A federal judge allowed a case to proceed brought by a councilwoman in Castle Hills, Texas, who contends city officials arrested and jailed her on a false charge in retaliation for her petition to remove the city manager.
Article by Bob Unruh from WND.
Judge David Alan Ezra rejected the city’s motion to dismiss the case brought by Sylvia Gonzalez alleging First Amendment retaliation by the city’s police chief, mayor, a detective and the city, the Institute for Justice said.
The city claimed it and its officials are protected by qualified immunity.
“I’m incredibly grateful to be able to proceed with my case,” said Gonzalez in a statement released by her counsel, the Institute for Justice. “I’m glad that after all I’ve been through the truth will prevail.”
IJ said the decision “marks an early and important victory in the fight to vindicate Sylvia’s constitutional rights.”
“Too often, government officials argue that a legal doctrine known as ‘qualified immunity’ shields them from being held responsible for violating individual rights. Soon after Sylvia filed her lawsuit, the government defendants claimed immunity and argued that the case should be thrown out. Judge Ezra disagreed and ruled for Sylvia. Now, Sylvia and IJ can proceed and are looking forward to their day in court.”
The case began in May 2019 when Gonzalez sought a city council seat. As part of her campaign, she helped set up a non-binding petition calling on the council to remove the city manager.
“This did not sit well with the mayor and the police chief, among others, who engineered a campaign to retaliate against Sylvia by removing her from office,” IJ said. “When that failed, they engineered a plot to throw her in jail—nonsensically arguing that she tried to steal her own petition. Seventy-two years old at the time, Sylvia spent an entire day behind bars, forced to sit on a metal bench (and not allowed to stand), wear an orange shirt, and use a bathroom with no doors or opportunity for privacy. Her mugshot appeared on TV screens all over Castle Hills and San Antonio.”
The judge took note of the behavior of the city officials.
He pointed out they accused her of trying to steal the petition she submitted, even though it never left the council table. Then they accused her of being sworn in improperly and claimed she would have to be removed and replaced by her election opponent.
Officials issued a “summons” for a misdemeanor, which was dismissed a short time later, and obtained an arrest warrant.
IJ said the warrant “ensured that she would spend time in jail rather than remaining free and appearing before a judge.”
To do that, they “bypassed” the prosecutor attorney’s office entirely.
The judge found that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed similar cases to move forward.
The judge in U.S. District Court explained: “The court finds that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the individual defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that she was arrested because she organized a nonbinding citizens’ petition, not because she attempted to steal her own petition. She claims that the individual defendants acted with a retaliatory motive by alleging that they took several actions to attempt to take away her council seat. She further alleges that ‘[t]he retaliatory arrest manufactured by the city and the individual defendants directly and proximately caused severe harms’ including harm to plaintiff’s reputation, future opportunities, finances, faith in the criminal justice system, and physical health. These allegations support the existence of a retaliatory motive and causation.”
IJ said the court “saw through the government’s attempt to hide behind qualified immunity.”
“Judge Ezra ruled that the law is clearly established, and the government has more than fair warning that throwing someone in jail in retaliation for exercising their free speech is a violation of the First Amendment,” IJ said.
The judge also ruled that the claims against the city must move forward.
“This decision is a remarkable victory for government accountability,” said Will Aronin, one of the IJ lawyers representing Sylvia in the case. “The judge ruled that Sylvia’s claims against every single defendant—including the city itself—can proceed. Now, Sylvia will finally get her day in court and we’re confident a jury will see the city’s actions for what they were—an unconstitutional attempt to punish her for exercising her constitutional rights.”
The case is a part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, which is dedicated to the principle that the Constitution is not an empty promise and must be enforced.
In addition to Gonzalez’s case, the Institute for Justice is litigating several other constitutional cases that arose in Texas.
They include one on behalf of a Vietnam veteran who was beaten by security guards at a veterans hospital in El Paso, Texas. Another was on behalf of an innocent homeowner in McKinney, Texas, who was left holding a bill for more than $50,000 after a SWAT team destroyed her home in pursuit of a fugitive.
A video about Gonzalez’s case:
‘The Purge’ by Big Tech targets conservatives, including us
Just when we thought the Covid-19 lockdowns were ending and our ability to stay afloat was improving, censorship reared its ugly head.
For the last few months, NOQ Report has appealed to our readers for assistance in staying afloat through Covid-19 lockdowns. The downturn in the economy has limited our ability to generate proper ad revenue just as our traffic was skyrocketing. We had our first sustained stretch of three months with over a million visitors in November, December, and January, but February saw a dip.
It wasn’t just the shortened month. We expected that. We also expected the continuation of dropping traffic from “woke” Big Tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but it has actually been much worse than anticipated. Our Twitter account was banned. One of our YouTube accounts was banned and another has been suspended. Facebook “fact-checks” everything we post. Spotify canceled us. Why? Because we believe in the truth prevailing, and that means we will continue to discuss “taboo” topics.
The 2020 presidential election was stolen. You can’t say that on Big Tech platforms without risking cancelation, but we’d rather get cancelled for telling the truth rather than staying around to repeat mainstream media’s lies. They have been covering it up since before the election and they’ve convinced the vast majority of conservative news outlets that they will be harmed if they continue to discuss voter fraud. We refuse to back down. The truth is the truth.
The lies associated with Covid-19 are only slightly more prevalent than the suppression of valid scientific information that runs counter to the prescribed narrative. We should be allowed to ask questions about the vaccines, for example, as there is ample evidence for concern. One does not have to be an “anti-vaxxer” in order to want answers about vaccines that are still considered experimental and that have a track record in a short period of time of having side-effects. These questions are not allowed on Big Tech which is just another reason we are getting cancelled.
There are more topics that they refuse to allow. In turn, we refuse to stop discussing them. This is why we desperately need your help. The best way NOQ Report readers can help is to donate. Our Giving Fuel page makes it easy to donate one-time or monthly. Alternatively, you can donate through PayPal as well. We are on track to be short by about $5300 per month in order to maintain operations.
The second way to help is to become a partner. We’ve strongly considered seeking angel investors in the past but because we were paying the bills, it didn’t seem necessary. Now, we’re struggling to pay the bills. We had 5,657,724 sessions on our website from November, 2020, through February, 2021. Our intention is to elevate that to higher levels this year by focusing on a strategy that relies on free speech rather than being beholden to progressive Big Tech companies.
During that four-month stretch, Twitter and Facebook accounted for about 20% of our traffic. We are actively working on operating as if that traffic is zero, replacing it with platforms that operate more freely such as Gab, Parler, and others. While we were never as dependent on Big Tech as most conservative sites, we’d like to be completely free from them. That doesn’t mean we will block them, but we refuse to be beholden to companies that absolutely despise us simply because of our political ideology.
We’re heading in the right direction and we believe we’re ready talk to patriotic investors who want to not only “get in on the action” but more importantly who want to help America hear the truth. Interested investors should contact me directly with the contact button above.
As the world spirals towards radical progressivism, the need for truthful journalism has never been greater. But in these times, we need as many conservative media voices as possible. Please help keep NOQ Report going.