align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

RE: [lpsf] Re: New Palo Alto Hate Legislation effects on Native American Liberties

From: John B.
Sent on: Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:59 AM
By any chance were you in El Paso County...Senator Morse' district?  There is a recall  underway  that may   bring ffolks  out,  who might also be opposed to  the hate legislation here,   


< -- The message is truncated. -- >

--- Sent with mail@metro, Real Life Real Time Mobile ---

---Original Message---
From: [address removed]
Sent: 7/6/2013 3:59 am
To: [address removed]
Subject: [lpsf] Re: New Palo Alto Hate Legislation effects on Native American Liberties

I just returned from Colorado discussing this proposed hate legislation with the Native American Defense League. 
I visited reservations in California, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, to discuss this hate legislation. 
This hate legislation would affect many traditionally migrant Native Americans, who retain their traditional culture of moving with the seasons, by living out of their van, SUV, or even car. 
This hate legislation would result in any of these Native Americans who tried to go into Palo Alto with their traditional way being arrested.  
There will be a Pow Wow at Stanford in Spring. I will try to get people at the Pow Wow to protest this hate legislation by protesting in front of the home of individual City Councilmembers voted for this hate legislation. 

 From: Aram James <[address removed]>
To: Eric Diesel <[address removed]>; chuck jagoda <[address removed]>; Doug Minkler <[address removed]>; Shankar Ramamoorthy <[address removed]>; Tony Ciampi <[address removed]>; Palo Alto Free Press <[address removed]>; Lewis. james <[address removed]>; Bruce Kenyon <[address removed]>; Rick Toker <[address removed]>; [address removed]; [address removed]; Lewis. james <[address removed]>; Doug Fort <[address removed]>; Fred Smith <[address removed]>; Mary Stuart <[address removed]>; Kitic S. <[address removed]> 
Sent: Saturday, July 6,[masked]:34 AM
Subject: Re: "Hate Legislation" - Aram,  Re: My Idea

Good idea, let's run with the "hate legislation" sound bite with the press and council --at least for awhile--and see if this PR angle changes the dynamics of the conversation. The hate crime/legislation angle could sends chills up the backs of some of the council members who view themselves as liberals. These are the same council folks who just recently --as you well know--voted to fly the gay flag. And are shameless in patting themselves on the back for this symbolic act of liberalism.

Just a word change --from vehicle habitation ban to hate crime/legislation might well make the so-called liberals uncomfortably enough- in not wanting  to be associated with such a label as hate mongers/hate legislators that they might actually vote to oppose the ordinance. Thus instead of my current count 7 for the ordinance and maybe 2 against --could be just 1 now, Greg schmid--we might have a sufficient turn around to swing a 5-4 vote against the ordinance. Okay folks---time for your feedback on the idea.

 As it stands I count only one or two council members currently opposed to the ordinance. As such we need to up the tone of the conversation if we are to prevail. Aram

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 5, 2013, at 5:26 PM, Eric Diesel <[address removed]> wrote:

For a media sound bite, it would be helpful to have an accurate single expression used by all opponents of what Aram called "essentially hate legislation", and which I previously called the "Palo Alto Trail of Tears Law". 
>I think Aram's description hits the nail on the head. This is clearly "hate legislation". 
>But we must recognize that there may be a population density problem at Cubberly, that may need addressing by a city council (but that is unrelated to sleeping in your car). If that problem, which is a legitimate public health and safety concern in the jurisdiction of a city council.   
> From: Aram James <[address removed]>
>To: chuck jagoda <[address removed]>; Doug Minkler <[address removed]>; Bruce Kenyon <[address removed]>; Palo Alto Free Press <[address removed]>; Rick Toker <[address removed]>; Shankar Ramamoorthy <[address removed]>; Rick Toker <[address removed]>; Mila Zelkha <[address removed]>; [address removed]; Eric Diesel <[address removed]>; Greg Schaefer + <[address removed]>; Norma Grench <[address removed]>; Lewis. james <[address removed]>; Marie Baylon <[address removed]>; Tony Ciampi <[address removed]>; Dr t <[address removed]>; Fred Smith <[address removed]>; Doug Fort <[address removed]>; Timothy Gray <[address removed]>; Tim james <[address removed]>; Kitic S. <[address removed]>; Mary Stuart <[address removed]>; Linda Martinet <[address removed]> 
>Sent: Friday, July 5,[masked]:05 PM
>Subject: Re: My Idea
>Hi Chuck,
>Yes, I join your idea of talking the issues through with councilwoman Liz Kniss. Sadly I don't believe she would be willing to talk with us--she might find an honest give and take (our questions), too difficult to answer/handle. 
>Liz is used to speaking without having to answer to anyone, and certainly would likely be unwilling to undergo a reasonable cross-examination, re her lack of solid logic for pushing what is essentially hate legislation, AKA the no vehicle habitation ordinance.  
>Of course, if you can pull off a meeting with Liz, where she's willin

Our Sponsors


    February's honorary sponsor supports activism for police accountability!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy