Law Offices of Christina DiEdoardo

U.S. Supreme Ct. to Consider One of My Cases at 5/23 Conference

Christina DiEdoardo — Thu, 09 May 2013 20:36:49 +0000

Well, this made my day Just learned that the Petition for a Writ of Cert which I filed in Kyle Ray DeCoteau v. United States (Case No. 12-01285) will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court at its May 23, 2013 conference. It’s my first request for U.S. Supreme Court review and involves some interesting issues regarding the appropriateness (or as we believe, the lack thereof) of a District Court judge denying a certificate of appealability in a post-trial review motion when one of the grounds of ineffective assistance has to do with the trial counsel’s failure to object to the District Court Judge’s alleged misconduct.

While it’s nice the United States waived their right to respond, my client and I have no illusions about the odds against the High Court deciding to take the case. Still, I’m honored and proud it’s gotten this far.

–CAD

Link between SFPD and MUMC?

Christina DiEdoardo — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:58:21 +0000

Great piece from my friend Michael Petrelis’s blog about confirmation of previously-denied links between an officer of the San Francisco Police Department and the Merchants of Upper Market Castro (MUMC). For those not in the loop, the MUMC has been controversial of late due to its backing of the Ordinance (sponsored by Supervisor Weiner) to ban public nudity in San Francisco as well as its long oppositon to flying the Transgender Pride flag at Harvey Milk Plaza. Given the veracity (or lack thereof) of SFPD officers is likely to be an issue in ongoing proceedings in Hightower v. City and County of San Francisco, the blog is worth a read.

–CAD

Beware The Ides Of March-Plaintiffs File Amended Comp Challenging SF Nudity Ban

Christina DiEdoardo — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:49:26 +0000

On Friday March 15, 2013 the Plaintiffs in Hightower v. City and County of
San Francisco filed an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California challenging San Francisco’s nudity
ban.

“On this Ides of March, this is a reminder that prior restraints on
political speech are, like Caesar, entirely mortal” said Christina A.
DiEdoardo, Esq., the attorney for Mitch Hightower, George Davis, Oxana
“Gypsy” Taub, Russell Mills, and Russell “Trey” Allen, the Plaintiffs in
the case.

During oral argument in January 2013, Ms. DiEdoardo advised the Court that
if the measure were permitted to into effect on Feb. 1 the Plaintiffs
would be subjected to retaliatory measures by the City. The Court
dismissed the original complaint, primarily on ripeness grounds, but
expressly gave the Plaintiffs permission to re-file once the ordinance
went into effect.

“As we predicted, the City has wasted no time to repeatedly and illegally
arrest my clients in violation of both the Ordinance’s plain language and
the provisions of the California Penal Code,” said DiEdoardo.

Violation of the ordinance is supposed to be treated as an infraction.
Under California Penal Code section 853.5(a), a police officer is required
to offer an individual who is charged with an infraction and who can prove
their identity the chance to sign the citation and promise to appear at a
later hearing. If the person does that, they cannot be arrested.

However, the City and SFPD have repeatedly ignored these requirements at a
Feb. 1, 2013 demonstration at City Hall as well as a February 27, 2013
dance performance in the Castro.

“Since the plain language of the Ordinance and the Penal Code are
apparently insufficient to compel the City and the SFPD to live up to
their responsibilities, we have asked the Hon. Edward M. Chen to issue a
temporary restraining order compelling the SFPD to cease these illegal
arrests,” said DiEdoardo. “In addition, we are asking the Court to set a
briefing schedule and hearing date on our request for the court to issue a
preliminary injunction against the way the Defendants have arbitrarily and
capriciously enforced the law.”

Copies of all case documents can be found at
http://www.diedoardolaw.com/hightower-v-city-of-s-f-challenge-to-nudity-ordinance

For more information please contact:

Gypsy Taub 510-368-6762
Christina DiEdoardo 415 839 5098

Cal. Sup. Ct Finally Sets Oral Argument On Case Involving Retroactive Sex Offender Registration

Christina DiEdoardo — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:56:59 +0000

Here’s some good news for those hit with a requirement to register as a sex offender under P.C. 290 retroactively following their conviction (in some cases, decades earlier) for certain crimes. As we reported two years ago, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to clarify “Whether, under California law, the default rule of contract interpretation is (a) that the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement binds the parties, or (b) that the terms of a plea agreement may be affected by changes in law” in Doe v. Harris.

Almost exactly two years later, the California Supremes have finally gotten around to setting the matter for oral argument, which will take place on Wednesday April 3, 2013 in Los Angeles. Under the California Constitiution, the justices have 90 days to issue an opinion following oral argument (under threat of having their pay docked) so we should have a ruling on the question shortly thereafter.

–CAD

Hightower Update/First Round of Citations Reaches The Court

Christina DiEdoardo — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 02:41:33 +0000

Today, I had the honor and pleasure of appearing at the San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of several clients who were the first to be cited (and we contend, illegally and unlawfully arrested) under the San Francisco anti-nudity ordinance. Of course, the federal litigation continues–we expect to be filing the amended complaint, pursuant to Judge Chen’s instructions, within the next few weeks. In the meantime, the City seems determined to waste police and prosecutorial resources harassing nudists than dealing with issues like gang activity in the Mission.

–CAD

Ruling Issued in Hightower v City and County of S.F. (Nudity Ordinance Litigation)

Christina DiEdoardo — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:05:49 +0000

A few moments ago, the Hon. Edward M. Chen issued his order on my clients’ request for a preliminary injunction and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. A copy is present at the document repository on this Web site, but the summary is that the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss–albeit with leave by the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint after Feb. 1. Since the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, the request for a preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot. An emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit is being considered to seek a stay of the ordinance going into effect on Feb. 1

–CAD

U.S. Dist Ct Posts Video From Hightower v City of S.F. Jan 17 Hrg

Christina DiEdoardo — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:51:10 +0000

It’s great to be a part of history! Earlier today, I received word that the U.S. Administrative Office of the Courts has posted the official video record of the January 17, 2013 hearing in Hightower et al., v City and County of S.F. The link is here.

Beyond the First Amendment issues in this case, this is historic given the long (and rhetorically bloody) history of opposition by many federal judges to the presence of cameras in the courtroom. After the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a decision by then-Chief Judge Vaughn Walker during the Proposition 8 litigation (which would have allowed the verbatim recording of hearings and later broadcast, even though the Defendants objected) the Admin Office came up with a pilot program whereby if both parties consented, the Court would record the hearing, the Judge would review it and it would be posted, as now has been done.

Whatever the eventual outcome of the case, it is an honor to be only the second matter in the Northern District of California to be selected for inclusion into the video archive.

–CAD

U.S. District Court Gets Hightower v City of San Francisco Case; Requested Injunction Under Review

Christina DiEdoardo — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:08:04 +0000

After about an hour and a half of oral argument this afternoon before the Hon. Edward M. Chen, the U.S. District Court has the Hightower v. City of San Francisco, et al., case. The litigation challenging an anti-nudity ordinance passed (by the narrowest of margins) by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in December 2012, is seeking a preliminary injunction barring the City from enforcing the ordinance, which is otherwise scheduled to go into effect on Feb. 1, 2013.

The Court has promised to issue a decision prior to Feb. 1. As soon as I receive it through the Court’s CM/ECF system, it will be posted on our document repository for the case. In the meantime, a copy of all other key documents filed by our firm and the City is in the repository.

Beyond the First Amendment issues in play in this case, today was historic for another reason: the parties have elected to proceed under the Court’s pilot program whereby Court staff video records the hearing (historically, federal courts have summarily banned photography within their precincts), the judge reviews the tape and if approved, is ultimately released on the Court’s Web site.

-CAD

Christina Admitted to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court

Christina DiEdoardo — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:03:35 +0000

I apologize for the paucity of posts as of late–2012 ended with a flurry of activity and I think I’ve had two days off so far in 2013, (including New Year’s Day and weekends). Still, there is some professional good news worth reporting-I received confirmation today that I was admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court on January 7, 2013, which I’m tremendously proud and excited about.

In addition, at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday January 17, 2013 the Hon. Edward M. Chen will hear my client’s request for a preliminary injunction in Hightower, et al., v. City and County of San Francisco. As some of you are aware, this is the case posing a First and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a ban on public nudity enacted by the City and County of San Francisco in December 2012 and sponsored by the unfortunately named Supervisor Scott Weiner.

A Happy and Healthy New Year to all of you–and keep fighting for justice, no matter what sphere you labor in.

–CAD

SCOTUS Reportedly Grants Cert in Perry v. Hollingsworth (PropHate)

Christina DiEdoardo — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 20:36:16 +0000

While I’m still trying to get official confirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Prop 8 Trial Tracker are reporting that SCOTUS has granted cert in both Perry v. Hollingsworth (the federal challenge to Prop Hate) and USA v. Windsor (the 2nd Cir. challenge to DOMA, where the federal “defense” of the law is being led by the GOP in Congress, rather than the DOJ, which concedes it is unconstitutional).

I have a hard time seeing this as good news given the current ideological makeup of the Roberts court. About the only potential bright spot is that the Court has added a question to be addressed on appeal in both cases–i.e. whether the non-governmental “defenders” of Prop8 and DOMA have standing under Article III’s “case and controversy” requirement to maintain the case.

If the Court rules against the defenders on the standing issue, it doesn’t need to reach any other issues. However, if it finds they have standing this could be eight levels of ugly.

I hope and pray I’m wrong on this one.

–CAD