Draft:Preferred Communications Inc. v City of Los Angeles

Preferred Communications Inc v City of Los Angeles was a case filed in United States District Court. for the Central District of California in 1983  (#83-5846 cbm). The complaint was made by Preferred Communications Inc., a California Corporation formed at the dawn off Cable Television Industry. Judge Consuelo Marshall, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, heard the case which she subsequently dismissed. Ultimately, Marshall's ruling was found to be unconstitutional.

Background

In the month of December, 1979, while the cable television industry was at its infant stages, cable television franchise opportunities had recently been made available in South Central Los Angeles contemporarily known as South Los Angeles or South L.A.

Preferred Communications Inc was the successor of Universal Cable Systems Ltd. (c.1982) and was established with the aim of securing a Franchise from the city of Los Angeles and providing Cable Television services and community-generated content and programming for the South Central Los Angeles (now "South L.A.", or "South Los Angeles" area.

Under the administration of Mayor Tom Bradley, the City of Los Angeles would systemically obstruct and violate the constitution and the rights it conferred upon all Citizens of the United States.

In 1983, Preferred Communications Inc. filed a complaint against the City of Los Angeles alleging that the franchising process was a tool used and conceived in bad faith by City officials who would reject all bids apart from the one put forth by "friends of the administration."

The complaint filed by plaintiff Preferred Communications Inc., (preferred) in addition to the Supreme Court ruling were a condemnation of the city's elected officials who sought to secure deals for and/or benefits to themselves.

Precursor to Complaint

During its development (according to a rationale that has by no means become more clear with time) the Cable Television Industry and its development were placed under the prevue of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (DOT) Under the direction of Mayor Tom Bradley, the L.A. DOT would deny Preferred Communications Inc. the requisite if not arbitrary cable franchise license in a controversial bidding process overseen by the L.A. City Council.

Founded solely upon the specious rationale of 'Natural Monopoly' the L.A. DOT held that Cable Television (on account of the purported constraints inherent to the literal cables used for its transmission ) is inherently constrained; moreover that such purported constraint existed to a degree requiring the core principles of Capitalism to be thrown out where Cable Television (and competition) were concerned. Unfortunately, the competitive bidding process was not competitive, nor did it merely fail to be; rather, what was described as a competitive process comprised an elaborate mechanism to prevent competition, constituting, therefore, either 1) a farce or 2) a crime. By the very metrics they had established, the Los Angeles DOT awarded the "winning bid" to the loser.

Legal Proceedings

In 1983, Preferred Communications Inc. filed a complaint against the City of Los Angeles. The allegations held in the complaint included the assertion that the city, under the administration of Mayor Tom Bradley, had committed a violation of their First amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. In 1986 the allegations of Civil Rights violations became legal fact as these were validated and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. After a near decade of delays, having been reversed in two courts by twelve judges and Justices (3 and 9 respectively) presiding judge, Consuelo Marshall, would award Plaintiffs one U.S. Dollar for the deprivation and violation of their 1st Amendment, Civil, rights.

Statistically speaking the unanimous agreement among the twelve federal judges and justices who reversed Judge Marshal and held that Los Angeles City officials were in breach of U.S. constitutional law, constitutes a rare event. Qualitatively, their ruling was an indictment on Judge Marshall's conduct (and predicate rationale) pursuant the matter as well as her civil servant counterparts at the City level who swore an oath not dissimilar to her own: to act without fear or favor, of or for, any private person or party. The ruling may be seen in hindsight, though by few it was seen then, as a harbinger for the world to come pertaining to the relationship between government officials as gatekeepers and their "barbarian" ( counterparts whose money and influence granted them entrance into the gates of the minds of all United States Citizens.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and later the U.S. Supreme Court found that the City of Los Angeles "violated the First Amendment through its procedure relative to the South Central Los Angeles Cable Television Franchise" specifically by depriving Preferred Communications Inc, access to the public utility lines.

Judicial Reversal and National Precedent

Presiding Judge for the Central District of California Consuelo Marshall dismissed the original complaint citing vague if not contradictory logic. Marshall's ruling was subsequently and unanimously overruled in two higher Courts.

In sum, twelve senior members of the bench superseded Marshall's decree. First to reverse Marshall was a three judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who summarized:

"...[w]e affirm the district court's decision insofar as it pertains to the plaintiff's antitrust claims and reverse its dismissal of the First Amendment claim,"

and subsequently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America whereupon all nine Justices "dismissed as improper" Marshall's ruling, stating:

"...[t]he complaint should not have been dismissed. The activities in which respondent allegedly seeks to engage plainly implicate First Amendment interests."

While it was the opinion of Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that: "the [City of Los Angeles] was obligated to allow [Preferred Communications Inc.] use of its physical capacity to further speech," the Plaintiff(s) were deprived a jury trial to determine damages for roughly a decade. Between 1983 and 1992, legal hardship and economic disenfranchisement were the product of continual delays; further, no public hearing was ever granted to plaintiff(s) in their effort to assert their first amendment rights under the U.S. constitution.

Multiple delays permeate the timeline of events despite the High Court's ruling.

• In 1983 the case was filed in District Court. for the Central District of California.  (#83-5846 cbm)
• In 1985 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Marshall's decision.(#754 f 2d)
• In 1986 the Supreme Court rendered unanimous judgment (9–0), to reverse Marshall and upheld the 9th Circuit's 3-0 ruling (#476 U.S. 488, 1986)
• In 1992 Judge Marshall would issue her final ruling in defiance of the mandate issued by two higher courts having deferred the case in sum for five years subsequent to the Supreme Court decision.

While twelve senior judges and Justices from two higher courts stated clearly their unanimous and binding legal opinions that Marshall's determinations were in conflict with the Constitution of the United States,  Marshall's final ruling was to award Plaintiffs one U.S. Dollar for having suffered a violation of their Civil Rights and for having been deprived access to both the free market and freedom of speech.

The precedent established by the Supreme Court would shape the Cable Television industry and subsequently the internet as it is known and accessed at present and in the years to come. Equally profound, though for contrary reasons, is Judge Marshall's decision to defy the Supreme Court ruling in spirit of not according to the letter. By Marshall's reasoning, the 1st Amendment protections afforded American Citizens is equal to $1 American Dollar.

As Marshall alone determined the amount of damages to be awarded plaintiffs, her honor's determination implicates or asserts that the First Amendment protections afforded all U.S. Citizens may be nullified for one U.S. dollar. As a matter of jurisprudence, Marshall's final ruling seems to diminish the judgement(s) of the U.S. Supreme Court to the realm of mere suggestion.

As discreetly made available on Justia Law, and read in Memorandum, the Circuit Judge of record states:

"Preferred not only won[...]; it prevailed on the central issue of the case: The one area/one operator policy was found unconstitutional by the district court, a judgment we affirm today[...]. Though Preferred was not actually awarded a franchise, it has secured the right to compete for one. That's a significant victory, one which has altered the legal relationship between Preferred and the city. "

References

This page will be placed in the following categories if it is moved to the article namespace.

Categories:

• United States Supreme Court cases