The First Gang Injunction to Protect a Courthouse

Protect the Courthouse and its employees from the Barrio Van Nuys Gang. Seems a reasonable basis for an injunction except that there is no evidence, apart from graffiti, that the Barrio Van Nuys Gang threatens either government employees or the Courthouse.

Why allow a little thing like lack of evidence to stop the Los Angeles Police Department from arresting anyone in the injunction-protected area who looks like a gang member?

What does a gang member look like? In Los Angeles there is less emphasis on gang tattoos and more emphasis on blending in with the rest of the population. After all, tattoo ink is an identifying feature and after many years of gang arrests based on tattoo's gang members are realizing that less visibility is good for business.

They still have their hand-signals and signs and the inevitable question "Where you from?" to identify each other, if not the gang logo tattooed on the neck, face or forehead. If anything, this gang injunction makes it official. The Barrio Van Nuys Gang controls a specific well defined part of Van Nuys, California. It must be true because a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge says it's so. Step outside the protected area and conduct gang activities and avoid the injunction altogether. By now, every Barrio Van Nuys gang member has received a copy of the map published by the Daily News http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12514059 and now knows how to avoid an arrest for gang activity or affiliation.

Doesn't matter to the Los Angeles Superior Court that fundamental and constitutional rights are at issue here. Doesn't matter to the Judge that he signed an Oath of Office which mandates that he uphold the Constitution of The United States or that his failure to do so is a felony in California. The Court has crossed the line in it's self-interest.

This conduct by the Courts is dangerous indeed. One well placed appeal will nullify all of the gang injunctions in California simply because they are illegal. Yes, illegal activity by the Courts in an effort to control an illegal effort by the gangs. Except that the gang activity the Court attempts to prohibit is largely controlled by the United States Constitution and it is the ordinary activity of millions of Americans everyday. The right to associate, the right to freedom of speech, the right to assembly, the right to stand on a street corner and not be subjected to police interrogation, or arrest, or harassment, or beatings, or tazers. The rights the Court has waived to protect itself are the same rights which protect every American citizen, at least in theory.

The ACLU will at some point become involved in this litigation as a defender of our basic rights and those same rights are enjoyed by all Americans whether they are gang members or judges. God forbid a judge should display tattoos which might be interpreted as gang logos. Under the injunction that judge could be arrested on the spot for doing nothing more than being in the vicinity of the Courthouse. So you see how this injunction actually brings us a step closer to nullification of all gang injunctions in California. The more the Courts intervene with injunctive relief the more protected the gangs actually become simply because injunctive protection will inevitably fail where it denies basic rights. Sphere: Related Content