User:Paradigmspecies

Introduction

In 1983 the City of Los Angeles under the administration of Mayor Tom Bradley refused to grant Preferred Communications Inc. a license or franchise to build a cable television system in the South Central (now, South LA) area, at which point the corporation filed a claim against the City.

Preferred Communications v City of Los Angeles, 476 U.S. 488 (1986) was a landmark Supreme Court decision that concluded:

• 1) a city's right of way may not be licensed or franchised on an exclusive basis to private interests -- e.g. cable television companies -- where speech is concerned; and,
• 2) that to exclude all but one corporeal "seeker," person, or corporation access to public rights-of-way used for communication, the transmission of ideas, or "speech" constitutes a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, also known as an Amendment One violation.  

The First Amendment aspects of the case make it, therefore, a Civil Rights case.

Summary of Impact

The unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court held against the City of Los Angeles (i.e. those acting in its name or on its behalf) in addition to the massive ramifications such a decision would hold in regards to issues such as municipal v. States' rights, freedom of speech, and electronic communications make the Supreme Court ruling in this matter a Landmark Decision.

Background

Preferred v City of Los Angeles originated in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Prior to a trial, the District Court improperly dismissed the complaint despite possessing prima facie, i.e. "plainly implicated" First Amendment interests according to the later decision by Justice Thurgood Marshall and his peers.

The dismissal by the District Judge Consuelo Marshall was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals whereupon a Panel of Three Judges reversed the ruling of Judge Consuelo Marshall (no relation to Justice Marshall) in the District Court.

In the wake of the Ninth Circuit's affirmation that the CIty was in breach of constitutional law, The City of Los Angeles appealed said Ninth Circuit conclusion at which point, the case was scheduled and heard before the Supreme Court of the United States of America (as the Hight Court existed in the 20th century)

Grounds for Complaint

In 1979 a "Notice of Sale" was published for an auction to be held for a 'non exclusive' cable franchise in the City of Los Angeles for the district of South Central Los Angeles. Subsequently, when cable company Universal Cable Systems, later, Preferred Communications Inc. sought use of the City's public right-of-way (the poles and power lines necessary for Cable Television) the department of Water and Power denied use of such facilities citing the City's requirement that first, a party was required to have a franchise issued by the city.

When the City refused to allow more than one (i.e. non-exclusive) party enter the market, Preferred Communications sought to hold them accountable to the Law and to the Constitution of the United States.

Legal Proceedings

The entirety of legal proceedings beginning with the 1983 filing in District Court, unto the oral arguments and subsequent decision in and by the supreme court would span the course of a decade (1983-1992), and conceivably much longer.

The suit filed by Preferred was established upon the foundational claim of First Amendment violations where all entities or persons including preferred possess the constitutional right to exercise innumerable forms of expression broadly characterized as speech. When said rights are violated by state actors, be they, local, county, state-wide, national, federal, or otherwise political persons or institutions, the Citizen, person or legal entity (such as a corporation, i.e. Preferred) is entitled to seek injunctive relief and/or monetary relief.

Deprivation of First Amendment Protections

The allegations held in the complaint included the assertion that the Bradley administration had committed a violation of Preferred's First Amendment rights under the Constitution by refusing it access to a public right-of-way to transmit speech, programming, or ideas.

Oligopoly in the United States

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and later the U.S. Supreme Court found that the City of Los Angeles "violated the First Amendment through its procedure relative to the South Central Los Angeles Cable Television Franchise" specifically by depriving Preferred Communications Inc, access to the public utility lines.

District Court's Ruling(s) Reversed

First to reverse Marshall was a three judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who summarized:

"...[w]e affirm the district court's decision insofar as it pertains to the plaintiff's antitrust claims and reverse its dismissal of the First Amendment claim,"

and subsequently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America whereupon all nine Justices "dismissed as improper" Marshall's ruling, stating:

"...[t]he complaint should not have been dismissed. The activities in which respondent allegedly seeks to engage plainly implicate First Amendment interests."

While it was the opinion of Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that: "the [City of Los Angeles] was obligated to allow [Preferred Communications Inc.] use of its physical capacity to further speech," the Plaintiff(s) were deprived a jury trial to determine damages for roughly a decade. Between 1983 and 1992, legal hardship and economic disenfranchisement were the product of continual delays; further, no public hearing was ever granted to plaintiff(s) in their effort to assert their first amendment rights under the U.S. constitution.

Judicial Defiance

In sum, twelve senior members of the bench superseded Marshall's decree. Unfortunately, the costs were paid by the Citizens of South Central Los Angeles who went without this new and informationally vital technology for over a decade due to the City's behavior which was in no meaningful way penalized (i.e. made to pay monetary damages to either Preferred or the millions of citizens residing in the South Central district).

As they pertain to the first amendment such allegations of wrong-doing became legal fact as City's practices according to the ninth circuit ruling were acknowledged to be at odds with constitutional law.

On the date the "Final Ruling" was issued, Judge Marshall of the District Court had been reversed by two higher courts by twelve judges and Justices (3 and 9 respectively).

The Economics of Fiat Justice

Many economists find the notion of a ten year delay of entry into any market defined by the unavoidable new obstacles posed by both inflation and the unchecked monopolistic expansion of corporate power

Aside from the obligation to pay lawyers' fees -- stated in the final ruling and subsequent ninth circuit affirmation of the same -- the City would not suffer any punitive damages, nor would monetary damages be awarded as Judge Marshall did ultimately grant Plaintiffs one U.S. Dollar for the deprivation and violation of their fundamental rights civil, and constitutional rights..

Multiple delays permeate the timeline of events despite the High Court's ruling.

• In 1983 the case was filed in District Court. for the Central District of California. (#83-5846 cbm)
• In 1985 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Marshall's decision.(#754 f 2d)
• In 1986 the Supreme Court rendered unanimous judgment (9-0), to reverse Marshall and upheld the 9th Circuit's 3-0 ruling (#476 U.S. 488, 1986)
• In 1992 Judge Marshall would issue her final ruling in defiance of the mandate issued by two higher courts having deferred the case in sum for five years subsequent to the Supreme Court decision.

While twelve senior judges and Justices from two higher courts stated clearly their unanimous and binding legal opinions that Marshall's determinations were in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, Marshall's final ruling was to award Plaintiffs one U.S. Dollar for having suffered a violation of their Civil Rights and for having been deprived access to both the free market and freedom of speech.

Relief in Name Only

A potential and willing competitor to the monopolistic cable company (Time Warner, now Spectrum) was denied access to the market for over a decade, though no compensation was granted Preferred for having suffered such unlawful, manifest, and prior restraint. Relief in name only via Summary Judgment is to date the most recent, if not final, outcome

Judicial Significance of Denial of a Trial by Jury

The right to a Jury Trial in "matters of equity" is secured in both the California Constitution (now known as the Constitution for the State of California) and the U.S. Constitution. While Judge Marshall made known her dispreference for Juries and/or due process of law, her unilateral ruling prior to the disclosure and presentation of facts put before a jury constituted a judicial form of Jury Nullification in which a jury elects to circumvent the law in order to achieve a particular end -- often to acquit one who may be found guilty, or find guilty one who, by technicality, might remain free.

In her ruling, District Court Judge Marshal nullified the directions of the 9the circuit and Supreme Court judiciaries. To complete the aforementioned analogy, Marshal rendered completely irrelevant the decree and decisions of the first and second highest courts in the United States (constituting the second and third most significant courts in the world) Preferred Communications Inc. would never be granted a jury trial. It follows that while a particular jury may nullify a particular instruction or law, judge Marshall nullified the law itself for having defied the most powerful Authority in the United States of America.

The Precedent

The precedent established by Marshall would shape the Cable Television industry (and subsequently the internet as it is known and accessed at present, and) in the years to come.

As Marshall alone, not a jury comprised of peers, determined the amount of damages to be awarded plaintiffs, her honor's determination implicates or asserts that he First Amendment protections afforded all U.S. Citizens may be nullified for one U.S. dollar. As a matter of jurisprudence, Marshall's final ruling seems to diminish the judgement(s) of the U.S. Supreme Court to the realm of mere suggestion.

This user completed the
introductory tutorial series
on 28 October 2022.