Ass City Attorney signs mayor up for First and Fourteenth Amendments test case

Assistant City Attorney Greg Wheeler has responded, on behalf of Mayor Richard Berry and "the City", to my requests for "press credentials".

I need "credentials" in order to attend and participate in press conferences. This despite the fact; from a Constitutional standpoint, there is no such thing as "press credentials".

(Congress shall make no law ...) shall require no trinket, no talisman, fetish, mascot or mojo, no proof of membership as proof of entitlement to First Amendment protection of the press.

Voltaire argued convincingly;

a man is free at the instant he wants to be.

He doesn't have to "prove" that he is free, before he is free.

It must be the same with the press.

A wo/man is the press at the instant s/he wants to be.

S/he does not have to "prove" s/he is the press, before s/he is the press.  Entitled therefore to equal protection under the law.

If there is an issue over "pressness"; why is it automatically incumbent upon the press to prove that they are the press?

Why is it not automatically incumbent upon the small town mayor to prove the the press is not the press before denying them free exercise of their human right to be "the press"?

My request is for the same treatment as is afforded to traditional press; prior knowledge of press conferences, entrance and the opportunity to ask legitimate questions about the public interests and the about the public service of politicians and public servants.

The Fourteen Amendment here quoted in significant part;

no mayor "... shall ... deny to any (blogger) ...
the equal protection of the laws.

Mayor Berry can take questions
from all of the press or he can
take questions from none of the press.

What he can't do, is to take questions
from some of the press.

In particular, he can't take questions
from only some of the press if the some
are distinguished from the others by a
process that won't stand Constitutional scrutiny.

Berry's process; the "City's" process, cannot stand Constitutional scrutiny.  That is precisely why they are hiding it, even in response to a request for public records.

At the very least, the process is utterly arbitrary and based upon who one is, what one has said, and more importantly, the process depends on what one intends to say or do.  It's called prior restraint.  It's unconstitutional.  The process that "the City" of Albuquerque uses to distinguish those press who are invited to press conferences from those who are banned from press conferences is unconstitutional.

The Journal gave Defendant Marty Esquivel a few kind inches this morning, link, allowing him to point out that times have changed,

"... in particular the willingness of nontraditional journalists to push the envelope.”.

Berry doesn't get to ban me from press conferences because I "push the envelope" by asking questions like;

Who do Mayor Richard Berry's and other PIOs serve;
the people whose servants they are or,
the interests of the politicians and public servants
at whose pleasure they serve? link?

The issue; who is and who is not protected by the First Amendment, needs to be settled.  Times have changed.  One cannot offer protection for the press without answering who is the press?  Who is the press in the fundamental foundation upon which any Constitutional protection of the press must rest.

In real time, it is more important to know who has the authority at the local level to make that decision on the spot, in the form of  a command decision.  The courts? small town mayors? mid-level oligarchs?

I think we're about to find out.
Wheeler's letter, link.
Thank you, Ass City Attorney Greg Wheeler.




photos Mark Bralley