A Memo to Manalapan's Career Politicians Regarding Who & What Has Rights

Memo: To Manalapan's Career Politicians
From: DaTruthSquad
RE: First Amendment Rights

It seems Manalapan's Politburo isn't alone in their "deny-at-taxpayer-expense" First Amendment trashing. Lawrence Township didn't take a blogger, or a writer, or a speaker, or an anonymous commenter to court demanding to take their free speech away and flush it down da toilet. In fact, they didn't even take a person to court.

Instead, da politicians of Lawrence Township hauled a 10-foot inflatable rat into court, and demanded that non-living, non-eating, full-of-air but not breathing rat have its free speech taken away -- despite da absolute fact it never said even one word!

Da rat is used by a union during protests, and da town felt da union didn't have da right to have da non-speaking rat used in a protest. Da town protested, and da union took them to court, and da town took them to court, and all da way to da NJ Supreme Court! Yes - you da taxpayer paid for a case of a town wanting to take away a 10-foot inflatable rat's rights!!!!!!

Somebody who apparently gets it, one of da judges, wrote, "The Court also has concerns that the ordinance is overly broad. Ordinances that foreclose an entire medium of expression will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling governmental interest. The Lawrence Township sign ordinance is overly broad because it has almost completely foreclosed a unique and important means of communication. Non-verbal, eye-catching symbolic speech represents a form of expression designed to reach a large number of people. The Township’s elimination of an entire medium of expression without a readily available alternative renders the ordinance overbroad."

In effect, even a 10-foot inflatable rat in New Jersey has free speech!

In Manalapan - twice in da last 2 years - both current career politicians and a former longtime politician have taken on da First Amendment, but these cases aren't about an inflatable rat.

In da first case, which became known worldwide and could very well have set a legal precedent, da "Township of Manalapan vs Da Mosked Man" morphed from a "land-deal-gone-bad" lawsuit into a First Amendment case - one paid for by taxpayer dollars - and one that Manalapan's career politicians lost and lost huge. When it came time for da taxpayer-funded Manalapan Legal Dream Team to show their legal evidence as to why this blog was either owned or operated by da Mosked Man, their answers ranged from, in effect, "it could be," "it may be," and "it might be," and because they weren't sure, despite having no real evidence, they basically asked a judge to force da First Amendment into a shredding machine.

Obviously, and you can read da judge's decision here, they lost and lost huge! It's a must-read as to why da Manalapan Legal Dream Team, whether under orders or not, tried to take this blog and silence it, because it was outspoken about something it appears some folks didn't want out open in da public.

Now, there are actually some in this great nation of ours that have differing views on free speech. Despite great men and women putting their lives on da line in far away places like Mosul and the Kyber Pass, and those who gave their lives down da road at Monmouth Battlefield, there are still a certain few who claim that Freedom of Speech is something that only they can hand out, or toss on a frozen lawn.

It wasn't that long ago that the Politburo representing Manalapan, New Jersey took a blogger to court, demanding their identity, and did so without a formal vote. Their Legal Dream Team filed paperwork that was proved to be improper and unenforceable, attempted to gain information on others that would have had our Founding Fathers spitting in their graves in disgust, and used innuendo and guesses and "a mere suspicion" (da judge's own words) as their evidence -- all AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE --- and told those same taxpayers they weren't really paying for it, but we all know da real truth there.

As we all know, and da Judge's ruling affirmed it, da First Amendment a piece of toilet paper, and those heroes who shed their blood for our freedoms didn't die in vain. You can read it here for yourself:

"And that anyone [...] has a right to make their feelings clear. And they have a right not to be intimidated by the issuance of discovery requests in order to shut them down ... has a right not to be drawn into the litigation and forced to reveal identity or to impede on his or her First Amendment rights simply on a suspicion ... There’s no factual basis at this point, other than a mere suspicion for the justification ... To allow the subpoena would be undue and unjust infringement on the blogger’s First Amendment rights ... And ultimately that even if the information were obtained, it would be so remote to the actual elements of this litigation that it would not be admissible under any circumstances."

How many thousands of dollars were spent by da Politburo for this? Only they know, because as we have all learned, they refuse to divulge that information.

DaTruth is, there are some who actually believe that because some people believe they have da right to know, they should be denied because they would like to keep their "activities" hidden. They can say they run a "transparent" government, but they use that word much like a comedian uses a punch line.

Each meeting, folks walk up and ask da questions, only to return to their seats following blank stares by their elected officials, or in one case, their name mispronounced (after knowing that person for years).

There are even some who may blog, but who will even post apparent lies and accusations on this blog's comment section. Should daTruthSquad remove those posts?

Absolutely not, and they aren't removed. Why? Because of da First Amendment. Honorable men & women died so we could have that freedom. Great judges and lawyers have stood up and affirmed that freedom.

DaTruth is, blogs can have an agenda. DaTruthSquad's agenda is to seek out daTruth and expose corruption, and also expose what some in positions to inform try very hard to hide. Can newspapers have agendas? Of course they can, and at some of those newspapers, even da reporters can have hidden agendas. Former mayors, townspeople, anyone who steps forward at a Manalapan Township meeting can have an agendas, hidden or otherwise.

When there is suppression about the other side to the story, like the reports on crumb rubber fields and potential health issues, a husband of a former mayor who says "BECAUSE I HATE ITALIANS," da Mosked Man court case they always bring up but never want to discuss, events in town hall, the "Hatching" of a former county GOP Chairman, unkept election promises, and issues of Freedom of Speech - yes, as fast as da Commissar could "second that" will daTruthSquad be on da case.

And that's daTruth.