warden v. tucson mayor bob walkup

8/4/2019 WARDEN v. TUCSON MAYOR BOB WALKUP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/warden-v-tucson-mayor-bob-walkup 1/37

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA

ROY WARDEN,

Petitioner,

v.

MAYOR BOB WALKUP, for theCity of Tucson,

Respondent,

and

THE CITY OF TUCSON,

Real Party at Interest

))))))))))))))

)))))))))

Superior Court No. C20117276

Oral Argument Requested

The Honorable Steven Villarreal

PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION TO THE PIMA COUNTYSUPERIOR COURT

Roy Warden, Petitioner In Forma Pauperis1015 W. Prince Road#131-182Tucson Arizona [email protected]

1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Citations 3

Jurisdictional Statement 3-4

Statement of the Issue 4

Statement of the Facts 4-7

Argument 7-13

Conclusion 14-16

Prayer 17

Certificate of Compliance 20

Certificate of Service 21

Transcript September 07, 2011 22-26



2



TABLE OF CITATIONS

CASE: PAGE

1 Sabelko v City of Phoenix, 846 F. Supp 822 5, 10, 11, 12

2 Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement,112 S.Ct. 2395 5, 11, 12

3 Revised Arizona Jury Instructions 8

Rule 3(b), (c) of Rules of Procedure for Special Action

10, 11

4 Hynes v Mayor & Council of Oradell, 96S.Ct. 1755

10

5 Grayned v City of Rockford , 92 S.Ct. 2294 12, 15

6 Wright v U.S Army, 307 F.Supp.2d 1065 12

7 Cox v State of Louisiana, 85 S.Ct. at 463 12

8 State v. Brown, 207 Ariz. 231 10, 12, 13, 159 Coates v. Cincinnatti, 91 S.Ct. 1686 11

10 Gregory v City of Chicago, 89 S.Ct. 946 15

11 Arizona Right to Life Political Action vBayless, 320 F.3d 1002

16

12 Boos v Barry, 108 S.Ct. 1157 16

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

1. The foundational issue of this case, in which Tucson City Mayor

Bob Walkup has arbitrarily and capriciously employed the

“Civility Accord” and a “Mayor and Council Meetings Public

Participation” rule, (hereinafter referred to as “The Rule”), to

block public commentary he deems “uncivil, impertinent and

slanderous,” presents constitutional issues of great public

significance and statewide importance.

3



2. The underlying facts which give rise to the pure issues of law

presented in this Petition are not in dispute. The foundational

issue concerns the employment of a vaguely worded and

overbroad “Rule” regulating public speech during the Call to the

Audience portion of Tucson City Council meetings; a rule which

now gives the Mayor absolute power to decide who may speak

and who must remain silent, what words are “impertinent” and

what words are lawful, in direct violation of he Constitutions of

the State of Arizona and the United States of America.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

During the Call to the Audience Portion of Tucson

City Council Meetings, May the Mayor of Tucson

Employ a Vague and Overbroad Rule Regulating

Public Speech to Arbitrarily and Capriciously DecideWhat Public Commentary is Permitted and What

Public Commentary is Proscribed?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. The City of Tucson presently employs the following rule to

regulate public speech and conduct during the “Call to the

Audience” portion of Mayor and City Council Meetings, as set

forth on September 13, 2011 by Tucson City Attorney Mike

Rankin:

4



“Citizens attending meetings shall observe rules of propriety, decorum, and good conduct. Any personmaking personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, or

becomes boisterous while addressing the governing body,may be removed by the Sgt. at Arms as directed by theChairman.”

4. On September 07, 2011 during the Call to the Audience portion

of the Tucson City Council Meeting1, Petitioner, upon invitation,

addressed the Mayor and Council regarding a federal jury verdict

in 2006, finding three Tucson City Officials employed in their

official capacities, including Tucson City Manager Richard

Miranda while employed in his former capacity as Assistant

Tucson City Police Chief, had (1) engaged in acts of First

Amendment Retaliation, (2) had inflicted emotional distress on

the Plaintiffs, and (3) the jury awarded Petitioners $900,000.00 to

compensate them for their consequential damages, including

$500,000.00 for emotional distress.

5. Moreover; on September 07, 2011 Petitioner informed the Mayor

and Council that, in additional to the consequential damages, in

1 The Tucson City Council is a limited public forum, in which public commentaryand conduct is subject to reasonable time, place and manner regulation; however,commentary on matters of public concern may not be limited on the basis of content or viewpoint. Sabelko v City of Phoenix, 846 F.Supp. 822 (Ariz. 1994),citing Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992)

5



8. Outside the Mayor and Counsel Chamber, one of the arresting

officers, Officer Couch, aggressively confronted Petitioner and

told him: “Get out of here! You’re just a troublemaker!”

9. On September 20, 2011 the Mayor and City Council held a public

“study session” in which they addressed the particulars of “The

Rule.” Moreover; both Mayor and Council were advised as to the

legality of “The Rule” by Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin.

10. Significant to the issue before this Court, but beyond the

jurisdiction of this Court to resolve, was Mr. Rankin’s assertion

that “The Rule” was lawful and substantially similar to the rules

employed in numerous other Arizona jurisdictions.

11. On September 20, 2011, subsequent to the study session, Tucson

City Attorney Mike Rankin, at the behest of Respondent Mayor

Walkup, read “The Rule” at the beginning of Call to the

Audience.

12. On September 20, 2011 when he was so invited, Petitioner

addressed the Mayor and Council and specifically read the words

7



he was about to read the week before prior to his arrest, to wit:

Arizona’s standards for granting damages for emotional distress2.

13. On September 20, 2011, in light of the 2006 federal jury’s verdict

as set forth above, Petitioner applied these words to question

Richard Miranda’s fitness to hold public office as Tucson City

Manager.

14. On September 20, 2011, subsequent to Petitioner’s presentation,

Mayor Walkup made additional commentary, said Petitioner’s

“personal attack” was in violation of “The Rule”, and stated in

sum and substance, that at future council meetings he would

arrest anyone who continued to address the council in a similar

fashion. (Exhibit Three)

JURISDICTION

15. Regarding this Court’s jurisdiction and the Rules of Procedure for

Special Actions, Rule 3 (b), provides relief when “…the

defendant has proceeded or is threatening to proceed without or

in excess of jurisdiction or legal authority,” and (c) when a

2 To grant damages for emotional distress, the finder of fact must determine the

defendant’s “acts were so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as togo beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious andutterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Revised Arizona Jury Instructions(Civil) 4th for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

8



determination was “arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of

discretion.”

16. Petitioner respectfully submits: During Call to the Audience

Respondent Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup, acting arbitrarily and

capriciously in excess of his jurisdiction and the lawful powers

delegated to him as Tucson City Mayor, has applied, and is

continuing to apply, “The Rule”, a vaguely worded, overbroad

rule, to determine what public commentary is lawful and what

commentary is not, in violation of the people’s rights to free

public speech guaranteed by the Constitutions of both the United

States and the State of Arizona, the public’s right to petition their

government for a redress of grievance, and the public’s right to

address their Mayor and Council regarding matters of public

concern.

STANDING

17. Regarding standing, Petitioner respectfully submits; “If (‘The

Rule’) may cause persons not before the Court to refrain from

engaging in constitutionally protected speech, then (Petitioner)

9



has standing to challenge (‘The Rule.’) State v. Brown, 207 Ariz.

231, 237

18. Here, in the case before the Court, Petitioner has already been

arrested, and threatened with future arrest, for violation of “The

Rule.”

19. Moreover; regarding actions Respondent Tucson Mayor Walkup

has already taken in excess of lawful jurisdiction, Petitioner also

respectfully submits: the specific wording of Rules for Special

Action, Rule 3 (b) grants Petitioner standing to bring this matter

before this Court for just resolution.

STANDARD FOR REVIEW

20. “The most stringent of scrutiny is applied to the examination of a

statute for vagueness (and overbreadth) when the statute induces

a chill on free speech.” Sabelko v City of Phoenix, 846 F.Supp.

822 (Ariz. 1994), citing Hynes v Mayor & Council of Oradell, 96

S.Ct. 1755, 1760 (1976).

21. Petitioner respectfully submits: The standard for review for the

case at bar is strict scrutiny.

10



LIMITED PUBLIC FORUMS

22. Regarding the Tucson City Council Chambers and limited public

forums, “(a)ny law which regulates the time, place and manner of

protected speech must not be based on the content of the

message.” Sabelko at 818, citing Forsyth County v. Nationalist

Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992)

ARGUMENT

VAGUENESS

23. In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as

unconstitutionally vague a local ordinance which prohibited “…

three or more persons to assemble on any of the sidewalks and

there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons

passing by,” because the ordinance “…subjects the exercise of

the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard…Conduct

that annoys some people does not annoy others.” Coates v.

Cincinnati, 91 S.Ct 1686

24. It is a well settled principle of law that “(a)n unconstitutionally

vague law delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges,

and (mayors) for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis,

11



with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory

application.” Sabelko at 822, citing Grayned v City of Rockford ,

92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99

25. Moreover; “a statute which, on its face, is so vague and indefinite

as to permit the punishment of protected free speech, is anathema

to the Fourteenth Amendment concept of liberty.” Wright v U.S

Army, 307 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1075 citing Cox v State of Louisiana,

85 S.Ct. at 463

26. And finally: a statute is unconstitutionally vague if it “fails to

give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to

know what is prohibited, so that he or she may act accordingly, or

if it allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by

failing to provide an objective standard for those who are charged

with enforcing or applying the law.” Brown at 237, quoting

Grayned v. Rockford, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99

27. Regarding the current rule limiting speech during Call to the

Audience; how may the public determine which words are

“personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks” and which words

are not?

12



28. The true meanings of these words are subjective in nature, and as

set forth in “The Rule,” the meanings of these words are to be

determined by the Mayor of Tucson alone, on the basis of

whether or not the Mayor is pleased, or is not pleased, with the

content of the public speaker’s communications.

29. Moreover; (The Rule)…”allows for arbitrary and discriminatory

enforcement by failing to provide an objective standard for those

who are charged with enforcing or applying the law,” in violation

of the rule of law set forth by the Brown Court in paragraph 26.

30. Furthermore; regarding the prohibition of speech against what the

Mayor may now consider to be “slanderous remarks,” Petitioner

respectfully submits; any public official who feels so aggrieved

may lawfully file a lawsuit and ask the Court for a just

determination, but under the American Rule of Law he may not

become judge, jury and executioner by applying the formidable

police powers of the state to stop public speech that he deems

“slanderous.”

31. And finally, regarding conduct the Mayor may consider to be

“boisterous” which “The Rule” now proscribes, Petitioner

13



respectfully submits; Tucson City Council meetings are well

attended by armed members of the Tucson Police Department.

Petitioner, and the rest of the public, may only guess as to what

conduct is “boisterous” and what conduct is not; however Tucson

Police officers are well trained in making determinations and

taking action when they consider public conduct to be a “breech

of the peace,” without promptings from Respondent Mayor

Walkup, who is untrained in such matters.

32. Petitioner respectfully submits; “The Rule” must be struck down

as unconstitutionally infirm because its wording is so vague it

“fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable

opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he or she may act

accordingly, (and) it allows for arbitrary and discriminatory

enforcement by failing to provide an objective standard for those

who are charged with enforcing or applying the law.”

OVERBREADTH

33. It is a well settled principle of law that “(a)n overbroad statute

is one designed to burden or punish activities that are not

constitutionally protected, but includes within its scope activities

14



which are protected by the First Amendment.” Brown at 237,

quoting Grayned v. Rockford, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99.

34. Petitioner respectfully submits; “The Rule” must be struck

down as unconstitutionally infirm because, along with regulating

non protected speech and conduct, it “includes within its scope

activities that are protected by the First Amendment,” as set forth

in paragraph 33 above.

CONCLUSION

To borrow a phrase from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Black,

this Petition “tests the ability of the United States to keep the promises

its Constitution makes to the people of the Nation.” Gregory v City of

Chicago, 89 S.Ct. 946, 948.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make

violent revolution inevitable.” John F. Kennedy, in a speech at the

White House, 1962.

It is undeniable and black letter law that “(t)he First

Amendment reflects a ‘profound national commitment’ to the

principle that ‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust,

15

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_F._Kennedy/

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_F._Kennedy/



and wide open.’” Arizona Right to Life Political Action v Bayless,

320 F.3d 1002, 1008, citing Boos v Barry, 108 S.Ct. 1157.

Moreover; “(w)hatever differences may exist about

interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal

agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the

free discussion of governmental affairs.” Arizona Right to Life at

1008, citing Boos.

And finally, In the modern police state…

“the greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evilDickens loved to paint (or in the dank cellars of theLubiyanka by thugs named Beria), but…in clear, carpeted,warmed, well lighted offices, by quiet men with whitecollars and cut fingernails and smooth shaven cheeks whodo not need to raise their voices.” --C.S. Lewis

Petitioner respectfully submits; Respondent Tucson City Mayor

Bob Walkup, in the name of The City of Tucson and the “Civility

Accord,” now employs an overbroad and vaguely worded rule, and

the police, to silence public dissent regarding the present operation of

Tucson City government.

Moreover; in the name of “civility” Respondent Mayor Walkup

expects the people to refrain from offering robust commentary when

they find one of their officials, on the basis of Cronyism and other self

16



interest, appointed to the high position of Tucson City Manager;

Richard Miranda, an individual who in performance of his official

duties as Tucson Assistant Police Chief, acted “with an evil hand

guided by an evil mind” and otherwise engaged in “acts (that were) so

outrageous in character, and extreme in degree, as to go beyond all

possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and

utterly intolerable in a civilized community,” as so determined by a

federal jury in 2006.

Petitioner, who observed first hand the functioning of a police

state during his many years living in North Africa in the Kingdom of

Morocco, respectfully submits: many of the aspects of a modern day

police state are employed by Tucson City Officials today.

However; in America, betwixt the indictment and the

execution, sits the Court and a Judge with the power to protect the

Rule of Law, the rights of the people and the power to decide matters

of great importance, including the constitutionality of the current

Tucson City Policy regarding public participation in the Call to the

Audience portion of Tucson City Council sessions, a policy herein

referred to as “The Rule,” which the Tucson Mayor now employs to

17



decide who may speak and on what subject, and who must remain

silent.

Petitioner respectfully submits: Respondent Mayor Walkup’s

application of such capricious and arbitrary authority to regulate

public speech is repugnant to the foundational concept of liberty here

in America, a liberty our forefathers3 paid dearly for by the shedding

of their blood, the essential meaning of that liberty set forth with

clarity by wise men who wrote the United States Constitution and the

Constitution of the State of Arizona, the full, unfettered scope of that

liberty now set forth and protected by the wisdom and authority of

American judges4 and clearly written case law, as cited above.

Therefore; Petitioner respectfully calls upon this Court to

protect the right of all the people to question the rectitude of official

conduct, a right set forth in the First Amendment, and so grant the

Petitioner the relief he seeks below.

PRAYER

Petitioner herein prays the Court to:

3 One of Petitioner’s distant forbearers was a Lieutenant in the Revolutionary

War. 4 Several of Petitioner’s more recent forbearers were gun wearing, horseback

riding California Circuit Court Judges in the days of the Wild, Wild West.

18



a. Strike down as unconstitutionally infirm the present “Mayor

and Council Meetings Public Participation” rule, herein referred

to as “The Rule,”

b. Order Respondent Mayor Walkup to pay all Petitioner’s Filing

Fees and Court Costs, and

c. Provide such additional relief the Court deems proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of October 2011.

BY____________________

Roy Warden, Petitioner

State of ArizonaCounty of _____________

On this ____day of ____________________, 2011, before methe undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Roy Warden,known to me to be the individual who executed the foregoinginstrument and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed.

My Commission Expires:_______________ ___________________ Notary

19



CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I Roy Warden, Petitioner in the above captioned Special

Action, do herein certify that this document was prepared in

compliance with all the Rules of the Court and the Rules of Procedure

for Special Actions, including the following:

1. This document was prepared in Microsoft Word, using a

double line spaced, proportionally spaced typeface, 14 Point

Times New Roman.

2. The total number of words used, except those excluded as

provided by Ariz. R. Crim. P. Rule 31.12 and 31.13, is 2,652.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th

day of October, 2011.

BY _____________________

Roy Warden, Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

20



I Roy Warden, Petitioner in Warden v. Tucson Mayor Bob

Walkup and The City of Tucson as Real Party in Interest, do herein

Declare, Swear and Affirm as follows:

On October 12th 2011 I served upon the parties named above

my Petition for Special Action by handing copies of the above

described documents to the following:

____________________ Roy Warden, Petitioner

21



Mayor Walkup:

“Roy Warden.”

Roy Warden:

“Good afternoon. Roy Warden, I do live here in Tucson.

You know, it’s really amazing, there are a lot of peopleout here, a lot of colorful people, got up and had somegeneral things to say about public corruption, and howunhappy they are with city government, and so forth,how they are unhappy with some of you folks up here.

Uh, everyone’s got an opinion. But sometime you canmove away from opinion down to specifics, move awayfrom generalities down to cold, hard facts.

And when it comes to opinions, or attitudes, towardsRichard Miranda over here, Deputy City Manager, it’snot a matter of opinion.

You see: the verdict is in.

The verdict was found, by, over in federal court, by Ibelieve 8 or 9 or 10, jurors I’m not sure how many siton a federal jury.

In 2006 they sat for three weeks.

Everyday they listened to testimony how RichardMiranda, former Chief Smith, Assistant Chief Ochoa,lied, cheated and stole the livelihood from a Tucson

23



citizen who had performed admirably for many yearson behalf of the police department.

Lied, cheated, and stealed (sic).

And the jury looked at him straight in the face for threeweeks, listened to his own testimony, and by the timethe case was over it was kind of surprising, because,one of the important things for lawyers is to quantifydamages: how much money was actually lost.

How do you quantify that: sometimes it’s easy,sometimes it’s not so easy.

This case it was pretty difficult.

And, so the lawyer gets up there and says, ‘You know?I don’t know what to tell you to give.’

Look to your heart.

Look to what they did, look to the way they lied to you

on the stand, look to the way they acted on behalf of,of, Gilmartin, the Plaintiff, and make your mind up.’

Boy, it took them less than half a day!

And they came back with 2.7 million dollars, actually2.9 million dollars: nine hundred thousand dollars owedby the City of Tucson and 2 million dollars in punitivedamages owed personally by him, Smith and Ochoa.

Punitive damages are not paid by municipalities, bylaw, they are paid by individuals.

24



Yet, old Mikey Rankin here, went together, this lawyerof the year you guys were clapping for, four or fivemonths ago, won an award, put together a slick littledeal by which the people, the taxpayers of the City of

Tucson here, paid seven hundred thousand dollars,between five hundred and seven hundred thousanddollars, of those punitive damages.

Put together the deal, documents are in place, trialtranscripts are over there in, actually upstairs at theClerk’s Office.

I read every page of it, you people should read it, it’s

an astonishing document.

Because it begs the question: When the people of Tucson speak through a verdict after listening totestimony for three weeks, and they…

Mayor Walkup:

“We’re all finished. Thank you very much…”

Roy Warden:

“…say he’s a liar and a scumbag, how do you guys getoff hiring him?”

Mayor Walkup:

“Next speaker is Robert Kleg.”

Roy Warden:

“Yeah…” (unintelligible comments)

25



Councilman Kozachik:

“I would just like to say, while Mr. Kleg is coming up,it’d sure be nice when people could come up to these

microphones and start making their points withoutbeing so personally disrespectful, not only to the rest of the council members but to the City Staff.

Uh, make, make your point but get off the, thepersonal attacks. And if you can’t do that just keepyour bile at home.”

Roy Warden: (in background)

(unintelligible comments)

EXHIBIT TWO

26



also with regards to public hearings…and its called ‘Decorum’ and how we treat each other and how we…really, around the country, asking everybody to getback to the original intent of call to the audience and

public hearings.

In January of this year I submitted to the Council of Mayors in Washington DC what we call the “CivilityAccord.”

The “Civility Accord” says it’s time for us to starttreating each other with dignity and respect andunderstanding and decorum.

There’s been about 250 mayors around the countrythat’s said ‘Now, it’s time for us to get back to how wereally treat each other.’

That represents about 43 million people, uh, from agovernance standpoint, uh, implementing within citycouncil meetings, respect for each other.

So there is an impact on “Call to the Audience”, that weare going to allow people to talk about things that wedisagree on, but we want to really get back to cityissues.

We like to, on Call to the Audience, to have people tellus what’s happening in our city, so we can get bettergovern the actions of the council.

But we’re not going to tolerate any longer any personalattacks on any individuals of the council or the citystaff.

28



It’s just inappropriate. So these are some changes thatwe’re implementing, uh, starting tonight.

I’ve asked the City Attorney if he would, lead, uh, read

a ‘Statement of Decorum.’”

City Attorney Mike Rankin:

“Mr. Mayor and members of the Council:

There are existing Mayor and Council Rules andRegulations for participation of the public in the Mayorand Council meetings.

Uh, and it reads as follows:

‘Citizens attending meetings shall observerules of propriety, decorum, and goodconduct. Any person making personal,impertinent or slanderous remarks, orbecomes boisterous while addressing thegoverning body, may be removed by the Sgt.

at Arms as directed by the Chairman.’

So those are your existing rules, uh, that have been inplace for many, many years. And that’s what theMayor is referring to.” Mayor Walkup:

“Let have, Uh, let’s start ‘Call to the Audience.’

I do have two cards. So at this time we will have ‘Callto the Audience.’

Be make sure you have read the information that’s onback of these cards.

29



Be mindful of what I’ve just indicated are going to bethe rules of ‘Call to the Audience.’ And with that let’sstart with Keith Van Hannigan.

(Skip to Roy Warden)

Mayor Walkup:

“Roy Warden.”

Roy Warden

“Good Evening. Roy Warden, Tucson Arizona.

Now, you know it really is astonishing to me. TheArizona Constitution says it so clearly, so compellingly, ‘the purpose of government is to protect the individualrights of the people.’

But you, Mr. Mayor, have turned that upside down. Andbasically you’ve restated it such as, ‘the purpose of thepeople is to submit to the unlawful dictates of thegovernment.’

You’ve assumed this power upon yourself.

You’ve assumed the power to overturn hundreds of years of first amendment law.

You should read the Terminillo Case, because it statesthe kind of language which is very appropriate, veryangry but very appropriate, in public debate and inaddressing people like you.

30



I know the comments last week made by Mr. Kozachikwere directed at me.

I thought, ‘this is really astonishing. A couple of yearsago he’s a citizen. Now he’s a member of government,and he’s taken over the meeting, and he says you’renot going to talk in a certain way.’

He’s attempting, and he probably has, chilled publicdebate on these issues.

And you think you’re going to get away with it.

You’re angry because I’ve called Miranda here…”

MAYOR WALKUP:

“Whup, Whup…Now you’re in, now you’re into here…personal…”

Roy Warden:

“Oh, absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely I’m there…”

(TPD Officers approach Roy Warden)

MAYOR WALKUP:

“Now Lets get to….”

Roy Warden:

(Raising his voice and referring to U.S. District CourtJudge Frank Zapata’s instructions to the Gilmartin Juryregarding the punitive damage standard for Arizona)

31



“They said he (Miranda) acted with ‘an evil mind.’ Theypresented…they were presented with clear…”

Mayor Walkup:

“Ok, very well…”

Roy Warden:

“This is from the court case. This is from the courtcase...”

Mayor Walkup:

“Let’s go on to item number seven…”

Roy Warden:

“Am I under arrest? Am I under Arrest?

MAYOR WALKUP:

“Item seven please.”

Roy Warden:

“Why? Explain to me, explain to me why? Explain tome, because…”

MAYOR WALKUP:

“Reports from the City Manager...on the consentagenda are received into…”

32



(Acknowledging nod from TPD officers to removeWarden)

“Yes, Please.”

Roy Warden:

“Unintelligible utterance” TPD officers take Wardenfrom the chambers.

EXHIBIT THREE

33



TUCSON MAYOR AND COUNCIL

TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 20, 2011

Mayor Walkup:

“Roy Warden”

Roy Warden:

“Good evening, Mayor and Council, Roy Warden,Tucson Arizona.

34



And before that verdict was read, or, or rendered, the jury had to consider this, regarding the conduct of Richard Miranda:

If they were to reach a verdict on emotional damages,which they did, they had to find that Mr. Miranda’s actswere “so outrageous in character and so extreme indegree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerablein a civilized community.”

That’s law.

Those are the legal standards that jury had to considerbefore they rendered a verdict on emotional damagesand held him and two other public officials liable for$500.000.00 in that particular aspect of the case, of the verdict, in emotional damages.

“Outrageous conduct.”

“Utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

That’s the type of behavior he engaged in. That’s thetype of behavior that the jury found he engaged in, andI’m sure he didn’t raise his voice when he did thethings he did.

I’m sure he was quite calm about it. And you’re lookingat the clock Mr. Mayor. I will be done.

You got to ask yourself this: If the public hasexpectations, ah, of government, how can you justifyyour employment of Mr. Miranda when citizens of thiscommunity have rendered such a verdict?

36



I’ll be back next week.”

Mayor Walkup:

“I must warn you: that is precisely what the, the rulesprohibit, is the repetitive, personal assaults.

So, I want you to recognize it.

And, I’m giving you a fair warning. That I consider thatto be a violation of our rules.

Everybody gets a bite, tonight, but next week I would

like you to stick to our rules.

And with that is the end of Call to the Audience…”

warden v. tucson mayor bob walkup

Documents