And remember this fact, which Attorney Flygare's opinion wholly ignores, from the post, "Vagalebre is worthless in the face of a Constitutional challenge..."
Nonetheless, the court concludes that the policy is
valid as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction governing the special meetings for the reasons discussed infra, and because the policy leaves open the opportunity for the public to otherwise speak at the regular meetings.
I specifically asked the Nashua Board if there were other opportunities in this instance and the answer was an unequivocal "no."
Again, why the push to silence the public in New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" State? It appears that some elected officials would rather active dissenters just go ahead and die, doesn't it?
I shall await the Board's decision, but I'm calling the ACLU to have an intake form at the ready for us to consider our options.
PS: Attorney Flygare says it is not uncommon for judges to reach differing conclusions, but that statement ignores the major factual distinction detailed above. And I can't wait to see if he finds any other case in the Country since 1997 to support Vagalebre, while we've got not just one, but dozens of others coming down in our favor. That's because of:
1) The factual distinction, and;
2) The correctness of our position.