We love democracy, so we’re offering Arizona Presidential Primary candidates the opportunity to share their views here on The Range. Today, we’re sharing the unedited perspective of Simon Bollander, Republican candidate for President.
Simon Bollander the adminstrator of Worlds Masterminds is extremely upset in the way our Country is managed. You will not believe this I Love the law proffession & if I had a second life I would be an attorney. Law is fun & is the foundation of our great country. But when it comes to our country being violated by our Congress that is of 70 percent of law degrees. Im very angry.
Our Congress has created a deficit that is literally destroying our precious American system. Run a way spending is an insult to the American people. Example: Obama gives away hundreds of billions to give away programs to unemployed/banks/ large wall street firms etc. Instead of creating massive job programs that would create a healthy system.a Healthy Employment base would generate income by payroll taxes/ taxes paid on consumer goods Perchased/ income taxes etc. Congress & the Presidencey is so mismanaged that I scream in vain. ” for God Sakes America can’t you see the problem we have”. That is lawyers “can’t manage or lead us to a productive economy. Da! Maybe they haven’t learned through there schooling is how to manage a trillion dollar budjet. Or create the accountability of bringing in revenue to erase our multi trillion dollar debt. They don’t know what to do. Yes! they make laws after laws. Yes they have congessional hearings. They are dam good at these 2 things. But thats it. That all they know in what to do. Its like asking a plumber to fix aCar engine.
Get the picture. Now what we must do is bring to light this problem. Create legislature to have committees to arrange in how to replace Congress men & women. We need our Universities to produce in mass. Top Marketing experts/business majors/ economic majors to eventually work into our system. A good act to follow is possably assigning one of these experts to be affixed to a given Congress member. Eventually our system will bend in recuiting this element to the political parties to be elected into office. More or less what we would have is a well trained individual acting as a consultant with each member of Congress.They would attend all functions of the Congress persons business life. A fix on the system would take approximetly Four years. What I can see immediately is an approach to balance out the budjet to perfection. Eliminate runaway spending by massive program cuts/ creative finiance such as international lotteries/creation of income by selling or leasing land properties/ Create more tariffs on china/ expand tariff base/ Government housing & industry on the few hundred closed military bases. I could go on four hours on what we could do. But let that area of concern up to the trained consultants hired to create this mode.
This entire process in where Government has to be Productive is entitled The “GREEN COALITION”.
Part of this coalition is that there are candidates who don’t have law degress that have some excellent brain power. At this moment we have 10 candidates or more on the Republican ticket That are labeled as unknowns. They are labeled unknowns because the political parties shut these American citizens down. Not invited to debated media events nor any rallies. There rights are being violated to the highest of degree. There freedom of movement is totally shut down. When the American voter is deprived to see or hear a potential elected official with a valid campain program. Both the American voter & potential elected official are being violated to a
Point of down right tryrany. These are grounds for the highest Court of Law to behold such & rule on such. Then with due process set forth the plaintiffs would receive an amount of 100 million dollars for injuries of being deprived of getting elelcted into office. Then too/ there civil rights of free speech & freedom of movement become restored. Submitted in the best of faith on this 10th day of February in the great year of 2012. The year that the mayan calender goes bust.
This article appears in Feb 9-15, 2012.
Michael S. Levinson
8601 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St. N.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
727-576-1813
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Michael S. Levinson, pro se, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
) COMPLAINT
) AMENDED
Kelly McCullough, Manager ) CV 12-231 PHX-DKD
PBS TV Channel 8, Phoenix )
)
Jack Gibson, Station Manager )
PBS Station KUAT-TV 6, Tucson )
)
ABC Television Network )
Public Broadcasting System )
NBC Universal Television Network )
CBS Television Network )
FOX Television Network )
CNN Cable News Network )
MOTION
AMENDED COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF PRAYS COURT GRANT LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER COURT ACCEPT AMENDED COMPLAINT
Presidential Primary Election Issue
Emergency Expedited Review Requested
Unconstitutional Act of Congress Challenged
Three-Judge Court Requested
Jurisdiction
1.) The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases arising under the Constitution and federal laws. U.S. Constitution and federal statutes are being violated. The only venue for relief is federal district court, in this case, the actual district where First Amendment violations now occur.
Statement of Case / Complaint & Argument
2.) Plaintiff is a candidate for the presidency of United States, on the Republican party ballot for primary nomination in the State of Arizona, the Republican primary to be held February 28, 2012.
3-a.) Plaintiff has tendered reasonable requests for access of broadcast networks ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, and CNN, herein joined in this complaint against PBS Channel 8, Phoenix, and PBS Channel 6, Tucson, where Plaintiff has most recently requested time for broadcasting a substantive, issue laden two hour speech, on behalf of Plaintiff’s candidacy for U.S. president.
3-b.) Plaintiff’s access request (Exhibit a-1), was received by PBS Channel 8, January 20, 2012, and Exhibit (a) Channel KUAT-TV 6, January 31, 2012.
4.) Mr. Kelly McCullough, the Channel 8 Manager has responded to Plaintiff’s reasonable request via electronic mail, (Exhibit (b) ) and arbitrarily rejected Plaintiff’s access request, claiming PBS Channel 8 is not obligated to public interest obligation, according to 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7).
5.) Defendant Jack Gibson, station manager of Channel KUAT- TV 6, Tucson, has joined PBS Channel 8 response to Plaintiff access request, his, an unjustifiable arbitrary, unreasonable response, herein Exhibit (c).
6.) The above cited broadcast networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, FOX, and CNN Cable News Network, defendants complained against, simply ignore Plaintiff’s requests, or upon seeing the envelope carries the return address, “Michael S. Levinson4President Campaign Committee,” refuse to accept U.S. Postal delivery, theirs, “discrimination” against a presidential candidate. See Exhibit D, photocopies of unopened, refused U.S. Postal deliveries from ABC Television and NBC Universal.
7.) Notwithstanding the defendant PBS stations’ reliance in their responses on an amendment to 47 U.S.C., § 312(a)(7), in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, PUBLIC LAW 106–554—APPENDIX D 114 STAT. 2763A–251, Sec. 148, Part a), challenged herein for unconstitutionality, the whole PBS network—on Plaintiff’s own information and belief, all of their independent affiliated stations are advance-committed to airing a “debate” of republican candidates, scheduled to air live from the PBS station in Portland Oregon, March 19, 2012. The republican debate schedule, Exhibit (e), is public information, available online.
8-a.) Plaintiff, on the Arizona Primary ballot; is entitled under well settled electronic U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) First Amendment broadcast statute, applicable to candidates for president, whether on the ballot or as write-in candidate, to exercise his First Amendment right to deliver a live broadcast speech, to inform the electorate of his campaign, and to advocate his candidacy for U.S. president.
8-b.) Plaintiff’s First Amendment affirmative right is arbitrarily denied by television broadcasters and Cable News Network complained against.
9.) Plaintiff is entitled to the same broadcast opportunities afforded other candidates, entitled to exercise Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to deliver broadcast speech over the U.S. non-commercial, tax payer funded network of PBS stations.
10-a.) Plaintiff’s constitutional right to broadcast political speech is not contingent on an invitation to appear in some broadcaster’s sponsored program. Discrimination by PBS stations’, their arbitrary denial of Plaintiff’s access request to deliver his own political speech is not permitted, grounds for court to ORDER broadcasters, upon their access refusals, to cease and desist TV broadcasting, that ORDER, forewarning the required penalty: license for TV broadcasting revoked. Violation of a bona fide candidate’s First Amendment affirmative 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) right is not permitted.
10-b.) We find, in the benchmark CBS, INC. v. FCC, at Pg. 378:
§ 312 (a) (7) focuses on the individual “legally qualified candidate” seeking air time to advocate “his candidacy,” and guarantees him “reasonable access” enforceable by specific governmental sanction. Further, the sanction may be imposed for “willful or repeated” failure to afford reasonable access. This suggests that, if a legally qualified candidate for federal office is denied a reasonable amount of broadcast time, license revocation may follow even a single instance of such denial so long as it is willful; where the denial is recurring, the penalty may be imposed in the absence of a showing of willfulness.1
11-a.) Find at Pg. 379: “§ 312 (a) (7) singles out legally qualified candidates for federal elective office and grants them a special right of access on an individual basis, violation of which carries the serious consequence of license revocation.”
11-b.) In light of U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment, once a broadcaster’s station doors are opened to access for political speech, they must be opened to all federal candidates who are legally qualified and request the access, as Plaintiff has so requested.
Demand Relief Sought Includes Three-Judge Court
12-a) Plaintiff’s relief, in part, is Plaintiff’s timely delivery of a live, unscripted broadcast political speech in the state of Arizona, before the Arizona primary, so the voters of Arizona may be an informed electorate relative to Plaintiff’s campaign for U.S. President. Plaintiff’s proposed speech is described for the PBS station managers complained against in Plaintiff’s request.
12-b.) The controversy of who should be elected President is of the highest public interest to our nation. In violation of access law, broadcasters have denied access to Plaintiff to deliver substantive speech, discriminating against Plaintiff’s campaign for U.S. president, violating Plaintiff’s constitutional First Amendment right. Upon public interest in the coming election, Plaintiff’s only equitable relief is three-judge Court to hear plaintiff’s “as applied” constitutional challenge, and upon certification of alleged facts in the written record, court enforcement of § 312(a)(7) access law.
13.) Plaintiff prays Three-judge court read request letter, Exhibit a, a-1), to see how Plaintiff spells out a proposed two hour broadcast with a host of innovative non-partisan solutions to all the major issues facing our nation.
14.) Plaintiff prays for Expedited Emergency Review as Plaintiff has a “giant personal stake in the outcome of this controversy which the court so largely depends [on] for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”
15-a.) The Arizona primary election is right around the corner— February 28, 2012, and so far in this election, all television broadcasts of candidates for president, regardless of their TV appearance’s origination, have aired nationwide. For Plaintiff, this access request, fulfilled, is a major opportunity that cannot be let to slide without harm, an ‘injury in fact.’ The unconstitutional invasion of Plaintiff’s ‘legally protected interest’ is ‘actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,’ and harmful to all parties:
1) Plaintiff’s candidacy for the nomination of the major political parties will be harmed, as Plaintiff’s major opportunity to break forth into public domain as a major candidate, by winning the Arizona primary, will be shunted.
2) There is genuine harm to the Arizona public who will be in the dark, their First Amendment rights relative to Plaintiff’s candidacy enjoined; and
3.) Harm to the Arizona PBS broadcast stations complained against as PBS broadcasters will, down a short road, be required to answer to all of the American people why their “viewers and listeners” were denied their opportunity to be an informed electorate.
15-b.) Our entitlement to protected, political speech is the essence of America’s constitutional-democracy, what distinguishes the United States from all other countries.
15-c.) Plaintiff brings to the political table “The Book ov Lev It A Kiss,” a magnum opus Television Scripture, a prophetic work of art, hand lettered, designed in double columns, with every line a carefully crafted delicate sensible rhyme, rivaling both Dante, of Divine Comedic fame, and old Blind Homer, as this inspired work of art has world purpose— to be performed on world wide television, from dusk until dawn for all the worlds’ peoples to see, listen to and participate in together all at once, as a people sharing life, and potentially, a pursuit of liberty, on good ship mother earth.
15-d.) Plaintiff political speech includes a test drive of Plaintiff’s Vehicle for World Peace, this innovative conception of such magnitude and public interest, Plaintiff’s proposed intended speech cannot but qualify for nationwide airing, which will enable Plaintiff to make a huge showing in all presidential primaries that follow Arizona’s, besides the strong likelihood of winning the Arizona republican party primary.
15-e.) On the controversy of a ‘prophetic,’ work of art, beyond personal foretelling, world events described in advance, unfolding in the pages upon their occurrence, Plaintiff separately files 1 original first edition “The Book ov Lev It A Kiss” © 1971, and one photocopy, each with annotation and commentary relative to world events described in advance.
16-a.) Plaintiff requests district court issue the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, delivered by U.S. Marshalls, compelling the defendants to appear in five days to state why Court should not ORDER the broadcasters to cease and desist all their TV operations until such time as the defendants schedule Plaintiff’s proposed speeches as candidate for U.S. President, the scheduling a political news event, before the Arizona primary is held.
16-b.) It stands to reason, the requested Cease and Desist ORDER, fulfilled, protecting the Constitutional First amendment right of Plaintiff, the candidate for President and all the American people, will prompt defendant Arizona PBS Stations to schedule airing of speech in the time requested. PBS is obligated to the viewers and listeners whose taxpayer dollars and donations fund the PBS Network and affiliate station’s operations.
16-c.) The commercial broadcaster networks, to protect holdings, now challenged, whose estimated worth is over a half trillion dollars, are also likely to begin an immediate adherence to their statutory constitutional obligation to the candidate. This is the immediate relief Plaintiff seeks.
Nullification of Unconstitutional Amendment Requested
17.) The “Title” of the Act, where the challenged Amendment to § 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, relied on by the PBS Channel 8 station manager, et al appears is Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 PUBLIC LAW 106–554. Within APPENDIX D 114 STAT. 2763A–251. Find in Sec.148:
(a) Section 312 (a)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 47 U.S.C. 312(a)(7)) is amended by inserting “, other than a non- commercial educational broadcast station,” after “use of a broadcasting station”.
(b) The Federal Communications Commission shall take no action against any non-commercial educational broadcast station which declines to carry a political advertisement.
18.) This insertion, supra, “other than a non-commercial education broadcasting station,” slipped into Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, at Sec. 148, amending 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) of Communications Act of 1934, is, on its face, unconstitutional and therefore, cannot be cited as reason for access refusal to a bona fide candidate for President, in effect, prohibiting the candidate from delivering a constitutionally protected broadcast political speech on behalf of his candidacy for U. S. president.
19.) Congress cannot dissolve “non-commercial television stations”,’ hereafter, Public Broadcasting Service stations,’ obligation, a statutory requirement, to allow access for federal candidates to broadcast political speech. 20.) This dissolution of Public Broadcasting Service stations’ public interest commitment to our First Amendment right, claimed by various PBS TV stations applied to by Plaintiff, including Federal Communications Commission jurisdiction over the access statutes, is unconstitutional and hereby challenged.5
21.) The final Act, Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001, PUBLIC LAW 106-554 – APPENDIX D 114 STAT. 2763A—351 provides, under SUBTITLE D—Expedited Review: SEC. 1741. EXPEDITED REVIEW:
(a) THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT HEARING. — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any civil action challenging the constitutionality, on its face, of this title or any amendment made by this title, or any provision thereof, shall be heard by a district court of three judges convened pursuant to the provisions of section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
(b) APPELLATE REVIEW. —Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the court of three judges in an action under subsection (a) holding this title or an amendment made by this title, or any provision thereof, unconstitutional shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Any such appeal shall be filed not more than 20 days after entry of such judgment, decree, or order. This Act may be cited as the “Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001.”
_______________________________
ENDNOTE: Appendixes D–1 and D–2 were added pursuant to the provisions of sections 125 and 127 of this Appendix (114 Stat. 2763A–229).
Request for Three-Judge Court
22.) In accordance with Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001, Sec.1741 EXPEDITED REVIEW (a), Arizona District Court is hereby requested to convene Three-Judge Court to expeditiously hear this constitutional “as applied” challenge, as herein and herewith, irrevocably shown, are profound subversions of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by two Arizona Public Broadcasting stations, their prohibition of American people’s inalienable right to participate in mass media broadcast political speech not in dispute, the two TV stations, as are the complained against networks, abetted by an unconstitutional Act of Congress.
23.) Petitioner prays District Court grant leave for petitioner to request this panel, to save the U.S. Constitution, for American peoples’ mass media access, an affirmative right guaranteed to all federal candidates, has been trenched by all our networks and station broadcasters, also our cable-casters, nationwide, this trenching a continuum, as is shown herein, while the broadcasters’ countenanced candidates, using mass media broadcast programs to enhance their nomination campaigns, proceed forthwith with their campaigns for election to our highest office, President of United States.
24.) Court making right this trenching of U.S. Constitution, in one locality, affects this First Amendment issue across our ‘free country’, in every locality.
25.) 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) is the electronic mass media protection of the American people’s paramount First Amendment right to assemble and hear speeches delivered by candidates for Federal office, via mass media broadcast, this inalienable right now disallowed, arbitrarily discriminated against by the above unconstitutional amendment, undermining our First Amendment Freedom of Speech. Of all unconstitutional government agency acts, this most heinous of infringements is not entitled to any deference by Federal District Court.
26.) In unambiguous language, Section 312(a)(7) now authorizes the Commission to revoke a broadcaster’s license
“for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.” 6 (Emphasis added by petitioner)
27.) The American electorate has a First Amendment right and paramount public interest in being an informed people, in a free, unencumbered marketplace of ideas. This Federal Communications Commission sponsored amendment, slipped into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, amending 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7), demolishes Plaintiff’s First Amendment access right as a candidate for president to deliver a broadcast speech on Public Broadcasting Network stations, as equally important, the constitutional rights of all our candidates for all of our Federal elective offices to deliver their own televised broadcast speeches on the Public Broadcasting Network of non-commercial stations, hereafter, PBS.
Argument
28.) To more fully understand the gross constitutional subversion by both non-commercial PBS and the commercial broadcasters complained against herewith, find in Buckley, James L.; Political Broadcast 63 F.C.C. 2d, at 954:
As the Commission has stated, “the test of whether a licensee has fulfilled its obligations under Section 312(a)(7) is one of reasonableness.” Public Notice of June 5, 1974, entitled “Licensee Responsibility Under Amendments to the communications Act Made by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.” The “reasonableness” of the access afforded federal candidates must be determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case.
. . . .
Without question, broadcast licensees have an obligation under Section 312(a)(7) of the Act, to contribute to an informed electorate by providing reasonable access for use by legally qualified candidates for Federal elective office. Public broadcasters have perhaps an greater obligation than commercial licensees since they are financed in part by Federal funds.
29.) According to the Supreme Court RED LION BROADCASTING CO. v. F.C.C. decision, reflecting US Constitution First Amendment Freedom of Speech, this Act of Congress, challenged herein is forbidden. Justice WHITE plainly ruled in Red Lion, “That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” 7
30.) Our Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, as applied in 47 U.S.C, is the essence of our franchise, the rock of our foundation, the pride of our democratic republic. Justice BURGER, deciding CBS, INC. v. F.C.C., (1981) cited Red Lion decision: “[T]he court has made clear that:
It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters which is paramount . . . . It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market . . . It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experience which is crucial here. [That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.]” 8 (Emphasis by the Court, Bold by petitioner)
The First Amendment interests of candidates and voters, as well as broadcasters, are implicated by § 312 (a) (7). We have recognized that “it is of particular importance that candidates have the . . . opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on election day.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 52-53 (1976) . . . The First Amendment “has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, (1971). Section 312 (a) (7) thus makes a significant contribution to freedom of expression by enhancing the ability of candidates to present, and the public to receive, information necessary for the effective operation of the democratic process.9
31.) District Court, to save the U.S. Constitution, is obligated, upon Three-Judge District Court Hearing, to nullify Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 PUBLIC LAW 106 – 554—APPENDIX D 114 STAT. 2763A-251 Sec. 148, (a) for any disenfranchisement of the peoples’ First Amendment Freedom of Speech is unconstitutional. The inalienable guaranteed right to political speech is inviolate. Political speech cannot be demolished by the broadcasters, or by some agency of government via a Consolidated Appropriations Act, “[f]or speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.”10
32.) As Dr. Meiklejohn teaches, supra, pg. 14, note 7, in The Supreme Court Review, 1961, The First Amendment Is An Absolute, at Page 253, 254:
1. All constitutional authority to govern the people of the United States belongs to the people themselves, acting as members of a corporate body politic. They are, it is true, “the governed.” But they are also “the governors.” Political freedom is not the absence of government. It is self-government. . . . .
5. The revolutionary intent of the First Amendment is . . . to deny to all subordinate agencies authority to abridge the freedom of the electoral power of the people.
Justice William J. Brennan Jr., in, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 79, 1 (1965-66), at Page 5, restates Dr. Meiklejohn from The Supreme Court Review, and more:
[T]he first amendment denies government the power to regulate the manner and conditions under which speech protected by the first amendment is exercised. Mr. Justice Black has made the point:
[W]hen passing on the validity of a regulation . . . which may indirectly infringe on free speech, [the] Court . . . should, “weigh the circumstances” in order to protect, not to destroy, freedom of speech, press, and religion. (Bold by Plaintiff).
“The First and Fourteenth Amendments, I think, take away from government, state and federal, all power to restrict freedom of speech, press, and assembly where people have a right to be for such purposes.” 11
Justice Brennan, Id, in 79 Harvard Law Review (1965-66), (supra, Para. 9. Note 5; ) again expresses Dr. Meiklejohn’s core belief, at p.12, in The Supreme Court Review, 1961:
Freedom of expression in areas of public affairs is an absolute. “Public discussions of public issues, together with the spreading of information and opinion bearing on those issues, must have a freedom unabridged by our agents. Though they govern us, we , in a deeper sense, govern them. Over our governing, they have no power. Over their governing, we have sovereign power.” It is fitting, I think, that Dr. Meiklejohn wrote this in a piece he published when almost ninety. Harvard L. Rev. Vol. 79. 1, 12 (1965), Justice Brennan. (footnotes omitted) (Bold by Plaintiff).
33.) Yet, in one fell unconstitutional swoop, in the miscellaneous middle of night, our most protected form of speech, political speeches by candidates for federal office, was dislodged from our mass media First Amendment spectrum on all our 356 Public Broadcasting stations, via an Appropriations Act of Congress.
34-a.) Section (b) of this amendment, (supra, Para.17.), dissolves a “legally qualified” federal candidate’s right to redress of their grievance, via administrative remedy, upon PBS’ denial of their broadcast access to deliver their speech on behalf of their candidacies. One or the other, Congress,** or F.C.C. self-ordered itself, in Section (b), within, “Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001,” to :
“. . . take no action against any non-commercial educational broadcast station that declines to carry a political advertisement[,]”
an abrogation thus trashing the First Amendment right of all federal candidates to initiate an administrative petition for redress of their constitutional grievance.
34-b.) By the same token, Part b, the unchallenged part of amendment to U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) satisfies the First Amendment conception that Congress shall make no law that infringes on the First Amendment. Protecting a candidate for President’s First Amendment rights to broadcast political speech, the jurisdiction thereof, belongs in Article III, the Federal Courts, not some government agency.
34-c.) As Mr. Joseph Cardozo stated: “We must know what a decision means before the duty becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong.” In fact, part “b’ of the amendment means Federal Communications Commission will not entertain any complaints relative to 312(a)(7) infraction by any broadcaster, not just limited to Public Broadcasting Service. On Plaintiff’s own information and belief, any political complaints to F.C.C. about any TV station or network, at least those of outsider candidates are ignored.
35.) Notwithstanding the application of “Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001,” §1741, EXPEDITED REVIEW; Plaintiff’s only avenue for expeditious remedy, in order to save our constitution, on behalf of viewers and listeners’ First Amendment constitutional rights, besides Plaintiff’s so-far broadcaster stifled candidacy for U. S. presidency, is bold and swift adjudication, herein prayed for in the Arizona District Federal Court.
36-a.) President Barack Obama’s own presidency, his obligation upon his oath of office to defend our constitution, does not supersede Plaintiff’s Pledge of Allegiance to defend our liberty and justice, the constitutional right of all the American people to hear and see broadcast speeches on PBS, or on commercial networks, by candidates for U. S. President, besides candidates for all our other federal offices, the Members’ seats in our House of Representatives and Senate.
36-b.) As Mr. Justice Brandeis’ observed, “[T]hose who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensible to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; . . . that in our country, [the concept that] “public discussion is a political duty,” applies with special force to candidates for public office. . .” Buckley v. Valero 424 U.S. 1 at 53 (1975); Whitney v. California 274 U.S. 357 at 375 (1927). (The bridge phrase, “the concept that,” in brackets, with emphasis added by petitioner is to enhance Justice Brandeis’ profound conception of political freedom).
37.) Plaintiff prays District Court grant leave for Plaintiff’s tendering his own prayer for review: Plaintiff prays the day comes when true ends of justice are affirmed, when ‘Miscellaneous’ 47 U.S.C. § 312 (a)(7) amendment is embalmed for unconstitutionality, and the peoples’ inalienable paramount right to broadcast political speech is returned, our Freedom of Speech, rightfully redeemed.
38.) Plaintiff, an aggrieved candidate for U.S. President, seeks to state his case for bipartisan party nomination via media broadcast speech; standing to redress this Unconstitutional Act against American peoples’ rights, cited supra, in, “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001,” entitled to redress of this grievance against the broadcasters, and prays Arizona District Court grant Plaintiff this expeditious redress. Arizona’s Presidential primary date is February 28, 2012.
39.) As noted, supra, Para. 17, 34, upon Federal Communication Commission’s fracturing First Amendment right to media access, any complaint lodged with F.C.C. is bound for biased blind eyes, guarding their gates, likened to petitioning the old sly fox to be henhouse adjudicate. Petitioner’s only recourse for justice, to save the peoples’ inviolate guarantee of mass media access for broadcast political speech, for the coming Arizona primary, and for all our caucus’ and primaries to follow, the general election, and all our future federal elections, is in Federal District Court, not the Commission’s politically shuttered corridors.
40.) See Mr. Justice STEVENS, in CBS, INC. v. F.C.C., “The possibility that Commission decisions under §312(a)(7) may appear to be biased is well illustrated by this litigation.” 12
41.) First Amendment constitutional failure by an agency of government is impermissible, for “[i]t is beyond the power of an administrative agency to declare its governing statute to be unconstitutional.” 13 F.C.C. self-dissolved its 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) jurisdiction over the PBS, extending, as is shown, their self-dissolution to the parallel 47 U.S.C § 315(a). Now F.C.C.’s media jurisdiction, omnibus idem, the same for all, coincident with F.C.C.’s complicit § 312(a)(7) remodeling job, attempting to terminate the people’s constitutional, public interest in media rights, is none for all.
42.) “[A]lthough an administrative agency may be influenced by constitutional considerations in the way it interprets or applies statutes, it does not have jurisdiction to declare statutes unconstitutional.” Branch v. F.C.C. 824 F2d 37, Dist. of Columbia Circ. (1987) Section IV, at 45.
43.) Justice STEVENS’ dissent in Citizens United v. F.E.C.,14 teaching, “[t]he elementary rule . . . that every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 (1895); as applied hereto, calls for intervention by the District Court, “reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal” within 20 days to the Supreme Court, (See Para. 21., supra), to save 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) from destruction.
44.) District Court, in order to maintain and preserve this First Amendment statute, in light of the unconstitutional amendment, is required to accept this, “as-applied challenge,” to Part (a) of the amendment 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7), and according to “Miscellaneous Appropriations Act. 2001,” Sec.1741, EXPEDITED REVIEW, to preserve the peoples’ First Amendment right to broadcast political speech, especially before the election for U.S. president, to forthrightly proceed with Three-Judge District Court Hearing.
45.) Upon the citizenry’s First Amendment guarantee to redress of their constitutional grievance, and public interest in the swift conduce of justice, petitioner has joined defendant commercial broadcasters with PBS, as cohabiters of and in the same PBS bed. The broadcasters’ substantial abrogation of their required adherence to public interest in U.S. constitution, regarding rights of access for speech by federal candidates, is the same breach for each of them, under the same unconstitutional omnibus idem quilt. Examples of the networks’ “profound subversions of our First Amendment rights, are herewith shown.
46-a.) F.C.C.’s First Amendment prejudice, shrouding their charges, the broadcasters,* from their licenses revoked, that statutory price of broadcasters’ discriminations, brought on by their own unconstitutional refusals to grant access to an independent federal candidate for broadcasting his political speech, now exposed, disqualifies in toto, F.C.C.’s jurisdiction over viewer’s and listener’s First Amendment mass media access rights, of and by, for their Federal candidates.
46-b.) The only remedy available for the people, upon the broadcasters’ willful subversion of petitioner’s and the peoples’ constitutional “political right,” the access privilege we profoundly grant candidates for federal offices, that, upon Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 termination of F.C.C.’s statutory obligation to enforce § 312(a)(7)15 and § 315(a)(4) guarantees, can only reside in Federal District Court, and is hereunto brought forth.
47.) Plaintiff cannot but prevail in this challenge. His First Amendment rights are in fact, clearly enjoined, so upon ORDER of the District Court, to save the constitution, the network broadcasters complained against shall be required to schedule petitioner’s campaign speeches forthwith, which may have the potential of satisfying the First Amendment obligations of the broadcast stations complained against in other district courts.
48.) Upon petitioner’s showing herein, that petitioner is clearly within his constitutional rights to access under our laws, petitioner requests the Court, upon the Court’s determination, to forthrightly ORDER the broadcasters to schedule dates and times for petitioner’s live speeches, before the presidential primary is held in Arizona, February 28, 2012, to save the sacrosanct constitutional First Amendment rights of the viewers and listeners to participate in live broadcast speech by a legally qualified candidate for party nomination by both major political parties, who may be voted for via write in ballot for office of President.
49.) Aggrieved Plaintiff’s showing herein, of Order To Show Cause, following, is grounded in F.C.C.’s willful failure to enforce the access statute, and the networks’ willful violation of petitioner’s First Amendment right to have so far been given airtime by non-commercial PBS Network stations, or given or sold airtime, by ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX networks, to advocate his candidacy, and the peoples’ paramount right, “to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experience which is crucial here,” Red Lion, supra, Para. 29, 30., “[f]or speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government. The First and Fourteenth Amendments embody our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. . .” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 74-5 supra, Para. 31.
50.) “The First Amendment,” said Judge Learned Hand, “presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.” (Citations omitted). “Mr. Justice Brandeis . . . in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, (1927), 375-376 (supra, Para. 36-b), gave the principle its classic formulation:
“Those who won our independence believed * * * that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.”” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S., 254 at 270, (1964).
51.) The Public Law Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 contains within its boundary many different Acts including miscellaneous appropriations, provisions, and amendments, there arranged, titled and placed in an orderly fashion by the Archivist, as noted supra, Para. 21.
52.) In accordance with Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Sec.1741 EXPEDITED REVIEW (a), as stated supra, Arizona District Court has jurisdiction and is hereby requested to convene and proceed with Three-Judge Court to expeditiously hear this constitutional issue, as an “as applied” challenge to part a) of the Amendment to U.S.C. 47. The challenged amendment appears in the above named Act at Sec. 148, supra, Para. 17.
53.) The parallel relief sought, by virtue of three-judge court requested, that, according to Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 of Congress, is declaratory judgment, nullification of unconstitutional “Part a)” of the Amendment that violates U.S. Constitution, First Amendment. The Amendment to U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) narrows, enjoins, diminishes, utterly demolishes people’s guaranteed right of access to its own taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting network, to be an informed electorate, by virtue of a political mass media speech delivered by any candidate for president.
. . . . “When the Framers wrote the First Amendment . . . they were concerned with positing . . . an enforceable legal rule. They wrote in terms of specific prohibitions designed to provide an immune area of free expression within which government itself was barred from acting. Justice Cardozo teaches, “there is a domain of free activity that may not be touched by government or law at all . . . By express provision of the constitution, [the individual] is assured freedom of speech and freedom of conscience or religion.” Cardozo, J., The Paradoxes of Legal Science, 98 (1928).
“The First Amendment elevates the right of free expression to the plane of enforceable constitutional law. As Justice Douglas reminds us, “The First Amendment is not self-executing.” Douglas, J., The Right of the People, 78 (1958). The most we can expect is that provision be made for actual enforcement of constitutional and other prescriptions in concrete cases. Such provision is the salient feature of the American constitutional system. The Bill of Rights lays down rules for judicial decision, enforceable as such in the courts, whenever such enforcement is necessary for the decision of an actual case—and that regardless of who the parties in such case may be. Thus, the right of free expression . . . will be enforced by the judges at the suit of the humblest citizen against the highest officials in the land. The free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment . . . limits governmental action as much as any other constitutional restriction.” Gleaned from, Chapter 17, 423, A commentary on The Constitution of The United States, Part III Rights Of The Person, by Bernard Schwartz. (1968).
54.) We learn from Sutherland Statutory Construction, Sixth Edition © 2002, § 21:16 at P.197: ‘It is nevertheless the duty of courts to endeavor by every rule of construction to ascertain the meaning of and give full force and effect to the legislative product unless it violates a specific constitutional prohibition.” The challenged amendment to 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) violates the First Amendment U.S. Const. and must be declared unconstitutional.
55.) Plaintiff prays the court grant the ORDER herein requested as the PBS stations and broadcast networks complained against cannot legally refuse the access requests tendered by the Plaintiff without trenching the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff’s access right to deliver a political speech to all the voters of the state of Arizona, and to American people, before the primary is held, must not be enjoined.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE / STATEMENT OF FACTS
56.) Petitioner is an aggrieved, “legally qualified” candidate for office of U.S. president, in continuance of his 2008 presidential candidacy. During a thirteen (13) months period campaigning for president, in 2007- 2008, petitioner tendered three (3) reasonable requests for access to above named defendant broadcast television networks: PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC Universal, and FOX, to deliver live broadcast speeches devoted to issues of substance facing our nation, in advocating petitioner’s candidacy for the office of United States President.
57.) Evidence supporting petitioner’s ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE is in the aforementioned three reasonable requests for access first made to the above broadcasters, while campaigning in 2008, followed, in the current campaign with a series of additional access requests. Petitioner’s first request included printouts from petitioner’s presidential campaign Internet home page, petitioner’s essay, “Exit Strategy out of Iraq,” also from petitioner’s campaign website, and included his book, “New World Hors D’oeuvres,” published by petitioner under the nom de plume, “Golashés Journalista.” Fed EX delivery documentation and Certified US Postal delivery is included as Exhibit (f).
58.) Petitioner’s first reasonable request for access was posted to non-commercial PBS network, and additionally, to commercial broadcast networks ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, via Fed EX, January 22, 2008. Exhibit (g)
59.) Petitioner’s 2nd reasonable request, made again to PBS network, including the four above named commercial broadcast television networks, is postmarked, August 18, 2008. Exhibit (h)
60.) All of petitioner’s requests for access to network broadcasters were ignored by the broadcasters, excluding the 2nd reasonable request for access which brought forth a single response, following, from NBC Universal Television Network. NBC response, August 26, 2008, after salutation, states:
We received your letter dated August 18, 2008, requesting access to make a live speech on the NBC television network. Based on your submission, we do not think that you have made a substantial showing to qualify you as a national candidate for federal office or a political party’s nomination for federal office, as required under the FCC rules and FCC precedent to demand time on a national television broadcast network. We therefore respectfully decline your request for access.
Sincerely
Steve Chung / Media Counsel
61.) NBC’s response unequivocally shows NBC’s disregard for peoples’ constitutional right to view and listen to any candidate whosoever seeks access to broadcast a substantive speech over mass media on behalf of their candidacy.
62.) Find, in Court of Appeals, CBS, Inc. v. F.C.C. 629 F.2d 1 (1980) decision, that preceded the Supreme Court CBS, Inc. v. F.C.C. 453 U.S. 367 (1981) ruling, (supra, Para.10 note 6): “In the Hearings Before the Communications Sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., ser. 93—4 at 190,
Dr. Frank Stanton, Vice Chairman of CBS . . . stated:
Section 312(a) now requires that on the pain of license revocation a broadcaster must make available to candidates for a federal elective office reasonable amounts of paid time or reasonable access to free time. (Emphasis by petitioner)
Dr. Stanton went even farther [in the Congressional hearing] by stating:
Section 312 grants rights to all legally qualified candidates for federal office and as the phrase “legally qualified” has been interpreted by the FCC it includes many a fringe candidate.”16
63.) Petitioner’s 3rd, and final U.S. Postal Certified access request, Exhibit (i), was tendered to all the above broadcasters, October 10, 2008, to enable Plaintiff to “engage in the discussion of public issues . . . to advocate his own election . . . [Plaintiff’s] unfettered opportunity to make [his] views known,” via Plaintiff’s sacrosanct, First Amendment right to deliver a live, broadcast political speech, “so that the electorate may [have] intelligently evaluate[d] [his] personal qualities and [his] positions on vital public issues,” for the purpose of “choosing [him] on election day.” *
Congressional Background of § 312 (a)(7) Communications Law
64.) Congressional Representative Mr. Johnson of Texas stated, as follows, on March 13, 1926, on the floor in the House of Representatives during Congress’ debate, before enactment of the Radio Act by the Congress, which preceded our current First Amendment 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) access law:
“There is no agency so fraught with possibilities for service of good or evil to the American people as the radio. As a means of entertainment, education, information, and communication it has limitless possibilities. The power of the press will not be comparable to that of broadcasting stations when the industry is fully developed. If the development continues as rapidly in the future as in the past, it will only be a few years before these broadcasting stations, if operated by chain station, will simultaneously reach an audience of over half of our entire citizenship, and bring messages to the fireside of nearly every home in America. They can mold and crystallize sentiment as no agency in the past has been able to do. If the strong arm of the law does not prevent monopoly ownership and make such discrimination by such stations illegal, American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. For publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a Republic, and when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership and dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.17
Mr. Johnson of Texas further stated, in the House of Representatives discussion:
“That the broadcasting stations shall be required by a mandatory provision of law to serve the public like other public-service concerns, and in so doing shall not be permitted to discriminate against anyone, either as to service or as to rates.18
Further along in the Congressional Record, Representative Johnson also stated, about the language of the Radio Act:
“The object [of this amendment] is to prevent discrimination by any of the licensees of radio broadcasting stations, either as to charge or as to service, and if adopted it would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to revoke any license theretofore granted, provided the Interstate commerce Commission, or any other Federal body, had certified to the Secretary of Commerce that such licensee had been guilty of such discrimination.” 19
The considerate Representative Johnson continues:
“I fear, however, that it would be exceedingly difficult to revoke a license, since the Interstate Commerce Commission is so busily engaged with affairs concerning the railroads that it would not have the time to hear complaints with reference to discrimination or other acts of omission or commission by these licensees.” 20
Toward the conclusion of Representative Johnson’s commentary, Mr. Johnson states:
“ . . The Government would grant the license to the broadcasting station on the express agreement and understanding that it should not discriminate against political parties, or candidates for office, or political issues.21
65.) Petitioner cites Congressional Records to make abundantly clear to District Court, that beyond any shadow, 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7), codified more than four decades later, circa 1971,* after the more compelling mass medium; television, supplanted radio, that Congress’ conception of § 312(a)(7), upon First Amendment violation, i.e., discrimination by the broadcasters, their statutory penalty, plainly spelled out, would be license revocation, the Congress’ original intended First Amendment protection, (supra, Para. 45 notes 17., 19.) from the very beginnings of our mass media, according to Congressional Records of the 1926 Congress’ careful considerations, before passage of the Radio Act.
66.) In the culminating benchmark Supreme Court decision, CBS, INC. v. F.C.C., 453 U.S. 367 (1981), affirming Court of Appeals ruling, supra, Para. 62., on federal candidates’ rights of reasonable access to mass media television, it was judged, this First Amendment obligation to “public interest,” for speech, is a sacrosanct affirmative right. We also find in the Supreme Court ruling, CBS, INC. v. F.C.C., 453 U.S. 367 (1981) (101 S. Ct. 2813, at 2819), at page 374:
Title 47 U.S.C. Section 312(a)(7), as added to the Act, 86 Stat. 4, states:
“The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –
. . . . .
“(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.”20
Three pages later we find this First Amendment statute repeated, at page 377 :
In unambiguous language, Section 312(a)(7) authorizes the
Commission to revoke a broadcaster’s license
“for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.”21
The Court’s repetition of this First Amendment statute is immediately followed by:
“It is clear on the face of the statute that Congress did not prescribe merely a general duty to afford some measure of political programming, which the public interest obligation of broadcasters already provided for. Rather 312(a)(7) focuses on the individual “legally qualified candidate” seeking air time to advocate “his candidacy,” and guarantees him “reasonable access” enforceable by specific governmental sanction. Further, the sanction may be imposed for “willful or repeated” failure to afford reasonable access. This suggests that, if a legally qualified candidate for federal office is denied a reasonable amount of broadcast time, license revocation may follow even a single instance of such denial so long as it is willful; where the denial is recurring, the penalty may be imposed in the absence of a showing of willfulness.” Id 453 U.S. at 377-78; (Emphasis added)
67-a.) First Amendment of United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Upon examination of Congressional Records of the Congress’ intent and will, leading to passage of the preceding Radio Act; and herewith, amongst esteemed judicial authorities, supra, the teachings of RED LION BROADCSTING CO. v. FCC, (1969) and CBS, INC. v. F.C.C. (1981), F.C.C.’s cloak over § 312(a)(7) enforcement fails constitutional muster. Now down their own slip slope, F.C.C.’s First Amendment § 312(a)(7) jurisdiction is done for. Constitutionally, the F.C.C.’s naked prejudice, uncloaked herein, is impermissible. F.C.C. jurisdiction over our inviolate paramount rights, subject to challenge from the Radio Act’s 1927 outset, has outlived its purpose.
67-b.) Our statutes, § 312(a)(7) and § 315(a), were enacted to protect the essence of our franchise; the pillars of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, our guarantees of Freedom of Speech and assembly. F.C.C.’s statutory entitlement, their charge over mass media First Amendment rights, herein challenged, is finished, as is herewith and herein shown. By the F.C.C.’s own recalcitrant hand, theirs became a dithered sham jurisdiction that fails to withstand judicial review.
REVOCATION ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PREAMBLE
68.) Title 47 U.S.C. § 312 (a)(7) is the electronic extension of the peoples’ constitutional First Amendment right to assemble, from the privacy of their abode, or from wherever viewers and listeners in their own self interest choose to assemble, to participate in the political speeches of candidates for federal office. The candidate’s right to deliver a live broadcast speech, on behalf of their candidacy, over the peoples’ public airwaves, is inviolate. Our First Amendment Freedom of Speech, protected by U.S.C. § 312 (a)(7), is paramount, the essence of our self-government, distinguishing our United States from all other nations.
69-a.) The written record incontrovertibly shows that PBS, along with all of the above named defendant commercial broadcast television networks, repeatedly violated petitioner’s affirmative access right to deliver live broadcast speeches on behalf of his candidacy in the 2008 election for U.S. President, and continue that policy in the current election campaign.
69-b.) The statutory revocation penalty, for violating this constitutional right, however painful, is unambiguous, and resides in both amended and un-encumbered 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) statutes.
70.) Petitioner, a “legally qualified” aggrieved candidate for U.S. president, by virtue of this petition, having brought forth incontrovertible evidence, exhibits herewith of the US Postal certified reasonable access requests, duly tendered by petitioner to the television networks before the 2008 Presidential election, and by the uncontroverted absence of any response by the defendant network broadcasters, excluding one stonewall paragraph from NBC, supra, Para. 60, showing the networks’ willful failure to comply with their required licensed obligation to both prongs of this same inviolate right: the public interest, and that of the “legally qualified” candidate, the broadcasters’ obligation: an allowance of reasonable access to “legally qualified” candidates, upon requests for access by candidates for Federal office, those requests made in good faith, but herein, upon the broadcasters’ unconstitutional abridgments; upon their abrogation and continuing abrogation of American peoples’ constitutional right, the paramount public interest of an informed public, petitioner requests Federal District Court to issue the following:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
LICENSE REVOCATION SHOW CAUSE ORDER
By ORDER OF THIS FEDERAL COURT, UPON THIS ORDER, to be expeditiously served by an officer of this Court on the above named defendant network’s presidents, or their designated representatives, Federal District Court ORDERS broadcast network representatives to expeditiously appear before this COURT, at 9:00 a.m., on _____________________________________ 2011 to hereby SHOW CAUSE, upon certification of the broadcasters’ discriminations shown herewith against US Presidential candidate, petitioner, Michael Stephen Levinson, upon their censorship of Michael Stephen Levinson’s and peoples’ First Amendment guarantees, Michael Stephen Levinson’s constitutional right to access for mass media speech as a candidate for US President, and the peoples’ inalienable right, as viewers and listeners, to participate in his speech; that upon broadcasters’ specific non-compliance with § 312(a)(7), why this District Court should not ORDER Federal Communications Commission Secretary to REVOKE the above broadcasters’ owned licenses of their individual broadcasting stations, for their willful and continuing failures to have allowed access for broadcast, to a “legally qualified” candidate for office of president of United States; according to requirements of § 312(a)(7) and § 315(a); therefore, upon this ORDER, Federal Communications Commission shall allow defendant broadcasters’ operation of television network entities for a limited period, not to exceed forty-five (45) days from disposition of this ORDER, or until such time as Federal Communications Commission conducts public auction of broadcasters’ television station licenses, including also, auction of contracted relationships with broadcasters’ “network of subscribing stations;” whichever comes first, public auction, or 45 day vamoose of assigned bandwidth; and, further, by this Court ORDER, this auction shall NOT exclude any broadcast stations, networks’ News Divisions, or cable casting divisions owned and / or operated by above cited television broadcasting entities. Therefore, by this COURT ORDER, all cable and broadcast entities owned and operated by broadcasters shall be included in F.C.C. auction of their forfeitures, for their willful discrimination, their failure to exhibit First Amendment impartiality, their subversions of constitutional rights, hereby shown herewith. So ORDERED, by United States District Court For The District Of Arizona.
Signed_____________________________________________________
71.) Plaintiff respectfully submits the following Cease and Desist Show Cause Order to be delivered to Station Manager Kelly McCullough PBS Channel 8, Phoenix, Az., and Jack Gibson, station manager of Channel KUAT- TV 6, Tucson, Az.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
LICENSE REVOCATION SHOW CAUSE ORDER
By ORDER OF THIS FEDERAL COURT, UPON THIS ORDER, to be expeditiously served by an officer of this Court on the above named defendant Public Broadcasting affiliate station managers, or designated representatives, Federal District Court ORDERS above named station managers to expeditiously appear before this COURT, at 9:00 a.m., on _____________________________________ 2012
to hereby SHOW CAUSE, upon certification of the broadcasters’ discriminations shown herewith against US Presidential candidate, petitioner, Michael Stephen Levinson, upon their censorship of Michael Stephen Levinson’s and peoples’ First Amendment guarantees, Michael Stephen Levinson’s constitutional right to access for mass media speech as a candidate for US President, and the peoples’ inalienable right, as viewers and listeners, to participate in his speech; that upon broadcasters’ specific non-compliance with § 312(a)(7), why this District Court should not ORDER defendant broadcast stations to “cease and desist” all broadcasting activity until such time as Plaintiff’s requested speech is scheduled to air, preceding a court ORDER to Federal Communications Commission Secretary to REVOKE the above broadcasters’ owned licenses of their individual broadcasting stations, for their willful and continuing failures to have allowed access for broadcast, to a “legally qualified” candidate for office of President of United States, according to requirements of § 312(a)(7) and § 315(a). Therefore, upon this ORDER, Federal Communications Commission shall allow defendant broadcasters’ operation of Public Broadcasting television station entities for a limited period, not to exceed forty-five (45) days from disposition of this ORDER, or until such time as Federal Communications Commission conducts public auction, or hand over of broadcasters’ television station licenses to a new not-for-profit group approved by the legislature of the state of Arizona, whichever comes first, public auction, or 45 day vamoose of assigned bandwidth, this COURT ORDER, for their willful discrimination, their failure to exhibit an First Amendment impartiality, their subversions of constitutional rights, hereby shown. So ORDERED, by United States District Court , District of Arizona.
Signed_____________________________________________________
72). Plaintiff will supplement the alleged evidence of networks continued policy of discrimination in a separate filing, showing current rejections. Included herein Exhibit (j) find photocopy of requests where U.S. Postal delivery is refused by NBC, and ABC.
Michael S. Levinson
8601 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. S. N. Apt 9
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Telephone 727 – 576 – 1813
—————————————————————
RE: Bollander. No thanks. Next candidate, please.
Happy birthday, Arizona! At Project White House, we’ve all got on our tinfoil caps to celebrate!
We love democracy, so we’re offering Arizona Presidential Primary candidates the opportunity to share their views here on The Range. Today, we’re sharing the unedited perspective of Simon Bollander, Republican candidate for President.