Date Filed:
6/12/2025
Client:
James Apeller 555-8395
Rusty Thompson 555-4831
Lawyer name:
Sam Burton 555-0463
Investigation number#:
Inv 4902
Arresting Officer(s):
Lucy Snowe
Vira Night
Availability:
mid EU - Late NA
Date of Incident:
4/21/2025
Provide reasoning for appeal:
We are appealing the verdict of Apeller et al. v. BCSO, Snowe & Night under the grounds that the presiding Judge made an error in application of the law that materially affected the case.
In deciding this case, Judge Sparks held that;
- The Harassment statute was not unconstitutional
- Qualified immunity was not breached
It is our assertion that both of these were fundamentally incorrect;
- Despite assertions to the contrary by the presiding Judge, the Harassment statute as it stands in our penal code is quite literally copied verbatim from the Ontario human rights commission (source). There is a reason that we do not use this definition in the United States; it is blatantly unconstitutional. As it was held by the United States Supreme Court in Gooding v. Wilson, the test for whether a law is unconstitutional in regards to the 1st and 14th amendments is whether or not it applies to any speech outside of the narrow bounds of “fighting words” (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire) and “true threats”(Virginia v. Black). This test is used because the chilling effect of laws that could be used to punish otherwise protected speech are extremely far reaching, and could easily coerce citizens into not exercising their rights. The court in this case completely failed to even acknowledge the fact that as constructed, this statute restricts “vexatious” speech, speech that blatantly falls outside of the allowed proscriptions of speech.
- As stated by the court in the ruling, qualified immunity comes with a 2 prong test, whether the facts alleged amounted to a constitutional violation, and whether that right had been clearly established at the time of the conduct. In this case the constitutional rights were blatantly violated by a facially unconstitutional statute, satisfying the first prong. In regards to the second prong of being clearly established law, it was decided extremely clearly by the courts, over 50 years ago, that laws proscribing speech outside of “fighting words” and “true threats” are facially unconstitutionally vague and overbroad (Gooding v. Wilson).
The court in this case not only failed to consider this long standing decision, it outright threatened counsel with contempt for even attempting to “tell the law to a judge”. While we do not explicitly recognize most case laws, we do recognize the U.S. constitution, and if the courts wish to diverge from these decisions they should at least have better justification than “harassment is an exception”.
As stated by the court; “We are interpreters of the law” (Judge Sparks), and as interpreters of the law the court has a responsibility to be correct, or at the very least do their due diligence in understanding how laws are applied in these United States of America. That did not happen in this case.
Underlying Civil Case: https://docket.unscripted.gg/d/316-civil-apeller-et-al-v-bcso-snowe-night-sparks-tuesday-june-3-at-3pm-et/5
