Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Video: Zoning board meeting, Lakewood, NJ 10/31/16

Watch Minute mark 1:19:25- 1:40 (79:30)
Attorney postpones application claiming microphone violates his clients privilege compares it to yelling fire in a theater.

Video: courtesy of first Amendment Activist 
From Take back Lakewood.
People in Westgate hired an attorney to oppose 10 houses that are proposed for the corner at the entrance to Westgate. They also had a strong showing of residents there to oppose the application. Apparently that scared the applicants lawyer. He insisted that he can't properly represent his client with the camera present since the mic will pick up conversations between him and his client and violate attorney client privilege.


Opposing counsel reminded him that the supreme court has ruled that the first amendment allows filming public meetings. A police officer was brought to ensure that the camera's were not illegally removed. The board deferred to the board attorney who obviously decided that the applicants lawyer should have the hearing pushed off to a later date since it wouldn't be fair to force him to represent a client with a SCOTUS sanctioned camera present.

I guess that's his strategy. Push it off for bogus reasons and hope that the neighbors won't be able to raise more funds for the lawyer to come back a 2nd time.

12 comments:

  1. http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. This recording should be sent in to the DCA. Pure abuse of the public interest and violation of the First amendment and the Open public meeting act (Sunshine law). This is is especially appaling after the township was already been warned not to block the video.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good to see that Ms. Denado is the new go to attorney if you need to get something denied. She is an expert at peeling away all the layers and exposing all of the boards shenanigans.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Her Name is Michele Donato Esq.

    And yes, apparently Penzer is scared of her.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes at one of the last meeting she put Flannery through the shredder for the application for Cross and Massachusetts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michele Donato Knows all the shenanigans that go on. All

    ReplyDelete
  7. Penzer is doing his job. It is the board that is at fault. They clearly do not represent or respect the public interest. He has made a public mockery of their proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. his argument makes no sense. Watch the township run with this to forbid recording. It is going to go like this We cannot allow people to put devices up there as it will interfere with the boards work and cause confusion with so many devices up there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. First, because the meetings are being recorded by the township, all client-attorney privileges are waived and not relevant.

    Second, Mr Penzer keeps referring to his rights. He's got none. He's the attorney. His client may have some and he should use correct terminology, e.g., "my client's right . . ." (which as I note above is waived once it's being recorded by the township).

    Also I'd like to Mr. Penzer to explain coherently (as he is not used to doing) why Schenck v. United States is relevant at all. He does note correctly that it is a freedom of speech case and it effectively serves to place a limit on dangerous speech (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater). But that's where it ends. The guy who videos this stuff who refers to himself as "first amendment activist" is presumable making reference to freedom of the press which is also in the first amendment. Schenck v. United States has nothing to do with freedom of the press. It has to do with freedom of speech.

    And the final point is this: the reason that guy is allowed to video is not based on the US constitution. It is a Jersey state law most commonly referred to as "The New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act." So even if my first point was incorrect (though it is), one is unable to just assert "I want the board to violate the State law because I want to hold a conversation with my client during the meeting and assert attorney/client privilege.......

    Did learn something though. The Board's attorney is an idiot as well for not being able to respond right away. Either that or he's been informed by this board to accept all arguments from Penzer. Wouldn't put it past this board that has shamefully allowed the overbuilding to occur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You took the words right out of my mouth. Schenk vs US was based on the issue whether the first amendment right would apply where the speech would intended to result in a crime and pose a clear and present danger. None of that applies in this case and a competent attorney can resolve that in a matter of minutes. Shame on the board attorney, he must go!!

      Delete
  10. See todays news whats happening in Ramapo/ Monsey with over-building

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is the name of the board attorney? I would send it to the DCA to investigate

    ReplyDelete