Transcript: Bench Trial July 20, 2009: Carrollton, Ga. Municipal Court: Prosecuted for Count One: Obscene Sign; Count Two: Sign Too Large. Judge Lee Smith, presiding.
I finally got a good transcript of my dead baby obscene sign trial. Like all trial transcripts, this one goes on and on. It's probably not worth reading it all. But if you will scroll down to the last exchange in the transcript, the one where the Judge refers to the sign that is being called obscene and begins to castigate me by asking, "Is it not an indecent act to display this child? With, uh, against the parents of this child, the grandparents of this child?" you will begin to understand how deeply denial of the reality of, and meaning of, legalized abortion effects even the most "logical" "Christian" people in this land.
This is the Sign
City of Carrollton, Ga
v.
Neal Horsley
Prosecutor: State calls two cases. State versus Neal Horsley
Judge: Mr. Horsley
Horsley: Yes Sir.
Judge: Come around please. Have a seat here.
Prosecutor: State calls…Let me…I, I have some preliminary remarks I’d like to make before I proceed.
Judge: Which case are we going to try?
Prosecutor: Both.
Judge: At the same time?
Prosecutor: That’s our intent.
Judge: Ok
Prosecutor: The state will try both cases simultaneously. And we’ve told Mr. Horsley that we amended citations. The State will be proceeding under two provisions…74-21. Basically we’ll be proceeding under State A-2, which makes it a violation of the ordinance, No sign shall interfere with road or highway visibility or obstruct or otherwise interfere with the safe and orderly movement of traffic…
Judge: OK
Prosecutor: and under subsection I. No sign or sign structure above a height of three feet shall be maintained within twenty feet of the intersection of right-of-way lines of two streets or of a street intersection with a railroad right-of-way. And State is not proceeding under A-5, which is a violation of this ordinance contain statements, words or pictures of an obscene, indecent or immoral character such as will offend public morals…
Subsection I
Judge: OK
Prosecutor: (unintelligible)
Judge: So that is not an issue in this particular hearing?
Prosecutor: We are not proceeding under that particular subsection of the sign ordinance.
Horsley: Your honor may I…
Judge: Are you finished?
Prosecutor: Yessir.
Judge: Yessir.
Horsley: The idea that I’m gonna be cited under one ordinance and then tried under a different ordinance is like arresting me for drunk driving and then trying me for murder. I mean at some point… I didn’t go to law school, and I don’t know what kangaroo court means, but it just seems like it’s totally mind-boggling that I would be proceeding under these circumstances.
Judge: Well let me tell you a couple of things. First of all if you refer to this court as a kangaroo court, what that means is you will be held in contempt and jailed, that’s what kangaroo court means…
Horsley: And I certainly wasn’t…
Judge: Ok, I just wanted to let you know that…
Horsley: I understand.
Judge: Number two, if you want to proceed with technical issues and bring a technical objection to the procedures, you’re certainly welcome to do that and I’ll rule on them at the appropriate time. But I don’t know what the citation said, but they can amend them at any time prior to trial.
Prosecutor: Our position will be that the original citation of Mr. Horsley on July the sixteenth in 2009..,.
Judge: Is that one or two? Is that the first case or the second?
Prosecutor: The first. And that particular citation did cite 74-21-5 which is the obscenity, I’ll call the obscenity portion of the sign ordinance as opposed to the second. The second case which was made on April 30, 2009. And let me go back and say that the original case was bound over to the State Court, but it was later determined that it was improper administrative procedure so it had to be brought back down to the City Court. The second citation was April 30, 2009 and it charged with violation of 74-21 A2, which is not the obscenity, A5 was included and subsection I was included which is the two I just got through reading. My point wtih Mr. Horsley is that I would certainly agree that he has a right to have noted either on the back of the citation, of the traffic citation from the city as to what he is being charged with so that he can properly prepare to defend himself. However I would suggest to the Court that the second ticket was made, the second citation was issued on April 30, 2009 and Mr. Horsley charging him with a violation of A2 which is the traffic safety provision in I which is the size and location of the sign and he responded to that, so he was well aware in the second case that that was an issue for him to have to defend. We would suggest that based on that he has notice that that’s what he’s being charged with. I would admit to the Court candidly that we amended both statutes this morning to choose not to proceed under A5 which is the obscenity portion and only to proceed under 21 A 2 and subsection I.
Judge: I would…my initial response to that is that you’re at least held to be prepared to go forward with case number two, the latter, the later of the two cases. If there is a factual issue as to location or size of the older of the two cases, then there might be a factual issue that he would not be prepared to go forward on as far as, um, as to the facts of whether the size of the sign, the location of the sign…Do you follow what I’m getting at?
Prosecutor: I understand that, Judge. And I don’t know how the evidence is going to play out…fully, as to the facts of the matter. We don’t know what the testimony is going to be from all the witnesses who testify, uh, so I cannot speak to whether or not ultimately the first citation will be lacking in evidence until we put all the evidence before the Court.
Judge: Well, you know, as an abundance of caution, I would entertain a defense motion, since you want to try, in your own petition, to try both cases at the same time, I would entertain a motion to continue both cases until you’ve had adequate time to prepare case one, the earlier case, to be tried under the amended, um, the amended charge.
Prosecutor: Judge if I can respond to that?
Judge: Please.
Prosecutor: We’re prepared to move forward on both cases today, uh, and again I cannot say, we’re not privy to all the evidence that Mr. Horsley might present in his defense, so I cannot say what the ultimate issue will be on the first case. I do know that we expect the evidence in the second case to be sufficient to convict him of the, uh, provisions of the sign ordinance, so we’re moving forward .
Judge: OK, I’ve heard from Mr. Vassey. Mr. Horsley, what do you have to say about this?
Horsley: Well, I think that it’s obvious what’s going on here.
Judge: Well if it’s so obvious, please explain it to me.
Horsley: That’s what I’m fixin to do.
Judge: OK.
Horsley: What is happening is, there is an attempt to suppress honest speech to the public. And they’ve made a fundamental error by calling my sign obscene at first. And now they’re transferring it to what amounts to a technical, uh, violation that still suppresses my speech, but in a way that allows the Court, and the jury and the, the criminal justice system to shut me up and prevent me from telling the people the truth about what it is that I’m trying to communicate. And the whole idea that you’re going to stop me from telling the truth by coming up with some kind of size ordinances that ultimately are an attempt to suppress my speech is something that we will go as far as the Courts will allow us to go in fighting.
Judge: Well if that’s the case, let’s start this long journey with this first step: let’s proceed.
Prosecutor: I understand. Judge, I fully am aware that he has other remedies up above regardless of which sections of this ordinance that’s he’s unhappy with whatever decision is made, so take the proper procedure to go up, I’m not suggesting we try to enforce that.
Judge: Well, the only thing I was trying to remedy was to give Mr. Horsley the opportunity to be prepared, uh, on case number one, the earlier case as it is amended, by giving him time to prepare that, if in fact he has a slightly different defense for that as opposed to the one that he might have for case number two. And I thought that might keep us fgrom having to rehear that matter on appeal, or somebody to rehear that matter on appeal, on, um, if it was necessary. And we’re just looking at hypothetical situations here, that a continuance on that would remedy a potential appeal of not being prepared, for not having adequate time to prepare for case number one as it is now going to be presented, but, I mean, it’s your case Mr. Vassey, if you want to go ahead with it, we can go ahead with it today .
Prosecutor: Can I confer with my clients (unintelligible)?
Judge: Sure. That’s why we’re here. I’ve got all day. Well, actually, I don’t have all day but…
Prosecutor: Two minute pause.
Prosecutor: Your honor, I apologize to the court.
Judge: No problem.
Prosecutor: I was trying to…
Horsley: Your honor, may I…
Judge: One at a time. I’ll give you plenty of time to talk, but just one at a time.
Prosecutor: We have decide, the State has decided, to proceed with the first case as originally written, Mr. Horsley, back to 74 21 5 which is the obscenity section, and we will proceed with that one (unintelligible) and we will proceed with the second case, um, A2 and I, but not five. I appear that he has notice of all three of those provisions and would be presumed to be prepared on all three (unintelligible).
Judge: OK
Horsley: The amendment has confused the issue so much now that I object to what we’re doing because I think that the confusion that has been created is something that I haven’t been given an opportunity to respond to.
Judge: Well, Mr. Horsley, you can’t have it both ways. Either you want to have a hearing, or you don’t. If you don’t want to have a hearing, or do you want to have a hearing?
Horsley: Well, I want to have a hearing, but I object to the way that it is developing.
Judge: Okay, your objection is noted. Are we ready to proceed?
Horsley: Yes, your honor.
Judge: Okay, do you have any witnesses?
Horsley: Only the officers that are present.
Judge: Okay, are you planning on testifying yourself?
Horsley: Yes.
Judge: Okay, will you swear the witnesses and who’s going to be your prosecuting…
Prosecutor: Captain Sailors in the first case will be the prosecuting officer; (unintelligible) will be prosecuting the second.
Judge: OK.
Prosecutor: I call Captain Sailors.
Judge: Okay, let’s just swear everybody at one time.
Prosecutor: Will each of you about the testimony about to be given before the Court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.
I do.
(Boxes contained evidence brought into Court).
Prosecutor: Just to the side of the box there.
(Boxes containing sign being opened)
Oh, I’m sorry.
Prosecutor: Captain Sailors, would you state your name for the record please.
Captain Sailors: Jameson Sailors.
Prosecutor: Where are you employed?
Captain Sailors: I’m employed by the City of Carrollton Police department.
Prosecutor: And how long have you been so employed?
Captain Sailors: I’ve been an employee here for nine years.
Prosecutor: And what is your position with the Carrollton Police Department?
Captain Sailors: Captain of the Patrol Division.
Prosecutor: Captain Sailors, back on July 16th, 2008, did you have an opportunity to come into contact with a man by the name of Otis O’Neal Horsley?
Captain Sailors: I did, and it’s this gentleman here.
Prosecutor: Could you tell us how this contact came about?
Captain Sailors: I got a call from, um, City Hall employees, sometime around 10:30 AM that there was…Mr. Horsley was in the lobby carrying a sign and they needed someone to come up there and assist them.
Prosecutor: Uh, prior to that particular day and that particular time had you received any calls from citizens regarding Mr. Horsley?
Captain Sailors: Yessir. Over a period of time we received dozens of complaints, um, about Mr. Horsley on the square and other locations.
Prosecutor: And what were those complaints about?
Captain Sailors: Uh, basically the largest complaint was the sign that he had displayed.
Prosecutor: (Prosecutor moves to unfold the sign.)
Captain Sailors: Do you want somebody to assist you?
(Large sign is unpacked from box.)
Prosecutor: Captain Sailors, let me show you what the State has marked as State’s Exhibit number one and ask you to review that if you will please sir.
Captain Sailors: That’s the sign I collected that day. This is the box I collected it in.
Prosecutor: And you’ve maintained it in that box since that time?
Captain Sailors: Yessir, I signed…well, once I collected it as evidence, I collected into this evidence box, filled it myself. My initials and the date are on the red evidence slip.
Prosecutor: Have there been any changes to this sign since you…
Captain Sailors: No sir, this is the first time since it’s been out of that box since I put it in there that day.
Prosecutor: Now tell the Court again where this sign was and how you first saw it.
Captain Sailors: Well, Mr. Horsley came into City Hall wearing that sign and had it connected with bungee cords wearing it like, almost like, a cape.
Prosecutor: (Prosecution presents sign to Court).
Judge: Any objection Mr. Horsley
Horsley: No. I stipulate. That’s it.
Prosecutor: Captain Sailors, did you have a conversation with Mr. Horsley about this sign?
Captain Sailors: I did. We spoke in the foyer of City Hall.
Prosecutor: And what did the conversation consist of?
Captain Sailors: Um, I asked him to remove the sign. And he said he wouldn’t. I asked him if he would give it to me. He said no. You can take it from me. And I did. I asked him to go ahead and give it to me, and he assisted me by taking it off.
Prosecutor: And did you charge Mr. Horsley with any offense or any violation of City Ordinance on that day?
Captain Sailors: I did. I issued him an appearance citation for the, uh, City Ordinance violation for the obscene, immoral sign.
Prosecutor: On the day this happened, is that the first time you’d seen Mr. Horsley that day?
Captain Sailors: Nosir, I can’t recall how many times I hadd seen Mr. Horsley. But it’s been numerous times. I’m not the only officer that’s dealt with Mr. Horsley.
Prosecutor: Can you tell us where you’d seen him previously?
Captain Sailors: I’d seen him up on Adamson Square. The Rome/Bradley, Alabama Street, Newnan Street , right there at the cross roads.
Prosecutor: In the middle of the square?
Captain Sailors: Yessir.
Prosecutor: With this sign?
Captain Sailors: With that sign. One like it. I don’t know if it was that one particular sign, but one just like it
Prosecutor: Had you ever spoken to him about the sign that he had?
Captain Sailors: Um, I can’t really…I don’t think I’d spoken to him personally, but I know other officers have. You can actually pull it up on youtube and see Captain Diamond, Chief, uh, the City Administrator one time, speaking to him about his signs on the square, um,. There’s numerous videos on youtube regarding Mr. Horsley and his signs.
Prosecutor: And have you seen those videos?
Captain Sailors: I have.
Prosecutor: And were they on the square in Carrollton?
Captain Sailors: They were.
Prosecutor: Were they within 20 feet of the intersection of Alabama Street and the cross streets on the square?
Captain Sailors: Yessir, they were.
Prosecutor: Have you measured this sign?
Captain Sailors: I have not, but there is a measuring tape on your desk sir.
Prosecutor: Let me get you to come down and take this tape. (Prosecution measures sign.)
Prosecutor: Am I correct in saying this sign measures about five feet tall?
Captain Sailors: Yes.
Judge: Mr. Horsley, would you like to ask questions of this witness?
Horsley: Yes. The, uh, signs that we’re talking about, that’s been entered into evidence, was that citation issued because of the size of the sign?
Captain Sailors: No, it wasn’t.
Horsley: Why was it issued?
Captain Sailors: It was issued because of the complaints we had received about the people calling in disgusted with the sign.
Horsley: And the citation stipulated that the sign was considered to be obscene? Is that correct?
Captain Sailors: That is correct.
Horsley: The, uh, so the size of the sign would not contribute to its obscenity?
Captain Sailors: Not to that offense. No, it would not.
Horsley: And when you confiscated the sign, I think your testimony was that at first I did not give you the sign when you asked me for it.
Captain Sailors: That is correct.
Horsley: Do you remember what I said at that time when you first asked me for it?
Captain Sailors: I don’t remember exactly. It’s been quite awhile. I can’t remember your exact words.
Horsley: Was I combative, or did I appear to be trying to be cooperative?
Captain Sailors: Mr. Horsley was very cooperative.
Horsley: That’s all I have.
Judge: Is there anything else Mr. Horsley?
Horsley: No.
Judge: You can come down. I’m sorry is there any redirect?
Prosecutor: Captain Sailors, when you talked to Mr. Horsley did you determine from him how he mananged to get down to City Hall that day?
Captain Sailors: Uh, it appeared that his vehicle was parked across the street, Bradley Street.
Prosecutor: In the parking lot?
Captain Sailors: Yessir.
Prosecutor: That’s all I have.
Judge: Anything else, Mr. Horsley?
Horsley: Nossir.
Judge: You can come down.
Horsley: Can I call him back later, if I?
Judge: Yes, you can call him back if you need him.
Prosecutor: The State rests, on this charge.
Judge: Okay, now is it your intention to do all of charge one, and then do all of charge two?
Prosecutor: From an evidentiary standpoint, yessir. We’ll argue after all the evidence is in. But we rest on the first charge.
Judge: Okay. This is a little bit out of the ordinary. But Mr. Horsley do you wish to put forward a defense as to charge one?
Horsley: Yessir. And I have a question. Is a record being made, a transcript of this proceeding?
Judge: Did you want one made?
Horsley: I would like very much to have a record of our words.
Judge: There is a record being made.
Horsley: Okay, good, good.
Judge: I don’t about its availability. (unintelligible talk from unidentified people in Court room.)
Judge: Okay, if it is being recorded, then it will be made available to you.
Horsley: Good. (pause.) I’m not sure, since I am operating as my own counsel, how to proceed, um, Because it seems like there is the whole question of, um, characterizing the sign as obscene raises the question of the content of the sign. So that what is on the sign becomes a part of the issue. And I would like very much to talk about, or have an opportunity to explain to you, why I have that sign, why that sign exists, and why the size of the sign is integral to the communication that the sign is attempting to accomplish.
Judge: Well, I think you can do that by the presentation of evidence. So would you like to go forward with your defense?
Horsley: Yes, I’d like to go forward with my defense.
Judge: Then proceed.
Horsley: Then I would like to testify. I guess that would be the way to do it. Or whatever would be the proper procedure for me…
Judge: Well, you’ve been sworn. You can take the stand and testify.
Horsley: Should I take the stand?
Yes, please.
Horsley: Lemme, lemme, take the sign with me. Since I’m going to be talking about the sign, I’d like to have it here. (Pause as Horsley goes to witness stand.) As you can see the sign is of a…
Judge: Let me say this first, I’ll let you make a narrative so you don’t have to ask or, um, and answer your own questions. But I must instruct you to stay strictly with the issue that is now before the Court. Okay? Now proceed.
Horsley: The issue before the Court is whether or not this sign is obscene. As I understand it. And as you can see the content of the sign is a picture of…
Prosecution: Judge, may I interpose an objection to this extent: Mr. Horsley has indicated that he wants to testify about the sign in this case. And I would suggest that the argument about whether or not the sign is obscene is an argument to be made at closing to the Court. But the facts of the matter of how the case came about, how he was arrested and where he was, are facts that should be the subject. And the argument about whether the sign is obscene or not should be closing argument.
Judge: Well, I have to say this. He’s charged with displaying an indecent sign and we have to look at it to know whether it’s indecent or not, so…
Prosecutor: I understand,
Judge: I think he’s got the right to show it in his own defense. And it needs to be put in as evidence. As opposed to the closing statement.
Prosecutor: I understand that. If he’s talking, And I do agree that he has the right to show the sign to the tryer of facts. But to argue whether or not it’s obscene is a legal question that the Judge is going to have to decide as the tryer of facts and that’s a legal question, not a factual question…
Judge: Well, if you want to object as he steps over, back and forth over that line, but I’m going to overrule the objection as it is stated. But as each statement comes up you can bring that up because he can’t go back and forth. Okay.
Horsley: (Holds up sign so all can see.) As I was saying the content of the sign is a picture of a decapitated, what I contend, is a human being. That the sign is nothing more than a picture of a, the head, of a decapitated human being. And that picture is, in fact, a part of my campaign as Governor. A campaign that is focused principally, and primarily, on trying to point out that we have in fact legalized doing this to these people. And that,
Judge: Okay, now you can put the picture down and have a seat.
Horsley: Okay, and that, that, is the point. (Begins to roll up sign.) That’s really, I stipulate everything else. There’s really no testimony, no disagreement about everything else. Everything they said is true.
Judge: Have a seat, have a seat.
Horsley: Everything they said it true. I stipulate it. No argument.
Judge: Anything else? Just on this particular issue?
Horsley: No.
Prosecutor: Mr. Horsley, I have a couple of questions. Taking you back to that particular day, I believe it was July 16th, 2008, that you had the confrontation with Captain Sailors. Is that correct?
Horsley: That’s correct.
Prosecutor: Can you tell the Court how you managed to get to the court, to the police station that day?
Horsley: I managed to get there because I had been threatened with sign confiscation on the fourth of July, and proceeded to go to the Court House as a part of my response to that initial threat to confiscate my sign.
Prosecutor: Where were you located on the fourth of July with the sign?
Horsley: I was located on the side of the fourth of July parade.
Prosecutor: Where?
Horsley: In front of the old Court house, or in front of the Court House, the Carroll County Court House.
Prosecutor: On Newnan Street.
Horsley: No, I don’t think so. I think I was located on Bankhead Highway. Um, I don’t know. Is that Newnan Street?
Prosecutor: Are we talking about in front of the Carroll County Court House?
Horsley: Directly in front of where the Confederate Soldier’s statue is located.
Prosecutor: In the corner of (unintelligible) and Newnan Street?
Horsley: Probably, I’m not sure of that.
Prosecutor: Were you standing on the side walk?
Horsley: I was standing on the sidewalk. Actually, probably I was standing in the driveway of the closed cleaners. Or maybe a bank. There might be a bank there.
Prosecutor: At the corner of College Street and Newnan Street.
Horsley: I don’t know.
Judge: I’ll take Judicial notice of that part of town. I know it.
All right. Mr. Horsley, on the date in question, July 16th 2008, take me through your activities before you came down to the police station with that sign. Did you come from home?
Horsley: Right. Yessir.
Prosecutor: Okay. Did you stop anywhere in between?
Horsley: No.
Prosecutor: Had you exhibited the sign anywhere in town?
Horsley: No, I went there in order to let the City do what it was that the City had threatened to do on the fourth of July. I went there precisely because I wanted the City to, if they were going to stop me from displaying this sign, I wanted them to do it, so that we would have the opportunity for me to be able to tell the people why this City has the right to prevent me from telling the truth about a matter of enormous social concern.
Prosecutor: Lemme ask you this. Prior to July 16th, 2008, had you ever exhibited this particular sign—state’s exhibit one—on the square in Carrollton?
Horsley: Well, if not this particular sign, one exactly like it.
Prosecutor: Okay. That’s on the square in Carrollton?
Horsley: All over the place.
Prosecutor: Well, I’m asking you..
Horsley: Yes, there and everywhere.
Prosecutor: In the middle of the square?
Horsley: Not in the middle of the square, no. I think we had a discussion where I moved it from the sidewalk where I had first thought about displaying it , and removed it from the sidewalk and placed it in my, on my, vehicle.
Prosecutor: And where was your vehicle located?
Horsley: Parked in a parking space.
Prosecutor: In the middle of the square?
Horsley: In a parking place on the square. I don’t know if it was the middle.
Prosecutor: Well, there are parking places along what I’m calling the outside of the square area and then the parking lots at the islands, the four islands in the square. Which one of those were you parked at?
Horsley: I, I, I’ve been there several times. So at one time or another I was probably in all four quadrants.
Prosecutor: Am I correct that you would back your truck up in the parking place there at the islands and display this sign or one very much like it on the back of the truck?
Horsley: That’s correct.
Prosecutor: And you would hold it up, is that correct?
Horsley: That’s correct.
Prosecutor: On this particular day you didn’t display your sign anywhere other than here at the police station?
Horsley: That’s correct.
Prosecutor: That’s all I have.
Judge: Anything else you’d like to say as direct testimony?
Horsley: Well, the sum, my testimony is that the only reason I have the sign is because I’m running for Governor of Georgia and I’m trying to show people why I’m running for Governor of Georgia. And trying to correct what I understand to be a horrible travesty of Justice that is the most terrible mistake that has been made since slavery was legalized in this nation. And that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing.
Judge: Okay. Is that it?
Horsley: That’s about it.
Judge: Okay, you can come down.
Judge: Are you ready to proceed with count two?
Prosecutor: Yes, I am. I call…
Horsley: May I say something your honor?
Judge: Yes.
Horsley: Count two is a total transfer of a, a, offense that was focused on the content of the sign to one that is focused on the size and the placement of the sign which is an absolutely, un, un…I’m not prepared to deal with that under these circumstances and to proceed is to run over me without giving me the opportunity to prepare for an attack on the size and the content. Because as has been clearly demonstrated, I have been discussing this sign with all the police authorities in the City of Carrollton on numerous occasions, and it was never, ever, mentioned to me that there was a problem with the size and location of the sign, except for one time when it was suggested that I should not have it on the sidewalk and I relocated it immediately, and the Chief of Police affirmed that I was doing what he was asking me to do. And now I’m being charged with acting like I haven’t been trying to cooperate with the size and location of the sign.
Judge: Okay, is that in the form of an objection?
Horsley: Absolutely.
Judge: Okay. Overruled. Have a seat.
Prosecutor: Call, Officer (unintelligible.)
Prosecutor: I keep calling you Officer….. I apologize for that.
Officer Keever: That’s okay.
Prosecutor: What’s your name?
Officer Keever: Dan Keever.
Prosecutor: And Officer Keever, where are you employed?
Officer Keever: Carrollton Police Department.
Prosecutor: And how long have you been so employed?
Officer Keever: Approximately sixteen years.
Prosecutor: And Officer Keever, let me ask you, on April 30, 2009 did you have an opportunity to come into contact with Otis O’Neal Horsley?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Prosecutor: And do you see Mr. Horlsey in the courtroom today.
Officer Keever: Yessir, he’s sitting right here in front of me.
Prosecutor: Can you explain to the court how you came into contact with Mr. Horsley on that day?
Officer Keever: I don’t recall specifically how I was informed that he was on the square, but I was told that he was on the square displaying a sign, so I proceeded to the square to see if I could find him there. And I did find him on the square parked in what we refer to as the D sector quadrant of the square or the northwest corner of the square. His vehicle was backed up into a parking space in that quadrant of the square. I did observe him on his tailgate of the vehicle displaying the sign. And I then made contact with him.
Prosecutor: Did you prepare a schematic showing the square?
Officer Keever: Yessir, we do have one here.
Prosecutor: Let me show you what’s been marked as State’s Exhibit number two and ask you to, well let me ask you this. I notice you’ve drawn a vehicle on that schematic. Is that correct?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Prosecutor: And what does that vehicle represent?
Officer Keever: A pickup truck, sir, Mr. Horsley’s vehicle.
Prosecutor: On the day in question?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Prosecutor: And do you show that the truck was backed up to that quadrant?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Prosecutor: And where was Mr. Horsley displaying the sign?
Officer Keever: He was standing on a tailgate that was lowered, and standing on the back of that, displaying the sign.
Prosecutor: And was that within 20 feet of the intersection of Rome Street and Alabama Street?
Officer Keever: Yessir it was
Prosecutor: And do you have the sign that he was displaying that day?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Prosecutor: Judge, I want to introduce State’s Exhibit Number two.
Judge: Any objection Mr. Horsley?
Horsley: No.
Judge: Submitted.
Prosecutor: Do you have the sign with you.
Officer Keever: Yessir, I’m sorry.
Prosecutor: Officer, let me ask this question: Where Mr. Horsley was displaying this sign on the back of the truck. His truck out there in the middle quadrant. Was he in any way blocking the view of motorists coming in either direction?
Officer Keever: I believe it would be difficult for motorists turning from the D sector quadrant of the square trying to turn onto Maple Street, um, correction, Alabama Street. It would be difficult for them to observe traffic with him in his location displaying such a large sign.
Prosecutor: Did you approach Mr. Horsley about his sign?
Officer Keever: Yessir, I did.
Prosecutor: What’d you tell him?
Officer Keever: I told him that he needed to give me the sign.
Prosecutor: And what I’ve got marked as State’s Exhibit Number three, is this the sign that Mr. Horsley was (unintelligible)?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Prosecutor: Did you ask Mr. Horlsey to take the sign down?
Officer Keever: Yessir. We basically told him that he needed to produce the sign, or give us the sign, and stop displaying it. And he did not want to continue to, he wanted to continue display it. So we took it and cited him.
Prosecutor: Took it and cited him with a citation?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Prosecutor: For violating the sign ordinance?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Prosecutor: That’s all I have at this point.
Judge: Would you like to ask questions of this witness?
Horsley: Yessir.
Horsley: So the sign was obstructing the view of traffic? Is that your…?
Officer Keever: I believe it had the potential to do so, yessir.
Horsley: And the sign was on the pickup truck? Is that correct?
Officer Keever: You were actually standing on the truck, holding the sign, displaying it.
Horsley: On the side of the pickup truck. Do you remember what was on the side of, each side, of the pickup truck?
Officer Keever: It has stake bodies, full 4X 8 sheets of plywood, stake bodies, on the side of the truck.
Horsley: And did those sides have anything on them?
Officer Keever: It had some type of display, yes.
Horsley: Was it a sign itself?
Officer Keever: I believe it to be, yes.
Horsley: On both sides of the truck?
Officer Keever: Correct.
Horsley: So the truck was pointed at the intersection. And on each side of the truck was a sign that would have made whatever was visible from the end of the truck be the same line of sight as the people would have by viewing that sign. Is that correct?
Officer Keever: Actually I believe where you were at you would have been further toward the intersection with your sign that you were holding. Therefore you were further out from your vehicle by being on the tailgate there.
Horsley: By how much?
Officer Keever: Your side, it could be a potential for another five feet from where those signs were.
Horsley: My tailgate is five feet long?
Officer Keever: No, but when you hold the sign out and displaying it, it gets further distance from your vehicle.
Horsley: So you’re saying that by holding it out the length of the arms I was extending the depth of perception?
Officer Keever: Right. Those vehicles are really close to the roadway when you back them up into that area of the square, so you’re getting closer to the roadway. And anything in that area would be obstructing view from people trying to turn onto the main road.
Horsley: So you’re saying a that a UPS truck, in that spot, would be doing, obstructing, according to your formula?
Officer Keever: That’s not what I said.
Horsley: What, what?
Officer Keever: I said, you, standing on the back of your truck, extending a sign further past, beyond your truck would be more obstructing a view.
Horsley: Did you not say that any vehicle would be obstructing?
Officer Keever: What I’m saying is, Your standing on the back of your truck, extending a sign from the back of your truck, further out towards the traffic, which would obstruct their view.
Horsley: Did you see me holding the sign in front of me like that?
Officer Keever: Yessir.
Horsley: So it is your position that my standing on the truck tailgate
Officer Keever: Yessir
Horsley: And extending the sign out, obstructed the point of view of motorists?
Officer Keever: You have to understand that’s quite a large sign, so it’s not like a little sign, it’s a large sign.
Horsley: Okay, is that sign any bigger than the signs that were on the sides of the truck? I think you said they were 4X8.
Officer Keever: I don’t think it’s bigger, no.
Horsley: So whatever would obstructing the view, this sign was smaller than the signs on the sides of the truck?
Officer Keever: I’ve never testified that your truck signs were obstructing view. I’ve testified that your sign that you were holding was obstructing view.
Horsley: And it was obstructing the view because it extended the length of the truck by five feet?
Officer Keever: Or more, yes,
Horsley: How long would you say the truck was?
Officer Keever: I don’t know.
Horsley: Is it a extended cab truck?
Officer Keever: I don’t believe so.
Horsley: Is it a, I can’t remember the exact terminology for a reduced sized pickup, but it isn’t a large pickup truck, is it?
Officer Keever: I believe it to be a standard sized pickup, although it was not my focus at the point.
Horsley: Well, the point is if the five feet which is, which is the point of obscurity, if other trucks are that long then what we would be talking about is an obscurity that would be accomplished by any vehicle in that location.
Officer Keever: I’m not sure of your question sir.
Horsley: Do you remember whether the truck that I was standing on is a standard sized pickup or a reduced sized pickup?
Officer Keever: My recollection, it’s a standard sized pickup.
Horsley: Your honor, can I enter evidence?
Judge: Yes, you can.
Horsley: The size of the pickup truck in question is a reduced sized pickup.
Judge: Why don’t you wait and produce your evidence when you are producing your defense? You’re still cross examining the prosecution’s witness. Unless it would benefit you in cross examining the witness. Will it benefit you in cross examining the witness?
Horsley: I’d like to establish the point that it is a reduced size pickup truck.
Judge: Okay, produce what you have to produce.
Prosecutor: Judge, let me also make one objection and that is the issue here is the sign, the location of the sign in question which is State’s exhibit three, not the size of the truck and what was on the truck. The ordinance says it’s a violation of the sign ordinance to have a sign that’s over three feet tall within twenty feet of an intersection and that’s in the testimony of this officer. And that’s the element, the only element, of this particular violation. Not the size of the pickup truck.
Judge: I sustain that objection.
Horsley: Then the point is the signs on the side of the pickup truck, why did you not seize those signs when you seized this, that particular sign?
Officer Keever: They were mounted on a vehicle. They were mobile. And the sign ordinance deals with this particular sized sign next to the intersection.
Horsley: Was I mounted on the vehicle?
Officer Keever: No.
Horsley: When you confiscated the sign from me had I not mounted the vehicle and standing on the tailgate?
You were standing on the vehicle, yes.
Horsley: That’s not what you mean by the word mounted? And mounted means? What does mounted mean?
Officer Keever: I believe there’s no ordinance, or anything dealing with you applying stake bodies to your vehicle. So you can obstruct the back view of your truck by building stake bodies to haul particular items and things of that nature, um, that’s what you did to your truck as far as I understand. I dealt with the sign you were displaying that was blocking traffic and view.
Horsley: So I can mount signs on the truck but when I mount the truck and hold the signs I am violating the sign ordinance?
Prosecutor: Judge, I interpose an objection. The State is, the violation is maintaining a sign that’s over three feet tall within twenty feet of the intersection. The size of the truck, or whether or not the truck was obscured is not what we, is not relevant to this particular issue in my opinion. Whether or not his truck was obscuring traffic is irrelevant to this particular issue. Our concern is to present testimony that this particular sign is over 36” tall and within twenty feet of an intersection. That’s all.
Horsley: Your honor. Virtually every commercial vehicle that goes through or parks on the square in Carrollton has a sign that exceeds the 36 inch sign requirement .
Judge: I understand the point you’re trying to make. I’m still going to sustain the objection because the only issue we have in count two is was there a sign and how close to the intersection and how big it was. We’re not, you’re begging the issue of should you have gotten two more tickets, one for other signs. So stick to the issue of was it you, was it a three feet sign or greater and was it within twenty feet of the intersection.
Horsley: Well, uh, may I respond?
Judge: All you can do is stick to the issue that is brought forth in the complaint: that there was a sign held by you within twenty feet of the intersection and it was bigger than three feet.
Horsley: The officer said that mounting a sign on a vehicle changes his attitude toward the sign. And I’m trying to point out that that sign was mounted on the vehicle. And that as a sign mounted on a vehicle it was no different whatsoever than the signs that were mounted on the sides of my vehicle…
Judge: The attempt that you’re making is noted by the court. Proceed to the next point you’d like to make.
Horsley: Do you normally confiscate signs that are mounted on vehicles that are parked along the square?
Officer Keever: I’ve never done so.
Horsley: Never done so?
Officer Keever: Correct.
Horsley: Why was this sign subject to being confiscated if you’ve never confiscated other signs that were mounted on vehicles?
Officer Keever: Sir, I confiscated this sign as evidence in this case to be presented in court.
Horsley: And why did you confiscate it as evidence?
Officer Keever: To be presented as evidence in Court.
Horsley: Who ordered you to confiscate this sign?
Officer Keever: I told myself to do it to bring evidence to court.
Horsley: Why did you confiscate this sign yet did not confiscate the rest of the signs that were mounted on vehicles around the square?
Prosecutor: I object.
Judge: Sustained. Move on from the vehicles. We’re not talking about vehicles. We’re talking about the sign that you were h olding within twenty feet of the intersection. We’re not talking about vehicles or stake bodies on vehicles. Only the sign that you’re handling.
Horsley: Was this sign, was I standing on the vehicle when you confiscated the sign?
Officer Keever: Correct.
Horsley: Then the vehicle was a part of the equation you were using to decide whether or not the sign could be confiscated?
Officer Keever: No sir.
Horsley: Was where the sign was located a part of the equation?
Officer Keever: Correct.
Horsley: And the fact that it was on the vehicle was not a part of your equation?
Officer Keever: Nossir.
Horsley: When you decided that it obstructed the view of the motorists was that the determining factor for why you needed to confiscate it?
Officer Keever: I confiscated it as evidence.
Horsley: And what evidence was that?
Officer Keever: It’s a sign that you’re being cited for and therefore it becomes evidence in this case. So that’s why I took it.
Horsley: Did the content of the sign attact, was the content of the sign a reason that you confiscated it?
Officer Keever: Nossir.
Horsley: Did you say yes?
Officer Keever: Nossir.
Horsley: I don’t know what else to ask you.
Judge: Are you though with the questions?
Horsley: I must be.
Judge: Have a seat.
(Random noises.)
Prosecution: We rest Judge.
Judge: Are you ready to go forward in your defense in this issue? This is on case two.
Horsley: Yessir.
Judge: You want to take the stand?
Horsley: I stipulate to everything that he, to the facts.
Judge: Do you want to add anything?
Horsley: Well, I’d like to talk about the facts.
Judge: Well we’re going to have closing arguments.
Horsley: Right, right.
Judge: So you can argue, but now is the time when you can present evidence. This is the part where you present evidence.
Horsley: I agree to everything they said about what happened. Happened.
Judge: Okay. Have a seat. So do you rest your case now?
Horsley: I guess. I must.
Judge: I’m giving you ample opportunity.
Horsley: I don’t know what else to say.
Judge: I understand that you’re representing yourself. I want you to have full say. I don’t want you leaving here saying that there was something I wanted to say and he wouldn’t let me say it. Now is there anything else you have to say that’s pertinent to the two cases?
Horsley: Well yessir.
Judge: Now I’m not talking about closing arguments. I mean for evidence. You’re going to get closing arguments.
Horsley: Well I think the point about the sign being located, being mounted on the truck is absolutely critical.
Judge: Okay, that’s in your argument. That’ll be in your argument. But if you want to produce any evidence, or if you want to give any testimony that is to be considered as evidence under oath, now is the time you need to do it.
Horsley: Well I would like to testify.
Judge: Then take the stand. But as I admonished you before I only want to hear information regarding the specific issue in this particular count. Nothing else.
Horsley: Yessir. I understand. Okay, I’m standing up because I want to show you me in relationship to this sign.
Judge: Okay, that’s fine.
Horsley: And there I am holding it. I can only hold it that far away from me, or this far, or I could hold it behind me. But at some point my proximity to the sign is the critical element. Because if there is a line of sight blockage that line of sight blockage is the same line of sight blockage that occurs whether I’m standing there without the sign or whether I’m standing there with the sign because the stake bodies of the pickup truck prevent anything from being seen from the truck.
Prosecutor: Judge may I propose an objection. And that objection is that the only requirement of violation of this sign ordinance is maintaining a sign in excess of 36” within 20 feet of an intersection and that’s the testimony that he’s admitted to already in this case. And whether or not the line of sight is obstructed to other vehicles doesn’t play a part in the violation of this ordinance.
Horsley: May I testify your honor?
Judge: His objection is sustained.
Horsley: May I say this in my defense?
Judge: Please.
Horsley: The mounting of the sign on the vehicle makes that sign like every other sign that is stipulated to be allowed in the public area of Carrollton. There’s no difference. It accomplishes exactly the same thing on the vehicle. There is no difference whatsoever. In fact that was the point that was made by the Chief of Police.
Prosecutor: Objection. The Chief of Police is not here to testify.
Judge: Sustained.
Horsley: There is a video on youtube that shows the Chief of Police talking to me about the sign, not that sign, but one exactly like it. And the point that the video makes, and that is documented, and that thousands of people have seen is that the sign could be seen to be blocking the sidewalk, he said. Not the line of sight, but the sidewalk and I need to move it. And I did. And I moved it to the back of the truck that the sign was confiscated from. And the Chief of Police came to me, and talked to me as I’m standing there on the back of the truck, never saying a word about the sign being a violation. What he talked about was whether or not I could be campaigning with the sign at that point in time.
Prosecutor: Again I object. What the Chief of Police may or may not have said…
Judge: Sustained.
Horsley: Well there’s comes a point, your Honor, it seems where what one is told by authority that is the allowable, especially when one is the Chief of Police, certainly would be understood to be a factor in a citizen’s behaviour, expecially when the citizen does not have the minutiae of all the city ordinances memorized, what the Chief of Police says at a moment in time about what is allowable would be seen to be the law. And if the Chief of Police contradicted a statute which is being alleged at this point in time, to have believed the Chief of Police and to have operated according to the instructions of the Chief of Police, or to the implications involved in the Chief of Police’s communication, that would, I don’t see how I would be seen to be violating any law.
Judge: Is that your testimony?
Horsley: And in conclusion about my testimony, that is the point, your honor, whatever technical violations might be seen was a violation that in reality everybody who has a sign mounted on a vehicle is guilty of if this ordinance is to be seen to be an enforceable ordinance. And obviously it’s not being enforced. Except in this case on me, and I contend, and this is the moral of the story, it isn’t about the size of the sign, it’s about the content of the sign. Just like the first case, the first citation that I’m being charged with was obviously about the content of the sign. And that to be forced to this conclusion to where we start talking about a technicality, when what we’re really talking about is a matter of the most importance. Whether or not it’s possible to tell the truth in this society or in Carrollton Georgia is the question. Is it wrong to tell the truth? Here. That is the issue. Is it going to be found to be illegal for a man doing the best he can to tell the truth to do it here in Carrollton. That’s the question. And that’s the question before this court. And that’s the question before this Judge. And I can’t say it, I mean…
Judge: Okay. If you’re finished. Believe it or not, I’m going to give you a chance to talk one more time. Have you finished your evidence?
Horsley: I have.
Judge: Okay, stand down. Any rebuttal?
No your honor (unintelligible.)
Judge: Okay, Mr. Horsley. This is your closing argument.
(unintelligible.)
Judge: Wait just a minute. Wait just a minute. Heretofore, when you’ve gotten on the stand, you’ve been under oath, and you’ve given testimony that you want the Court to consider as evidence. Now this is your final time to talk to me. And what you have to do, if you want to, you don’t have to, but you have to summarize. You know, lay it out like you, like you, think it ought to be understood to be understood by the Court. Now this is your final time to put forth your argument in this case. Now do you have anything you want to say to me?
Horsley: Yessir. Insofar as the first charge, which is the charge of obscenity, that, in summary I’d like to say that the picture of a decapitated, preborn, unborn. No I can’t say unborn because the decapitated head was born, it was just born dead. That picture of the dead cadaver of a human being goes to the very heart of why I’m standing in the public square holding up that sign. Is that I think little babies are being killed legally in the United States of America. And it boggles my mind that we’ve reached this place to where I have to stand here weeping and, and, and to say these things. I don’t know how to do it any differently. I know I’m not a very good spokesman for that little baby. But I might be the only one she’s got. So I’m going to keep on trying to do my best. Because I know that little baby deserves a spokesman. And I am trying to do that in, in the best way I know how. So when I show the sign, and it’s considered to be obscene, it’s not my attempt to do whatever the word obscenity is defined as, it’s my attempt to show people the truth. And to do it in as kind, and as gentle, and as effective a way as I know how. And that picture is an exact representation of what’s happening here in this nation. It’s an effective representation of that. And that might very well be why people don’t want to look at it. Because people don’t want to look at horrible things that they are involved in. It’s called denial. That’s the word. The, the doctor’s have a word for it, when we, when we’re face to face with something that we don’t want to see. I had, I had, I’ve got diabetes. And I lost sixty pounds, not five months ago, and I refused to face that I was sick. My daughter’s a doctor, a medical doctor who said, Daddy there’s something wrong with you. And I said, Naw, I’m working out at the gym and I’m just doing real good. And she said, No I think you need to go and get some tests made. And I finally did and sure enough I had the disease. But in that period of time when I didn’t want to see it, there was something, something wrong with my brain And, and, and by God’s grace I got a chance to look at it. And, and, we corrected it and got fixed and I’m all getting better. You know, I got a new lease on life. And that’s what I’m trying to do here. For America, for the United States of America, that’s what I’m trying to do. And I’m afraid that if we don’t do it, there’s something out there, there’s a Being out there that has the power to say Let there be light, and there’s light. And that we’re offending that Being because He created these babies. And when we, when we start deciding that we’ve got the right to kill ‘em, we, we, we do a dangerous thing, we, we thwart the will of God. And, and, and the problem is like in Noah’s day, once it starts raining, it’s too late. Once it starts raining it’s too late. We’ve waited too long. And that’s what I’m trying to do, I’m trying to say, wake up. Now that’s count one. That’s the obscenity charge. I don’t think that sign is obscene. What it is a very threatening wake up call to people who are in denial. And that sign has to be seen. And that’s why I’m showing it. Not because I’m trying to be obscene. I’m trying to be seen. Because I have something that I cannot not say. Now that’s count one. Count two is, you know, I think, Judge, there is no doubt that mounting that sign on the truck in accordance with the instructions of the Chief of Police was my attempt to cooperate with the City ordinances. As I understood them to exist. Now whether or not it can now be seen that I have violated the City Ordinance, I didn’t mean to obstruct traffic. That’s not why I’m out there. I’m not out there to create problems for anybody. I was in Newnan two weeks ago. Doing my thing, right? And sure enough, a car starts backing out, right? And, and, and he backs into another car. I stopped immediately. Because I didn’t think, the guy didn’t say a word about me having been a part of that fender bender, but the mere possibility that my location could have contributed something like that caused me to leave. Because I’m not out there to cause problems with the traffic. I’m out there to communicate a message about a matter of the utmost importance to our survival. Not me and you, but my children and their children. I think we’ve made a mistake in this nation. And I think the Courts made it. That it was exactly equivalent to the mistake we made when we said it was all right for a black man to be seen to be less than human. And I think God punished us enormously. And I don’t know why we can’t learn from that lesson. And, and, and why we’re reproducing exactly the same (unintelligible) people are not people. They’re not people. Of course they’re people. We don’t whether they’re people are not. Well, I know they’re people. And the people who look at the sign know they’re people. And, and, and, if I’ve done anything wrong, it’s to try to show that we’re killing people. Try to make that known to the public. And when I say we, I’m talking about me and you and everybody else. All of us. All of us. And I’m telling you that I’m going to keep on trying. And I hope this is no threat, your honor, this is a promise, I hope to God I got strength enough to keep on going until I’m a dead man, til I’ve done everything in my power to try to tell what I’m telling you now to everybody. And I don’t care what happens. If yall got to put me in jail I’ll draw a little picture of a baby and I’ll hold it up to the convicts and say this is what they’re doing.
Judge: Is that it?
Horsley: Yessir, I reckon.
Judge: I mean you got anything else to say? This is the last thing you can talk to me about.
Horsley: God help us sir.
Judge: God help us all.
Horsley: Yessir.
Judge: Mr. Vassey.
Prosecutor: I’ll be very brief. As far as the initial charge in obscenity. The word obscenity keeps being used as if it was all inclusive. However this particular statute indicates that sign that contains statements, words or pictures of an obscene, indecent, or immoral character such as will offend public morals. Without objection to the testimony, we got the officer’s testimony they got many calls and many complaints from people who did not want their children or other people who are below the age of political understanding and, and are not involved in the political concern about abortion or anti-abortion folks and complaints about cars on the square back and forth. That small children would have to see this kind of pictures and object to that. Whether it shocks the morals of the community and I think it’s clear it does. Although I appreciate Mr. Horsley’s very intense political ideas and his desire to get those across, and everybody he wants to get them across to, using those kinds of pictures on the public square is inappropriate under the statute. It is a subjective standard that the Court will have to decide. There are no (unintelligible) that I can find on these particular issues that involve the statute in Carrollton, Georgia. There are plenty of State statutes about pornography and that kind of thing, but not as applies to this City, and whether or not those signs as they are depicted shock the conscience and the moral character of the people. As this Court well knows there are people on both sides of this issue that are just as adamant and just as sincere and just as emotional as Mr. Horsley is about his side of the picture. As far as the second charge, it is admitted, he has admitted that this sign as displayed is more than 36 inches and was displayed within 20 feet of an intersection on the square and in my mind that is an admission that he violated section I of this statute and (unintelligible) and should be found guilty.
Horsley: May I respond?
Judge: No. It’s over. Is there any need for written argument? I’m prepared to enter a verdict unless you want to enter a written argument.
Prosecutor: I see no need for one, Judge.
Judge: Okay.
Judge: Any written argument? (unintelligible.)
Horsley: Will it matter?
Judge: I can’t say that. If you want to enter a written argument, I’ll certainly consider it. Or I will go ahead and make my decision based on what has been produced today.
Horsley: I will reserve further argument for appeal.
Judge: Okay. Have a seat.
Judge: Mr. Horsley I think everyone here is convinced that you feel very strongly about this issue. There may be opinions here that agree with you about the underlying issue of abortion and they may disagree with you. That is irrelevant in this case today. The case today is, did you violate Carrollton Ordinance Section 74-21 A5 or B I. Have I stated those correctly?
Prosecutor: Section I. Okay.
Judge: And A2.
Prosecutor: A2.
Judge: Looking at what I call count one, which is violation of A5. I’d like to make this comment. By your own admission, the things that are depicted in this picture, the act that is depicted in this picture, is obscene. By that I mean offensive, excuse me, not obscene. The act is obscene. And therefore the picture, excuse me, I keep saying obscene, I mean indecent. The act of abortion is indecent in your mind. It is a sin; it should be a crime. That’s your position as I understand it. A logical conclusion from that is that when you go and display pictures of this that it too could be considered indecent. If the act is offensive to people and upsets the moral fiber of people, then the picture of that act could also be indecent, it could also effect how people react in a moral response. I think it is particularly true when it deals with children. And you can argue all you want about the rights of unborn children, but I think that this argument that you make so strongly and so emotionally denies the right of children that didn’t befall that fate that have to be exposed to this type of depiction. To me, that’s indecent. Now I’m not talking about indecency along the lines of pornography or that type of thing, I’m talking about indecency from the point of what is good for our children. And if you can stand there as an emotional believer in what you stand for and tell me that this has a beneficial effect on children. You cannot do that.
Horsley: (unintelligible).
Judge: You don’t talk now, I do. But you can’t stand there and tell me that. It has a detrimental effect on children. As a matter of fact, it has a detrimental effect on adults and I think that’s one of the reasons why you do it. You try to shock people into, into coming over to your side. But once you cross the line into dealing with our children, you’ve stepped over the line as far as it being indecent. I’ll tell you somebody else it’s indecent to. (Refers to sign.) Who is this child? Do you know who this child is?
Horsley: Yes.
Judge: Is it somebody you know?
Horsley: (unintelligible.)
Judge: Do you have permission to use that child in your political campaign? Is it not an indecent act to display this child? With, uh, against the parents of this child, the grandparents of this child? And the child itself? The child itself is the ultimate indignity and you come along and leap, and heap on top of that. I just put that for you to think about. You talk about a kinder and more gentle system to try to stop this kind of thing. But are you being kind, are you being gentle in the way you produce your argument? No. It’s indecent. It’s indecent. And I think that, that, the very outpouring of people’s response to your sign shows that in this community, at this time, and in this place, this is indecent. And that is the standard that we are applying. And on count one I find you guilty. Now count two. It has gone without rebuttal that the sign you were holding is bigger than 3 feet and was within 20 feet of an intersection. Now in count two, forget all the emotional discussion and outbursts and fervor about what’s happening to our world, and what we’re doing, and it’s bad. This is just a pure and simple violation of an ordinance. Now whether the Chief, or the Captain, or the City Manager came up and didn’t give you a ticket the first time you did it is irrelevant. You’re arguing yourself, you’re looking at me and saying Your honor, I should have more tickets. I should have more tickets. The fact that they didn’t give you a ticket the other times but did this time is not a relevant issue. Therefore I think the facts are sufficient to find you guilty of count two in this, uh, in this case. On count one, I set you fine at $250. At count two I set your fine at $250. And I require that you pay that instanter.
Horsley: Uh,
Judge: Now there’s nothing else to say. You can step up here and pay the clerk.
Court Adjourned.