I'm not a fan of CNN Reporter Jim Acosta, so I won't normally equate the two of us together in any way if I can help it.  But his recent brush with Donald Trump, and its conclusion thus far, is eerily similar to a brush I had with Ludington City Hall many years ago and its conclusion.  

For those of you living in a cave, you may not be familiar with this encounter at a recent press conference, where President Trump called on him, and then it escalated quite a bit.  Here's a look at what happened:

Now personally, I think Acosta was way out of line throughout this whole exchange, and that President Trump handled it rather well, especially in chiding him at the end for being rude and not giving up the microphone after several questions were asked and answered, albeit not like Jim wanted them to be answered with his limited perspective-- a trait that does not usually allow for good journalism.  

After behaving that way, it was not too surprising that the White House did a rare thing, they revoked his White House press pass the same day, November 7, considering it a privilege that was revocable.  The guards at the White House gate would not allow him to pass on to what has been his bailiwick.  Backed by other news organizations, CNN filed a lawsuit in order to get those credentials back for their reporter.  

And the judge, a Trump appointee, ruled on Friday against his appointer, in a limited ruling not based on the First Amendment, but rather the Fifth Amendment, which binds the federal government not to deprive any “person . . . of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”.  

The judge suggests that revoking a reporter’s press pass may or may not violate the Constitution—but revoking it without providing a reason, and a chance for the reporter to contest that action, does.  He referred to precedent, likely  Sherrill v. Knight, which concerned Robert Sherrill, the cantankerous Washington editor of The Nation, who was denied a press pass to the White House even though he had congressional press credentials. The Secret Service at first refused to explain the refusal, then finally alleged that the denial was based on reports of a couple of fistfights the cantankerous writer had gotten into during his days as a Southern newsman. 

Neither Robert Sherrill nor anybody else was entitled to White House access as a matter of First Amendment law. But the White House had “voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom.” Once government made that choice, “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press … requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

For that reason, the Secret Service could not deny Sherrill or anyone else a pass without making public its rules. And if the Service wanted to deny anyone a pass based on those rules, it had to give the rejected applicant “notice of the factual basis for denial, an opportunity … to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial.”

Ludington and Ludington's most challenging journalist had an extremely similar incident happen back in 2011.  On February 14, 2011, I published a scathing expose of the Ludington DDA granting a large--potentially $150,000-- sign contract with future councilor, Nick Tykoski (and fiancé of the DDA's mover and shaker, Heather Venzke) where Tykoski did over $15,000 in work before any bids were even considered (and the crooked process guaranteed Tykoski the rest).  This followed four other articles critical towards Ludington's DDA and other reports about other shenanigans going on at city hall, articles firmly supported by public records received by me through FOIA.

The next meeting, a new Workplace Safety Policy (WSP) was passed after it had been created over the previous weeks by LPD Chief Barnett and City Attorney Wilson, with collaboration by John Shay and aforementioned Heather Venzke.  I had never attended a city council meeting, and had only went to city hall to pick up or inspect FOIA requests in a very respectful and polite manner, but I was summarily banned from stepping foot on their property by this policy when I was served the day after that evening council meeting. 

Much like Acosta found he was barred after hearing it from a gateman, I was personally served a "letter of trespass" that stated I could not go on city hall grounds, and if I did, I could/would be arrested for trespassing.  There was no hearing to discover why I was being banned, I just was.  The City of Ludington Daily News ran a press release for their masters, saying that I was perceived as threatening (by somebody I had never formally met or contacted).  The allegations cost me my job that I had at the time, out at Oxychem, where Mayor John Henderson had the power of hiring or firing of my boss, a fact I heard ominously repeated from that boss in my last week of work.

Having not the resources of CNN, I retained an attorney and he filed a federal lawsuit concentrating on the City's violation of my First Amendment rights and among other things, my Fifth Amendment rights.  Had that went to trial, the judge would have undoubtedly ruled for me on the Fifth Amendment issue at least, for the WSP offered no rights of the accused to protect their ability to go to two public places his taxes and fees were supporting, nor defend themselves against unproven allegations.  

So even though I settled primarily for monetary compensation, the conditions of that settlement included changing this policy so that anybody in the future who is unfortunate enough to get a letter of trespass placed on them by city officials, will get a hearing and what amounts to due process.  The White House has already indicated it will change their policy so as to prevent issues like this in the future, but afford the accused due process before cancelling privileges, if necessary.

Jim Acosta was banned from the White House for 9 days, I was banned from the city hall for 14 months.  Jim Acosta railed against a White House he perceived as corrupted on camera, I railed against a city hall perceived as corrupt on a website.  We both prevailed in a judicial setting for having our due process rights violated.  The question to ask is whether Jim Acosta will become a bigger 'pain in the ass' now that he has went through this process, like I did.  I bet he will.

Views: 289

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I watched that press meeting and thought at the time Acosta was way out of line. I said to the wife he should try that at the Ludington council meeting, he would have been lead out by the chief, in no time flat. It looked to me that Trump was looking for some security to do something but no one came forward. What ever amendment you choose to classify it as, this press conference was way out of control. The reporters should be ashamed of the way they acted. In the end there seemed to be a whole lot of reporters that didn't get to ask a question. If I was Trump, Acosta would be from now on one of those. This brings the saying freedom of the press to a whole new level.

Stump, you know that the city council has never allowed the public to actually ask questions and expect an answer.  So if Acosta came here, he could ask all the questions he wanted, and get the same (and only) answer at the end that all of us verbose people get from the mayor:  "I'm sorry, but your time is up."

And you can drop the "I'm sorry, but" from that answer if you're a pain in the ass.

In the case at Ludington City Hall, the evil has succeeded, the wrong has been rewarded and still has her job and I'm sure she was instrumental in having Shay slap the Workplace Safety act on you. Waiting for justice to happen.

I was referring to "YOUR TIME IS UP "  What would happen if a person just kept on and on and on at the council meeting  while the Mayor kept saying sit down your time is up over and over?

Probably something similar that happened to Mark A Adams, remember him?

A couple of months later, the felony and misdemeanor charges were dropped against him, one can probably figure that his arm was in a sling due to the treatment of the small corps of police officers removing him from the township's podium, who tried to get resisting charges against him.  This incident had coverage by a lot of news agencies including Fox and the Huff Post, but it looks as if Adams has avoided controversy since.

Chief Barnett likes inertia too much to have this happen in Ludington, has no immediate backup, and being that the range of a taser is only 15 feet, you might just see him pull his gun if this happened in Ludington (presuming the speaker wasn't 100% friendly with the City).

I see Acosta and you as 2 completely different scenarios. Acosta disrupted a meeting and was asked to stop. He did not and suffered the proper consequences. I think the judge was totally wrong. All those news agencies know the rules and what will happen if they break them.

Your case was a matter of being denied access because of false accusations which supposedly  involved actions nobody saw or heard. Anyone, no matter if they are representative of the press or not knows they will be removed from public meetings for disruptive behavior. 

THE WHITE PREPARES FOR ACOSTA'S RETURN

The scenarios, underlying facts, and the person involved are much different, but the underlying legal principles in both cases which make what was done almost universally reviled and unmistakably against due process is eerily similar.  

The guys in power are disturbed by a journalist, they revoke the journalists' ability to set foot at a public building, the journalists seeks remedy for the loss of Fifth and First Amendment rights, prior to any hearing the two parties mutually settle on the guys-in-power amending existing policy which lack due process guarantees.  

Even journalists who believe Acosta is a grandstanding, blithering self-inflated idiot, thinks that a dangerous line was crossed by the White House in doing this action (even if they feel it justified) in a seemingly arbitrary and capricious manner.

Too funny Willy! (About the high chair). In far hindsight, I believe X's being thrown out stemmed from false accusations (fake news) that he was staring at Tykoski's house or looking at public records of its sale, because they had nothing else to accuse him of. The real basis of accusations and "hit" on X was in uncovering Tykoski's unethical--conflict of interest receipt of no-bid contracts from the DDA (for which engaged Venske was secretary). $10k here and there might have gone unnoticed, but the $150k gold lettered signs went overboard. But that's how criminals work, start stealing small and then get emboldened to steal bigger.

This has been what? Eight years ago? And the lawsuit settlement is over and done and maybe should be put out of mind, but I'm sure it is hard to, seeing the Mercedes mentality still at work and buying bigger and better Mercefes. It was a hard settlement, I'm sure, X, but you should have asked for some pink slips to be delivered in the settlement, and you didn't get paid enough for the harassment and subsequent denial of being able to seek political office. But thanks for requesting that the WSP not happen to any other citizen likewise. Thank you for taking the hit.

 What President had the press room put in ? I don't recall a lot of informational meetings inside.

Trump should build a "crying room", the kind in use at many churches for whining children, so reporters such as Acosta can sit by themselves if they become disruptive. This would allow Acosta to remain at the press conference and even ask questions. If he becomes belligerent his mike can be turned off but can still be able to collect information when Trump answers other reporters questions.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service