 |
| Dana Wefer, Esq. |
In fact, Wefer argued (and won) Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Wasim Khan (A-65-10) (067094) before the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Wefer successfully argued that the New Jersey State Constitution guarantees homeowners the right to post political signs in their windows, even if such signs are prohibited by their homeowner or condominium association. The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that such a restriction was unconstitutional, even when contained in the association’s governing document, holding that “[b]alancing the minimal interference with Mazdabrook’s private property interest against Khan’s free speech right to post political signs on his own property, we conclude that the sign policy in question violates the free speech clause of the State Constitution.”
Pretty impressive. Did you notice Wefer got an amicus brief from the ACLU argued by Frank Askin, one of America's leading experts on civil liberties?
So, in keeping with Wefer's passion for the First Amendment, she has written an(other) article for the premier legal newspaper in our state, The NJ Law Journal, " SLAPPing Back: Responding to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation."
Copyright infringement law precludes GA from publishing all 1,585 words, but here are a few salient paragraphs.
You got to admit, the tools behind that SLAPP suit sure are good at blowing up just about every endeavor they are associated with. I have never seen such epic fails before in my life.
ReplyDeleteNow could they both go work on the Trump and Cruz campaigns? LOL
It's far more likely they're working tirelessly (together with their countess) on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Ever since Beth paid Hillary to pose with her everything seems like its gone to hell in a hand basket for Hillary.
DeleteAttacking young women for not seeing the feminist light and supporting Hillary just because she's a woman is a strategy that could have come right out of the insane Mason strategist playbook.
When Carmelo was HHA Executive Director he prohibited political signs (or any signs) by tenants (except for signs supporting his pals.) In essence, Dana Wefer got the Supreme Court to rule Carmelo's policy was unconstitutional then a year later Carmelo files his crapp suit... what a world.
ReplyDeleteMayor Wefer!
ReplyDeleteSo nice that Mason and her cabal are out of the local picture. I live uptown and used to see Matty and Fishboy around the "civic" all the time but haven't seen hide or hair of them for months. It's like a breath of fresh air around there. Hopefully SLAPP defendants have their paydays coming soon from the Toxic Twins. What a dumb folly that whole thing was.
ReplyDeletetotally agree, talk about bullies and thugs. toxic twins?word is their assets will be tapped like a keg at a frat party.
DeleteYes, no bad elements floating around "Mason Civic" as of late, (though there were sightings of the street-money handler who comes up from DC for Cammarano and Mason, Alex Lesiak, shoveling snow during the January storms), but there is lots of manic, over the top, window decoration, including all the major Christian holidays, of the THREE empty storefronts the Masons now rent in that location. As it turns out, the shell corporation has an empty, hollow shell at 1200 Washington.
DeleteAs a condo owner, I like many in large buildings don't want windows covered in political signs.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine real estate agents sticking Russo signs in empty windows, on fences and doors.
This idea was proposed by Wefer to a Condo Board Pres and he to;d her it was unpopular. People dont want signs all over buildings they have the rules for rent signs, sale signs and other political positions. Condo owners don't own their exteriors.
What if the sign is taped to the inside of the window? Do you believe the condo owner owns that? If so, do you agree it's their right to post their political support?
DeleteIt's true that some owners in large buildings don't want political signage, but apparently other owners do. Personally, I dislike them but it seems like it would be a first amendment issue if, as Snoopy suggests, the signs are taped inside the owners window, right?
DeleteWell, the NJ Constitution swings both ways. It will allow you to post a Zimmer sign in your window and the guy across the street to post a Romano/Russo one (or the other way around). I remember in 2009, when my neighbors across the street filled their windows with Cammarano posters, I filled mine with the 'Green Team.' Just be glad you don't live in Union City where the Brian Stack window signs NEVER come down!
DeleteBrian Stack makes you place votive candles under each sign
DeletePeople buy condos and sign deeds knowing the rules.
DeleteHa ha, Anon 7:07. I'll bet he does! I don't believe condo bylaws or deeds restrict owners from placing political signs in their windows. If so, it's unconstitutional.
DeleteGA- the by-laws in my building do. No signs in the windows, political or otherwise. Guess now I can point to this ruling and say "ha ha" if I want to put it in.
DeleteWhat if Beth Mason lived in your Building? Or owned multiple units? You think she's limit it to one cute small sign?
DeleteDuring Zimmer's Race Scott came to my building telling us we had to allow political signs in our windows and cited the above case. It pissed off our board so much 2 members said they would not support Zimmer, the other Board member Called Zimmer and asked her to please have him cease. She agreed, but he pressed on with a letter to editor Naming our building.
Nice way to win over voters...
Imagine a pro life/ Choice Battle?
Imagine a "Straight vs Gay" Marriage rights Vote like Prop 8 in California?
You buy in a building with rules, we don't want politicians stepping in and forcing their outsider rights on private property so they can promote themselves.
Wear a button.
Women's only clubs, race only clubs and catholic school uniforms are unconstitutional too. Would you argue that kids who enroll in a private school knowingly and willingly be allowed to wear T shirt and Jeans in defiance of the uniform code? Wear a Pro Choice Button in a Church where they are anti abortion? You don't like the rules? You use your constitutional rights to join a different church , school or Condo association.
DeleteFolks- here is a comment The Dana posted on FB, thought it might clarify some questions about the court case.
Delete"Just wanted to let you know that the case didn't touch common areas. In fact, I'm certain the court would permit a rule prohibiting signs in common areas. The inside of someone's condo is not a common element.
Additionally, please be assured that condo and homeowners associations are free to regulate the time, place, and manner of sign postings. What constitutes a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction in this exact situation hasn't been fully hashed out, but municipal regulations in the same vein suggest a time limit of a few weeks before an election and a few days after would be upheld.
Elections only happen a few times a year, and political speech is the most highly treasured level of speech in out case law. Signs are a peculiarly economic and effective way to convey political speech, as the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for a very long time."
BINGO !
DeleteDepending on the building, Windows are common elements
DeleteShe's a force of nature, that one. New mom, lawyer, Hoboken democrats, HHA chair with a huge mess to clean up, council candidate and essayist.
ReplyDeleteShe's dynamic. Hope she has aspirations for higher office
DeleteWefer for Freeholder
DeleteStill waiting for SLAPP: A Hoboken Musical.
ReplyDeleteGuess we are waiting for the third act to be finished.
Start writing/composing only do it the Hollywood way- with 2 endings in the can. You know- like "Little Shop of Horrors" the movie filmed 2 endings... the one where everyone got eaten didn't test well, so they went with the "happy" ending. How about "Mason's SLAPP of Horrors" starring two lunatics, a fish and a wealthy harridan.
Delete