New topics: Your Pet, IOU, Baby IQ, The Poisons, Birther II, Games, Future Power

Why Are Bandit Signs Illegal

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

But soon, Makaeff was pressured to raise her credit card limits so she could purchase the Trump Gold Program for $35,000, which promised “hand-picked” mentors and a year of training. Instead, she spent two days looking at real estate properties and a half day at a local Home Depot, after which the mentors “quickly disappeared,” Makaeff said. In addition, she claims the seminars taught her to snatch up cheap homes by using "bandit signs," which are ads placed along the side of roads -- a practice that is illegal in California and other states.

San Francisco makes it illegal to park a car with a for sale sign at certain locations, such as along the streets bordering 19th avenue.

Other areas of California are cracking down on bandit signs link

  • Need a chimney sweep, a paternity test or credit repair? It might get a little harder to find such businesses as Santa Clarita clamps down on illegal signs along its manicured roadways. Last week, the City Council hiked fines for placing the "bandit" signs in median strips, on utility poles, next to freeway ramps and elsewhere in public rights of way. The fine will jump from $50 to $250 for a first violation and from $100 to $1,000 for a second violation within one year. "Bandit signs are worse than litter. It's as bad as graffiti," said Councilman TimBen Boydston, who said he has removed 250 signs over a two-month period.

Sussex County said this week it has confiscated 670 signs since January, putting it on pace to haul in more than 2,000 signs this year alone.

Municipalities all over the country are determined to take away our rights to free speech! Imagine what we might have found if we were getting our information from an organization trying to defend against the corrupt municipalities. The criteria for creating constitutional laws prohibiting signage are contained in the following quote. The article in its entirety may be found at the following web address. http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/signartsite1.htm

Quote #1
"Commercial and noncommercial speech enjoy different levels of constitutional protection. The courts apply a less demanding test to laws that affect commercial speech, including sign regulations, than they apply to regulations that affect noncommercial speech. The landmark Supreme Court case on laws affecting commercial speech is Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission.(8) There the Court held that a regulation of commercial speech must meet a three-part test. If the speech concerns lawful activity and is not false or misleading, then it must (1) serve a substantial governmental interest, (2) directly advance the asserted governmental interest, and (3) be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.(9) Rumblings in the Supreme Court may suggest it may be willing to reconsider and perhaps tighten the judicial review standards adopted by Central Hudson,(10) but until it does so that case still controls."

For more information about the constitutionality of sign ordinances, see this article in its entirety! The final conclusion of these law scholars is in the following quote! Read and believe!

http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/signartsite1.htm

Quote #2
"III. CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court has made it clear that the free speech clause applies to sign regulations. What it has not made clear is how municipalities can draft sign regulations that will survive constitutional attack as a violation of the free speech clause. This problem arises in part from ambiguities and confusions in Supreme Court decisions; a Court that cannot remember and apply its own precedent hardly deserves credibility. (A feeble attempt to discredit the only and highest court in the land responsible for protecting your constitutional rights, because the decisions do not consistently agree with their corrupt mission to remove your right to free speech!)
Meanwhile, municipalities must try to interpret and apply Supreme Court guidelines that determine what the free speech clause requires. This is no easy task, but careful drafting should be able to produce effective sign regulations that are constitutionally correct. With practice, municipalities can spook the doppelganger.(78) ( To date this has yet to be accomplished)

  • Stamper Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis. The author has served as a consultant to municipalities which have had to defend their sign regulations from attack under the free speech clause. I would like to thank Professor Jules Gerard for his assistance." (If these laws were in line with the Constitution they would not constantly be attacked nor would they need to be defended!)

Commentary:
To date I have yet to find a federal law prohibiting off premise signs or on premise signs of any kind because the issues governing these signs are still being debated in the federal courts. Therefore, since they are not prohibited by the "Supreme Law of the Land", " The Constitution of the United States of America", I am invoking my right to free speech to justify the use of these signs on a national basis to further the interests of small businesses and political interests as well as other purposes. At this time I will quote the Constitution itself.

Sources

Labels:
None
Edit Labels
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.