GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #36 *Arrest*

[Eileen730]

Why don't they sue then?

Nothing stops the Arochis from filing a complaint, seeking a legal remedy to the demonstrations, and ultimately suing. So why don't they? If they feel that they are being harassed and that their privacy is being invaded, nothing keeps them from seeking a civil legal remedy. Yet they seem not to want to do so. We must remember that, as far as I am aware -- do correct me if I am wrong! -- that EA's attorney represents him and not his family.

IMO they don't want to sue them. There is enough tragedy to go around.
But I think its totally wrong and will get get no results.

 

[Momoffourboys]

Why don't they sue then?

Nothing stops the Arochis from filing a complaint, seeking a legal remedy to the demonstrations, and ultimately suing. So why don't they? If they feel that they are being harassed and that their privacy is being invaded, nothing keeps them from seeking a civil legal remedy. Yet they seem not to want to do so. We must remember that, as far as I am aware -- do correct me if I am wrong! -- that EA's attorney represents him and not his family.

IMO Their focus is on their son and the mess he has created. I, also, would think that funds are depleted after hiring an attorney to represent their son. Hiring their own attorney is probably not financially possible.
This is alllll JUST MY OPINION.

 

[suzyjackson]

Why don't they sue then?

Nothing stops the Arochis from filing a complaint, seeking a legal remedy to the demonstrations, and ultimately suing. So why don't they? If they feel that they are being harassed and that their privacy is being invaded, nothing keeps them from seeking a civil legal remedy. Yet they seem not to want to do so. We must remember that, as far as I am aware -- do correct me if I am wrong! -- that EA's attorney represents him and not his family.

If the picketing is illegal than would they even need to sue them, woudn't they be able to report it to LE and let them stop it?

If it's illegal how is it still taking place the jail, wouldn't they have shut that down after the first day?

I'm still not sure if I think it's a good idea but the fact that it's still going on suggests to me that it might not be illegal.


JMO

 

[daisytrail]

IMO Their focus is on their son and the mess he has created. I, also, would think that funds are depleted after hiring an attorney to represent their son. Hiring their own attorney is probably not financially possible.
This is alllll JUST MY OPINION.

But if EA's lawyer is so concerned, perhaps he could volunteer his services to them or find someone who would.

 

[SteveS]

Why don't they sue then?

Nothing stops the Arochis from filing a complaint, seeking a legal remedy to the demonstrations, and ultimately suing. So why don't they?

While anyone can sue anyone else for anything, it's expensive and time-consuming, and it's a waste of resources if you don't have a high probability that you're going to win. And in this matter, the Arochi's probably don't have a case, frankly.

This activity is NOT illegal. The law journal article referenced earlier isn't an article about the law at all - don't be deceived. It's a person's opinion on how they think local regulations should be CHANGED, and restrictions placed to ban such activity. But as Supreme Court Justice Brennan noted, protests and picketing, as long as they are peaceful, are "not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper."

It should also be mentioned that this sort of action has been adjudicated before in the Texas courts, and after a long involved process in which one court said one thing and a different one said another (and the plaintiffs were spending boatloads of money on attorneys, no doubt), the "damages" in the lawsuit were eventually tossed. The lawsuit accomplished nothing.

The Arochi's can tilt at the windmill here and expend their savings if they wish, but imo it would be a futile and costly mistake. And they have a much easier answer - if they really want the protests to stop, walk out the door and talk to the Morris family, family to family. Try to resolve the issue, face to face.

 

[daisytrail]

If the picketing is illegal than would they even need to sue them, woudn't they be able to report it to LE and let them stop it?

If it's illegal how is it still taking place the jail, wouldn't they have shut that down after the first day?

I'm still not sure if I think it's a good idea but the fact that it's still going on suggests to me that it might not be illegal.


JMO

As to your first and second questions, I have wondered that myself. Perhaps they have not complained to LE, but only to EA's lawyer and, since he is a lawyer, shouldn't he help the Arochis? If he is not willing to do something about this protesting that he clearly thinks is so wrong, then maybe he is only speaking out in hopes of creating public backlash against the demonstrators. Maybe EA's lawyer's motive has nothing to do with EA's family so much as it has to do with manipulating public perceptions. I do apologize to all if I sound terribly cynical about the motives of defense attorneys. We really could not do with out them. The stage needs all its players. However, one only needs to read Hamlet to know that an assemblage of players does not always work out so well. There can be unintended consequences on either side.

 

[daisytrail]

While anyone can sue anyone else for anything, it's expensive and time-consuming, and it's a waste of resources if you don't have a high probability that you're going to win. And in this matter, the Arochi's probably don't have a case, frankly.

This activity is NOT illegal. The law journal article referenced earlier isn't an article about the law at all - don't be deceived. It's a person's opinion on how they think local regulations should be CHANGED, and restrictions placed to ban such activity. But as Supreme Court Justice Brennan noted, protests and picketing, as long as they are peaceful, are "not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper."

It should also be mentioned that this sort of action has been adjudicated before in the Texas courts, and after a long involved process in which one court said one thing and a different one said another (and the plaintiffs were spending boatload :angel:ds of money on attorneys, no doubt), the "damages" in the lawsuit were eventually tossed. The lawsuit accomplished nothing.

The Arochi's can tilt at the windmill here and expend their savings if they wish, but imo it would be a futile and costly mistake. And they have a much easier answer - if they really want the protests to stop, walk out the door and talk to the Morris family, family to family. Try to resolve the issue, face to face.

Thanks for the info. Sunday afternoons loom loooong for someone who is playing hooky from things she ought to be doing. I am only a bit player on this particular stage. I appreciate the substance of your posts. :angel:

 

[MzOpinion8d]

#Can'tStop #Won'tStop


#ComeHomeChristina

No offense meant to you, but I hate that this slogan has been chosen for Christina, because it's lyrics to a song Miley Cyrus did that is about using Molly and partying. I'm sure the people who started using it have no idea or they wouldn't have used it!

 

[MzOpinion8d]

The thing is we say it worked but did it? what did it do? Did it hinder LE in any way? They already knew all this stuff..
LE does not make what they know public.

LE may have already known it, but it made their case even stronger now since he spewed his lies in recorded interviews to be broadcast to the public.

[modsnip]

 

[Z&BsMommy]

No offense meant to you, but I hate that this slogan has been chosen for Christina, because it's lyrics to a song Miley Cyrus did that is about using Molly and partying. I'm sure the people who started using it have no idea or they wouldn't have used it!

That's not my intention.. I can't stand Miley Cyrus, loved her daddy though sorry for the OT..
As for the picketing, if not illegal, and not hurting anyone, I'm behind it %100.. As a mother, I would do whatever it takes.. ALL JMO!!

#ComeHomeChristina

 

[jennapuppy]

Based on what I've read, residential picketing is lawful unless there are state laws or local ordinances prohibiting it. Dallas is the only city in TX with such an ordinance, according to these sources.
http://www.aclutx.org/2011/02/02/free-speech-and-the-right-to-protest/
http://www.democrats.com/right-to-protest

JMO

 

[txyorkiemom]

Thanks for the info. Sunday afternoons loom loooong for someone who is playing hooky from things she ought to be doing. I am only a bit player on this particular stage. I appreciate the substance of your posts. :angel:

I am not the deceptive kind in this commentary .. I read many things as well.

Here is more info to peruse :

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19931365853SW2d512_11323.xml/VALENZUELA v. AQUINO
Because of the vital privacy interests at stake, I would hold that the trial court's injunction is a valid restriction of the Petitioners' right to engage in expressive conduct. Individuals are not required to become captives in their own homes, with no "recourse of escape" from intrusive, unwanted speech. Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 479, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 2299, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); see also Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. at 487, 108 S.Ct. at 2504; Klebanoff, 552 A.2d at 679. Unlike the half-mile prohibition previously set aside, 763 S.W.2d at 45, the present 400-foot prohibition, measured from the center of the residential lot, is not so broad as to preclude all picketing or other activities in the surrounding neighborhood. Nor does this prohibition foreclose the Petitioners' right to express their views through alternate channels. The injunction does, however, preclude picketing focused on the Aquino household. Because such picketing interferes with the Aquinos' right of privacy, it is not protected under either the Texas or the United States Constitutions. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. at 486-87, 108 S.Ct. at 2503-04; Garcia v. Gray, 507 F.2d 539, 544-45 (10th Cir.1974); Degregory v. Giesing, 427 F.Supp. 910, 915 (D.Conn.1977); Hall v. Hawaiian Pineapple Co., 72 F.Supp. 533, 537 (D.Haw.1947); Dayton Women's Health Center v. Enix, 68 Ohio App.3d 579, 589 N.E.2d 121, 127 (1991); Town of Barrington v. Blake, 568 A.2d 1015, 1020-21 (R.I.1990); Klebanoff, 552 A.2d at 679; Wauwatosa v. King, 49 Wis.2d 398, 182 N.W.2d 530, 536-37 (1971).

But Texas law has also extended broad protection to the right of privacy. In the seminal Texas case, this court noted that the right of privacy has been defined as "the right of an individual to be left alone, to live a life of seclusion." Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 859 (Tex.1973) (upholding homeowner's recovery based on illegal wiretap at his residence). So important is this right in Texas that, independent of the federal constitution, the Texas Constitution protects personal privacy from unreasonable intrusion. Texas State Employees Union v. Texas Dep't of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 746 S.W.2d 203, 205 (Tex.1987).

One important function of the right of privacy has been to preserve the sanctity of the home. This court has long viewed the household as a sanctuary—"a place of residence for the family, where the independence and security of a home may be enjoyed," free from "harassment and disturbance." Iken v. Olenick, 42 Tex. 195, 198 (1875); see also Porter v. Southwestern Public Service Co., 489 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (zoning ordinances may be used to protect residential area from free exercise of property rights). This view has been central to our privacy jurisprudence; for example, in describing the Texas Constitution's protection of privacy, this court noted that two provisions in our bill of rights "guarantee the sanctity of the individual's home and person against unreasonable intrusion." Texas State Employees Union, 746 S.W.2d at 205 (discussing Tex. Const. art. I, §§ 9, 25). Accordingly, Texas courts have viewed harassment in one's residence as an intrusion upon seclusion in violation of the right of privacy. See Donnel v. Lara, 703 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

 

[SeeAlice]

Does anyone have a link to who all was in this group of 9 people?

http://m.starlocalmedia.com/allenam...862-9de4-11e4-b48e-5765cf2b7e65.html?mode=jqm

Thanks.

 

[txyorkiemom]

While anyone can sue anyone else for anything, it's expensive and time-consuming, and it's a waste of resources if you don't have a high probability that you're going to win. And in this matter, the Arochi's probably don't have a case, frankly.

This activity is NOT illegal. The law journal article referenced earlier isn't an article about the law at all - don't be deceived. It's a person's opinion on how they think local regulations should be CHANGED, and restrictions placed to ban such activity. But as Supreme Court Justice Brennan noted, protests and picketing, as long as they are peaceful, are "not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper."

It should also be mentioned that this sort of action has been adjudicated before in the Texas courts, and after a long involved process in which one court said one thing and a different one said another (and the plaintiffs were spending boatloads of money on attorneys, no doubt), the "damages" in the lawsuit were eventually tossed. The lawsuit accomplished nothing.

The Arochi's can tilt at the windmill here and expend their savings if they wish, but imo it would be a futile and costly mistake. And they have a much easier answer - if they really want the protests to stop, walk out the door and talk to the Morris family, family to family. Try to resolve the issue, face to face.

BBM I think it would be fair for all here to read and absorb all 40 PDF pages and form their own opinion on what they feel is relevant to Targeted Residential Picketing -. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3230&context=dlj

For the record- I never said anything about damages ...that is not my words.

The Arochi's do not need to subject themselves to anything..fact is ..it is their door and property.
They have already said they know nothing. There is nothing to resolve.

 

[daisytrail]

I am not the deceptive kind in this commentary .. I read many things as well.

Here is more info to peruse :

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19931365853SW2d512_11323.xml/VALENZUELA v. AQUINO
Because of the vital privacy interests at stake, I would hold that the trial court's injunction is a valid restriction of the Petitioners' right to engage in expressive conduct. Individuals are not required to become captives in their own homes, with no "recourse of escape" from intrusive, unwanted speech. Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 479, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 2299, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); see also Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. at 487, 108 S.Ct. at 2504; Klebanoff, 552 A.2d at 679. Unlike the half-mile prohibition previously set aside, 763 S.W.2d at 45, the present 400-foot prohibition, measured from the center of the residential lot, is not so broad as to preclude all picketing or other activities in the surrounding neighborhood. Nor does this prohibition foreclose the Petitioners' right to express their views through alternate channels. The injunction does, however, preclude picketing focused on the Aquino household. Because such picketing interferes with the Aquinos' right of privacy, it is not protected under either the Texas or the United States Constitutions. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. at 486-87, 108 S.Ct. at 2503-04; Garcia v. Gray, 507 F.2d 539, 544-45 (10th Cir.1974); Degregory v. Giesing, 427 F.Supp. 910, 915 (D.Conn.1977); Hall v. Hawaiian Pineapple Co., 72 F.Supp. 533, 537 (D.Haw.1947); Dayton Women's Health Center v. Enix, 68 Ohio App.3d 579, 589 N.E.2d 121, 127 (1991); Town of Barrington v. Blake, 568 A.2d 1015, 1020-21 (R.I.1990); Klebanoff, 552 A.2d at 679; Wauwatosa v. King, 49 Wis.2d 398, 182 N.W.2d 530, 536-37 (1971).

But Texas law has also extended broad protection to the right of privacy. In the seminal Texas case, this court noted that the right of privacy has been defined as "the right of an individual to be left alone, to live a life of seclusion." Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 859 (Tex.1973) (upholding homeowner's recovery based on illegal wiretap at his residence). So important is this right in Texas that, independent of the federal constitution, the Texas Constitution protects personal privacy from unreasonable intrusion. Texas State Employees Union v. Texas Dep't of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 746 S.W.2d 203, 205 (Tex.1987).

One important function of the right of privacy has been to preserve the sanctity of the home. This court has long viewed the household as a sanctuary—"a place of residence for the family, where the independence and security of a home may be enjoyed," free from "harassment and disturbance." Iken v. Olenick, 42 Tex. 195, 198 (1875); see also Porter v. Southwestern Public Service Co., 489 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (zoning ordinances may be used to protect residential area from free exercise of property rights). This view has been central to our privacy jurisprudence; for example, in describing the Texas Constitution's protection of privacy, this court noted that two provisions in our bill of rights "guarantee the sanctity of the individual's home and person against unreasonable intrusion." Texas State Employees Union, 746 S.W.2d at 205 (discussing Tex. Const. art. I, §§ 9, 25). Accordingly, Texas courts have viewed harassment in one's residence as an intrusion upon seclusion in violation of the right of privacy. See Donnel v. Lara, 703 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

It is puzzling that you replied to my post to SteveS thanking him for the substance in his posts. What post of mine were you actually meaning to address? And what points in it were of particular interest to you? If I am wrong and you are actually responding to my little snippet, what is your meaning? I am confused now.

 

[SteveS]

I think it would be fair for all here to read and absorb all 40 PDF pages and form their own opinion on what they feel is relevant to Targeted Residential Picketing -. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3230&context=dlj

It would also be instructive to note, before anyone wades through this article, that it ...
1 is merely a biased opinion piece (not an objective view of the matter and the law),
2 is about what cities perhaps can do, not about citizen choices in areas where no prohibition exists,
3 was written 20 years ago (!)
4 was a 2nd year law STUDENT's article, not even opinion written by an actual lawyer, and
5 is way out of date legally, since it does not reflect anything at all about the evolution of the law on this topic in the last 20 years.

In summary, as long as the Morris family stays within the limits specified under law (and, from what I know, they are), then they are free to legally protest the Arochi family's ongoing inaction. As for whether they want to invest their time and energy in that way, in hopes it will pay off, is entirely up to them.

[Disclaimer: I'm not providing anyone a legal opinion above, just my personal observations.]

 

[SeriouslySearching]

The time and energy wasted on picketing could be used to look for Christina. She isn't home yet and that should be everyone's first priority. Standing on a sidewalk waving signs and chanting whatever is not bringing her home. His parents are not going to bring her home. EA is not going to bring her home. The people who can bring her home are the ones holding the signs. Be productive. Be Christina's heros who lead the charge searching for Christina.

 

[Eileen730]

I agree! SS
I think she is right there.
The missing are usually found in places already searched but they were missed.
Go back and search these areas again.

She could be right there.

 

[Kensie]

Subscribing!!! Hoping that Christina is found very soon.

 

[txyorkiemom]

It would also be instructive to note, before anyone wades through this article, that it ...
1 is merely a biased opinion piece (not an objective view of the matter and the law),
2 is about what cities perhaps can do, not about citizen choices in areas where no prohibition exists,
3 was written 20 years ago (!)
4 was a 2nd year law STUDENT's article, not even opinion written by an actual lawyer, and
5 is way out of date legally, since it does not reflect anything at all about the evolution of the law on this topic in the last 20 years.

In summary, as long as the Morris family stays within the limits specified under law (and, from what I know, they are), then they are free to legally protest the Arochi family's ongoing inaction. As for whether they want to invest their time and energy in that way, in hopes it will pay off, is entirely up to them.

[Disclaimer: I'm not providing anyone a legal opinion above, just my personal observations.]

JMO~
Why in the world is there any reason to try to persuade or cause doubt about the Duke Law Review Journal? It seems to me that all free men and women can formulate their own opinion with regards to various forms of legal guidelines -case law and information available. Even if it is a content information piece or a 239yr old historical document that sets the floor & ceilings on the framework of our life,liberty and rights to all.

The Morris family can protest & picket all they want in the general public marketplace for all I care.
But to invade a single residence and target The Family of the accused is crossing the line again and again.
The picketers have had more than "Fair Opportunity" to get their message & grievances heard since Oct 2014.
via live picketing,Social Media,Broadcasted News Outlets,Print Publications and Billboards.
It is unfortunate that the demands and questions have unreasonable expectations for answers that are simply not there in October 2014 nor are they able to answer the same redundant and obtrusive questions in February 2015.

1st Amendment has limits and duty.
Sorry folks ..but Right to Assemble & Protest in a residential area with sole intent directed repeatedly at 1 private home is NOT legal. It actually is an actionable cause when the sole objective and purpose continued over and over to intimidate -harass and cause Infliction of Emotional Distress.

I am not for ANY Home Picketing or Invasion of Privacy - I was against it in 2014 and still stand opposed.
Just as I would not be for any one picketing the Morris home if roles were reversed.