Canton Coverup Part 325: ACLU Joins Attorney Marc Randazza In Filing Motions To Oppose Commonwealth’s Banning Of Protesters Outside Karen Read Trial


Donate to the Turtleboy Legal defense fund

– Framed – Video for Full Background on Canton Cover-Up Story
– Donate to the Karen Read Legal Defense Fund
– See all parts of the Canton Cover-Up Series
– Watch the Live Shows and Videos
– Join ”Justice for John O’Keefe and Karen Read” FB Group


Yesterday Attorney Marc Randazza filed a motion on behalf of four plaintiff protesters in opposition the Commonwealth’s proposed 500 foot buffer zone outside of Norfolk Superior Courthouse, and it’s stupendous.


Marc is like an artist with his filings. Not a lot of attorneys would accuse the Commonwealth of being on an “unchecked bender,” with a “monopoly on violence,” and suggest that they are enabling and feeding addiction of power hungry tyrants in a motion.

But there might not be a more accurate way to describe what these people have been doing in Norfolk County. They are trying to “blind and gag Lady Liberty,” by depriving American citizens of their God given First Amendment rights.

The four plaintiffs are regulars at the protests – Dana Leonard, Tracey Spicuzza, Paul Christoforo, and Lorena Jenkinson. As Marc pointed out, they want to hold signs outside the courthouse because they want the press to see their signs, and that’s where the press will be.

Holding a sign in protest where no one will see it defeats the purpose of holding a sign.

Christoforo wants to hold up a sign that says “Free Turtleboy” in support of the award winning journalist directly responsible for the unprecedented media attention on this case.

Can he do that? Turtleboy is not on trial here, but I have no doubt the court would threaten to arrest anyone holding a sign like that if this motion is allowed.

By banning public speech outside the courthouse the court is giving the impression that they lack confidence in the process, because it can be so easily manipulated by a bunch of people holding signs.

A really good point Marc made was that the proposed order would ban cops from showing up in uniform. Except there’s just one problem – no cops have been showing up to ANY of the hearings, let alone in uniform. The Commonwealth knows how bad this looks for them, since normally cops flood the courtroom when another cop is murdered. Most Boston cops know that Karen Read is innocent, which is why they’re not showing up to support this sham. By banning cops in uniform the Commonwealth can pretend like THAT is the reason cops aren’t showing up.

The Supreme Court has ruled that any court infringement on free speech must be “narrowly tailored.” This means it has to be specific with as few limitations as possible on First Amendment liberties. An outright ban on protesters being 500 feet from a courthouse, and the banning of any sort of clothing within that buffer zone that expresses an opinion about the case, is the exact opposite of narrowly tailored.

In the 1983 case Grace vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban protesters outside of the Supreme Court. If our nation’s highest court allows protesters to protest them outside, then why should Norfolk County Superior Courthouse be treated any differently?

The 500 foot zone means that local businesses that fall within that radius cannot have signs in their story expressing opinions on the case, nor can customers in the stores wear clothing doing the same.

Attorney Randazza was kind enough to do some narrow tailoring for the Commonwealth. For instance, the court could require a ban on protesting during jury selection only, or allow jurors to use the back entrance where political prisoners like Turtleboy are brought in in shackles.

Attorney Randazza pointed out that the Commonwealth got a taste for censorship when they arrested me on bogus witness intimidation charges, and quickly began doing the same to people like the Canton 9, who he also represents in federal court.

The idea that the court can’t function if a bunch of peaceful protesters hold “Free Karen Read” signs out front is an insult to the court itself.

Is our judicial system really that weak and fragile that it can all fall apart at the mere sight of this?

Like Marc pointed out, that’s like saying that protesters holding “the earth is flat” signs outside of MIT could influence astrophysicists to agree with them.

It’s not every day you see a motion referring to Massholes as “the OG’s of Liberty.”

But it’s also not every day you see journalists arrested and charged with witness intimidation for asking questions to cop killers.

Earlier today the ACLU followed the lead of Attorney Randazza by filing an amicus brief in opposition to the buffer zone.


After ignoring the plethora of free speech violations that have occurred in Norfolk County over the last 6 months the ACLU finally decided to show up. Better late than never, especially since they have unlimited resources and don’t align at all with me politically, proving once again that the Free Karen Read movement transcends politics. When the ACLU talks, courts listen. And as their attorney pointed out, the Commonwealth’s motion deserves close constitutional scrutiny, especially since it is essentially attempting to ban criticism of public officials like Michael Proctor and Michael Morrissey.

Like Marc pointed out, any restrictions must be narrowly tailored, and the ACLU came up with a few suggestions of their own.

You can limit the decibel level or question potential jurors about whether or not they can remain unbiased in the face of this:

Additionally, pretty much everyone has heard of the Karen Read case at this point, thanks to our movement, so who gives a shit if people are holding signs outside

They also pointed out that SCOTUS overruled a Massachusetts law 10 years ago banning protests outside of abortion clinics.

If women seeking abortions don’t need protection from protesters than why do Adam Lally and Jennifer McCabe?

The ACLU also took a shot at the witness intimidation statute, pointing out like we have many times that the law itself is unconstitutional because it’s not narrowly tailored. After all, what does “near a building house a court” even mean?

Auntie Bev has the option not to allow Marc Randazza to speak at tomorrow’s hearing, but not allowing him to do so would only prove his point. We have a First Amendment right to protest on public sidewalks, and if we take crap like this lying down they’ll never stop taking away other rights. The First Amendment is on trial in Norfolk County, and the whole country will be watching.


Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hello Turtle Riders. As you know if you follow Turtleboy we are constantly getting censored and banned by Facebook for what are clearly not violations of their terms of service. Twitter has done the same, and trolls mass reported our blog to Google AdSense thousands of times, leading to demonetization. We can get by and survive, but we could really use your help. Please consider donating by hitting the Donation button above if you'd like support free speech and what we do in the face of Silicon Valley censorship. Or just buy our award winning book about the dangers of censorship and rise of Turtleboy:  Qries
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Adblock Detected

Support the news you love. Please disable the ad blocker or purchase our ad free subscription