Charlie Gutierrez
137 Wilber Avenue #30
Antioch, California 94509
		  SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
		     COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
SUSAN BROOKE (GUTIERREZ),               NO.288049
PETITIONER                              MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
v.                                      AND AUTHORITIES IN
CHARLES GUTIERREZ,                      SUPPORT OF FIRST
RESPONDENT.                             AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO
					CENSORSHIP ORDER.
_____________________________
COURT ORDER FOR MONITORING OF MAIL, PHONE CALLS, AND SPEECH DURING VISITS, 
AND CENSORING ENFORCEMENT BY SUPERVISORS AND CUSTODIAL MOTHER ARE PRIOR 
RESTRAINTS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, 
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
A. VALIDITY OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS
 An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425, p.442
------------------------------------------
 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda v. Arizona, 348 US 436, p.491
-------------------------------------
 All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
----------------------------
B. DEFINITION OF PRIOR RESTRAINT
 For First Amendment purposes, essence of prior restraint on speech is that 
it places specific communication under personal censorship of a judge.
U.S.-Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., C.A. Tex., 619 F.2d 459, affirmed 101 S.Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2193, 452 US 89, 68 L.Ed.2d 693
-------------------------------
 For purposes of analysis under the Federal Constitution's First Amendment,
the term "prior restraint" is used to describe administrative and judicial 
orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time
that such communications are to occur.
Alexander v. United States (US) 113 S Ct 2766, 125 L.Ed 2d 441
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. PURPOSE OF FIRST AMENDMENT.
 
 Prior restraint upon speech suppresses the precise freedom which the First
Amendment sought to protect against abridgement, the elimination of prior
restraint being a "leading purpose" in the adoption of such amendment.
Carroll v. President and Comrs. of Princess Anne, 393 U 175, 89 S Ct 347, 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 L.Ed 2d 325
--------------
D. EFFECTS OF PRIOR RESTRAINTS
 Prior restraints fall on speech with a brutality and a finality all their
own; even if they are ultimately lifted they cause irremediable loss in the
immediacy and impact or speech.
Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 101 S Ct 2193
--------------------------------------
 If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after
publication "chills" speech, prior restraint freezes it.
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 96 S Ct 2791, 427 US 539, 49 L.Ed 2d 683
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. MOST SERIOUS INFRINGEMENT.
 Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the
least tolerable infringement on rights under this [First] amendment.
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 96 S Ct 2791
--------------------------------------------
F. FORBIDDEN BY CONSTITUTION.
 The Constitution forbids enforcement of ordinances which undertake
censorship of speech or religious practices before permitting their 
exercise.
Kovacs v. Cooper, N.J. 1949, 69 S Ct 448, 336 US 77, 93 L.Ed 513
----------------------------------------------------------------
rehearing denied 69 S Ct, 336 US 921, 93 L.Ed 1083
--------------------------------------------------
		>>>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Renegade v10-05 Exp
---------------