and obtain a permit to take photos in city parks.

Nor has Phil Bradstock given me a copy of the email he sent to the legal department which I asked for.

I sent him an email which contained all the information required by the Arizona Public records laws, which is A.R.S 39 §121 but he stoned walled me on that.

Phil Bradstock claim said he was not going to answer my request for public records until I filled out some silly form made up by the city of Phoenix.

Request for public records made to Phoenix

PDF files and documents related to this lawsuit

Phoenix Phone Numbers & E-mail Addresses

Salaries of all the government bureaucrats that are jerking us around

Well really we didn't need to make requests for most of the salaries, because the Arizona Republic newspapers already has made public records requests for the salaries of most government bureaucrats that work for the city of Phoenix and they are listed here on the Arizona Republic.

We were falsely arrested? Probably!

At the time the incident happened I was not sure if we had been falsely arrested, although I suspected we had been falsely arrested.

I have two reasons to believe we were falsely arrested.

First one of the people in the incident said that Park Ranger Carlos Sotomayor said he would call the cops if we didn't stop shooting our photos, and in that case we were under arrest.

Second the definition of arrest according to Black's Law Dictionary says and arrest is:

a seizure or forcible restraint

So we had been arrested because our freedom to shoot photos was restrained.

My notes on the lawsuit

Fake, bogus laws enforced in South Mountain Park

Do a request for public records on the Library abuse

PHP and SQL programs

Only 20 emails a day - that's a civil rights violation

Tiny URL for this lawsuit

Here is more on that tiny URL.

Computer geek mumbo jumbo on index.html