A Motion Filed
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Case# 18MI008940 - Dept. 42
Filled August 16, 2018
TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO:
I. CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING SPEECH AND RELIGION.
California prides itself on the fact that its constitution has always been a document of independent force and effect particularly in the area of individual liberties. In considering a free speech claim under article I, “we begin with the unquestioned proposition that the California Constitution is an independent document and its constitutional protections are separate from and not dependent upon the federal Constitution … .” (Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 365) “The state Constitution's free speech provision is ‘at least as broad’ as and in some ways is broader than the comparable provision of the federal Constitution's First Amendment.” (Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 958–959.) Unlike the First Amendment, California's free speech clause “specifies a ‘right’ to freedom of speech explicitly and not merely by implication,” “runs against … private parties as well as governmental actors” and expressly “embrace[s] all subjects.” (Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC., (2013) 58 Cal.4th 329, 340.)
The present case involves a private party, Safeway, excluding Mr. Caldeira because of the religious nature of a sign and the speech contained therein. Under the California Constitution the right of free speech explicitly applies to private parties. Therefore, the provisions of the California Constitution regarding speech, religion, and discrimination should be applied to the Safeway store in this case.
II. SHOPPING CENTERS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC FORUMS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL CONSITUTION.
In the case of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center the court held that “sections 2 and 3 of article I of the California Constitution protect speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned.” (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d899, 910). In the Robins case several high school students were collecting signatures at a privately owned shopping mall in opposition to United Nations. (Id. at 902.) A security guard approached the students and directed them to leave the premises since it was a private shopping center. However, the officer suggested the students continue their activities on a public sidewalk outside the premises of the store. (Id. at 902.)
The court reasoned in the Robins case that members of the public are rightfully on the shopping malls premises because the premises are open to the public during shopping hours. (Id. at 906.) The reasoning is that shopping centers have become public forums or a place for public gatherings as more people have migrated from rural areas to the city. The court stressed “that to prohibit expressive activity in the centers would impinge on constitutional rights beyond speech rights. Courts have long protected the right to petition as an essential attribute of governing.” (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d899, 908). Additionally, the court found that “shopping centers to which the public is invited can provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising those rights.” (Id. at 910.)
In the case of Ralphs Grocery Company, the court held “to be a public forum under our state Constitution's liberty of speech provision, an area within a shopping center must be designed and furnished in a way that induces shoppers to congregate for purposes of entertainment, relaxation, or conversation, and not merely to walk to or from a parking area, or to walk from one store to another, or to view a store's merchandise and advertising displays.” (Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (2011) 55 Cal.4th 1083.) The court went on to explain:
That reasoning is most apt in regard to shopping centers' common areas, which generally have seating and other amenities producing a congenial environment that encourages passing shoppers to stop and linger and to leisurely congregate for purposes of relaxation and conversation. By contrast, areas immediately adjacent to the entrances of individual stores typically lack seating and are not designed to promote relaxation and socializing. Instead, those areas serve utilitarian purposes of facilitating customers' entrance to and exit from the stores and also, from the stores' perspective, advertising the goods and services available within.
(Id. at 1092.)
In the present case evidence will show that Mr. Caldeira was sitting in a café area in a shopping center. The café is an open area, with seating, where members of the public gather. The store was open to the public at the time. Mr. Caldeira was in the café. Unlike the Robins case where the students were actively gathering signatures near an entrance to the store, Mr. Caldeira was sitting peacefully in the café at the store with signs which had messages regarding Christianity.
III. EXCLUSION OF MR. CALDERIA FROM THE SAFEWAY BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF HIS RELIGIOUS SPEECH IS A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
Under the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. (Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92.) Similarly, just because the entity involved is a private business they cannot discriminate against age, sex, national origin, or religion. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation and removes peaceful attempts to be served on an equal basis from the category of punishable activities. Under that statute, a place of public accommodation is defined to include one which serves or offers to serve interstate travelers. (Hamm v. Rock Hill (1964) 379 U.S. 306, 308.) The Hamm cases two defendants were convicted of trespass after a lunch sit in within a retail store. In each case the defendants entered the store, made purchases, but were refused services due to their race. (Id. at 308.)
Here Mr. Caldeira, like the plaintiffs in the Hamm case, was a lawful patron at the store. Other members of the public came up to Mr. Caldeira and expressed differing religious beliefs than him. Soon thereafter a manager from the store approached Mr. Caldeira and asked him to turn around his signs due to therein content and religious message. The store however did not exclude or remove the patrons who were engaging Mr. Caldeira in a debate. It was at this point Mr. Caldeira expressed to the store he was not going to leave because he was being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs.
Similar to the Hamm cases the defendants, were shopping at the store, and were told to leave because of their “race, color, religion or national origin.” . (Hamm v. Rock Hill (1964) 379 U.S. 306, 308.) The defendants in the Hamm cases refused to leave, claiming discrimination. Each of the defendants were arrested for trespass. However, after review by the Supreme Court of the United States and an evaluation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the cases were dismissed against the trespassers because they were discriminated against due do their “race, color, religion or national origin.” (Id., at 308.)
Here we invite the court to dismiss this case as the notice of trespass and the exclusion of Mr. Caldeira from the store is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for unlawful discrimination based on the content of speech as well as religion.
____________
Personal Testimony of Events
After being saved by Jesus and baptised in the Holy Spirit in August 2016, I gave up everything in order to be an evangelist and disciple of Christ. My own family said I had mental issues because of my faith and alienated me for my new life in Christ. I ended up being homeless after leaving a bad environment at my father's house in Yuba city. I became a Christian evangelist from April to August while working at Uber and Lyft for four months last year, but for some reason my ratings dropped and I lost my job and my car was failing at the same time. I then became homeless without a car and on the streets as a Christian evangelist, and have been since August 2017. However, I stayed with a Christian family from May 2018 to mid June 2018.
 |
| The Actual Sign |
4/25/18 - Yesterday morning on April 24, 2018, I was sitting in Safeway on Hazel and Madison, where I am a frequent customer in Sacramento. I had a large posterboard sign that said "Repent, Jesus Saves, Study Bible, Storm is Coming Rev 13." The posterboard was leaning against a wall near my seat in the Safeway Starbucks cafe, and a member of the store told me that I need to turn my sign around because they received a complaint that it was offensive. I told them that is against my Constitutional rights and my civil rights (Federal Civil Rights Act 1968). She then went and talked to her manager.
Meanwhile, I was approached by an angry woman who said the sign was offensive, and I told her that her cup was offensive to me, and to please throw it away. Making the case that its my right to have my sign just as its her right to have her coffee mug. We exchanged a few more words and then the Manager came with the first safeway woman who said I could not have my sign displayed. She told me if I turn my sign around I can stay. I told her its my constitutional right and my civil right to have freedom of religion and freedom of speech and that she would have to call the police.
The police came and made me go outside, he told me that it was considered tresspassing and that I did not have the right to exercise my religious freedom in the public dwelling place of Safeway. They told me several times that I could leave and be free but I said its my constitutional right and my civil right to practice and exercise my religious freedoms in public. They then said I was going to jail, and handcuffed me, emptied my pockets in the front of the store, throwing my stuff on the ground, and said I might not get my stuff back (which is how I survive on the streets). The officer was mocking me in the back of the police car singing a song about how I should have got a job and the two of them were laughing and being merry and playing the devil's music.
I arrived at the jail around noon, they processed me, took my shoelaces and my belt, and searched me three times, and put me in the drunk tank. I was released at midnight that day into the cold of the night with nothing but my ID. I was able to call my mom where she allowed me to stay the night, and am now trying to find a way to get my belongings back, which is all I have left in this life to survive.
Note - When I later retrieved my belongings from the Sheriff's Office in Carmichael, my Bose headphones were destroyed and my sign folded in half and my belongings searched.
After the arrest, I was left with a court date of 05/14/2018, for a misdemeanor count of trespassing and I have no money or no way to get there or survive except by my mother who lives in town. Please pray for my favor during this court hearing, if I am not raptured before then (1 Corinthians 15:52).
In a way, the trip to jail was good because I told the people in the drunk tank how I was arrested for Jesus (The Creator - 2 Corinthians 5:19) and was able to find a bible and minister and pray for a few people while there. Hallelujah! Glory to God in the highest.
I am constantly being kicked out of public dwelling places for speaking about Jesus and making signs for Jesus:
• Raley's on Howe and Fair Oaks
• 2 Starbucks on Howe and Fair Oaks
• Raley's on Madison and Hazel
• Target on College Oak and Madison
I believe this is a violation of my 1st Amendment right and the Civil Rights Act of 1962, Title II.
Parable of the Vineyard Interview
Comments
Post a Comment