An update on Martha...maybe
A few posts ago I shared the story of Martha Seroczynski's effort to continue her protest of the war in Iraq in downtown Valpo. A permit had been issued May 30th and renewed June 20th allowing her to protest. However, when she returned to renew the permit the third time she was asked for proof of insurance, which led to some political wrangling and strong arming. At least that is what it appeared to be.
This morning's Post Tribune had an update. Martha had hired a legal team and was claiming that her right of free speech was violated. Apparently she had tried to work through her insurance company and encountered some difficulties. The county attorney suggested she sign a waiver absolving them from responsibility in case of who knows what, to which Martha replied no thanks.
My initial reaction was she makes a good point. Why did the commissioners wait until three months after the initial permit was issued to require a certificate of insurance? It must have been because they were trying to throw up a road block - a legal loophole that she would not be able to navigate and therefore quit her protest. Something that had been on the books, but not enforced until now when they needed it. Those dogs.
Here's the thing. In the front porch Sunday morning print edition the last portion of the article was deleted. When I went on-line to link to the article from this post I was able to read the rest of the piece. It goes on to say that the Valparaiso Elks Club was required to show proof of insurance for its Flag Day ceremony on June 14 at the square. Those dogs?
It was a lot easier to rally behind Martha before I new the whole story, which is a shame because I support her cause. It would appear that she needs to get some insurance and move on. Soon. Before this debacle detracts from the real message she is trying to convey.
The last six sentences of the article change the entire story. And they left it out? Because they ran out of space? So now I say come on Post Tribune. What's with that?
This morning's Post Tribune had an update. Martha had hired a legal team and was claiming that her right of free speech was violated. Apparently she had tried to work through her insurance company and encountered some difficulties. The county attorney suggested she sign a waiver absolving them from responsibility in case of who knows what, to which Martha replied no thanks.
My initial reaction was she makes a good point. Why did the commissioners wait until three months after the initial permit was issued to require a certificate of insurance? It must have been because they were trying to throw up a road block - a legal loophole that she would not be able to navigate and therefore quit her protest. Something that had been on the books, but not enforced until now when they needed it. Those dogs.
Here's the thing. In the front porch Sunday morning print edition the last portion of the article was deleted. When I went on-line to link to the article from this post I was able to read the rest of the piece. It goes on to say that the Valparaiso Elks Club was required to show proof of insurance for its Flag Day ceremony on June 14 at the square. Those dogs?
It was a lot easier to rally behind Martha before I new the whole story, which is a shame because I support her cause. It would appear that she needs to get some insurance and move on. Soon. Before this debacle detracts from the real message she is trying to convey.
The last six sentences of the article change the entire story. And they left it out? Because they ran out of space? So now I say come on Post Tribune. What's with that?
posted by gawilli at 8:15 AM
5 Comments:
Out of space, that's it, nothing more. But the front porch edition sure got you going on this one.
I thought all those waivers were irrelevant. You never give up you right to sue. This America and we have many lawyers who need the business.
Perhaps we should all just join in the protest and let the county government figure out what to do with us. Of course that might give lots of lawyers some business.
Maybe there is issue with when they asked for the proof of insurance? Why indeed did the commissioners wait three months for proof of insurance? I am cynical enough to believe that may be the rule officially, but in the past, the county had been lax in enforcing the rule. Along comes Martha, who shows up regularly, with a somewhat unpopular stance for the community. The commissioners then decide that the rule should be enforced with regularity so they ask all comers for the time being for the proof.
I am with willi let's join Martha. We know a lawyer.
You go willi. I agree.
There are two (2) levels of rules. There is the formal set of rules and then there is the informal set of rules. The informal set should apply in this case. This is the America and let freedom ring in the street.
You guys are all a bunch of rebels! Are we old hippies or what? I love it! Geez. Where is the voice of reason here? Wild in the streets and all. I don't even like lawyers but you are right. This is America. Damn the man.
Post a Comment
<< Home