The Surprise woman whose arrest for her speech during a council meeting went viral has sued the city, alleging they violated her constitutional right to criticize the government.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed the lawsuit with the Arizona District Court on Tuesday on behalf of the woman, Rebekah Massie.
The outgoing mayor of Surprise, Skip Hall, directed police to arrest Massie last month for refusing to cease her criticisms of their city attorney, Robert Wingo, during a council meeting. Hall declared that Massie wasn’t allowed to “attack” — as in, criticize — a public official at a city council meeting, and denied her the opportunity to conclude her public remarks.
Further, Hall warned during his viral argument with Massie that others who dared to criticize city officials or staff during public meetings in the future would be escorted out.
In her controversial criticism, Massie had challenged the city’s decision to increase Wingo’s pay due to his work performance. Police cited “trespassing” as the basis of Massie’s arrest.
Police arrested Massie in front of her 10-year-old daughter, who had attended the meeting with her mother.
Massie said in a video announcing her lawsuit with FIRE that Hall had weaponized the police to violate her rights.
“I have certain inalienable rights, and they were not only trampled on, but the mayor essentially weaponized the police force to shut me up,” said Massie.
LAWSUIT: With FIRE’s help, an Arizona mom is suing the City of Surprise, AZ., after the mayor ordered her arrest for questioning a pay raise for a city official.
In America, the last thing citizens should fear when they attend public meetings is leaving in handcuffs. pic.twitter.com/ox6EyEiVAW
In a separate press release, Massie said that her decision to stand her ground and be arrested served as a teaching opportunity for her children and the community.
“I wanted to teach my children the importance of standing up for their rights and doing what is right — now I’m teaching that lesson to the city,” said Massie. “It’s important to fight back to show all of my children that the First Amendment is more powerful than the whims of any government official.”
“(…) It’s important to fight back to show all of my children that the First Amendment is more powerful than the whims of any government official.”
FIRE’s lawsuit names Hall along with the city of Surprise and the arresting officer, Steven Shernicoff, as the defendants. The organization dubbed the council’s policy forbidding criticisms of city officials and staff the “Council Criticism Policy.”
FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick stated in the press release that the First Amendment especially protects critiques of the government.
“If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects criticizing government officials,” said Fitzpatrick. “Arresting government critics might be how the world’s repressive regimes operate, but it has no place in America.”
Massie identifies politically as a libertarian; she founded The Grand Failure, a nonprofit advocating for government transparency and public safety.
Hall’s replacement, Mayor-Elect Kevin Sartor, condemned his soon-to-be predecessor’s actions in a public statement in the days following the incident.
“As Americans, our right to free speech is fundamental, especially when it comes to holding our government accountable,” said Sartor. “What happened to Rebekah Massie is unacceptable. No citizen should ever be arrested for voicing their concerns, especially in a forum specifically designed for public input.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The city of Phoenix paid out $1 million to a mother after two adult brothers were shot and killed during a violent domestic dispute in which police responded. The council agreed to the settlement on Monday, which was originally agreed upon in court on May 18.
In October 2020, police responded to a domestic dispute call placed by Lillian Cocreham, the mother of George Cocreham, 43, and Emmett Cocreham, 44. The mother said that her two sons were engaged in a verbal altercation, that one of her sons had a rifle, and that both men would attempt to attack the officers. She also advised the 911 operator that the police had come to her residence multiple times before due to her sons.
The mother alleged to the 911 operator that she initially called the crisis response line, but hung up after 45 minutes of no response. The mother also said she was afraid her elder son, Emmett, would kill her.
“I am fearful for my life,” said the mother. “I’m barricaded in my bedroom. I’m afraid my son Emmett will beat me up and kill me.”
Upon responding to the Cocreham residence, police reported that they saw one of the brothers holding a rifle despite orders to drop it. Police fired after the brother holding the rifle, George, raised and pointed it at Emmett. Police reported that in pointing the gun at Emmett, George was also pointing the gun in the direction of responding officers.
The brothers repeatedly ignored officers’ commands throughout the entire interaction.
The day after the shooting, an uncle of the Cocreham brothers toldABC15 he didn’t blame the officers because the brothers had a history of family violence, some of which warranted prior police response to the house.
Cocreham filed a $12 million notice of claim in April 2021, alleging that police had wrongfully killed her two sons and issued $10,000 in damage and repairs to her property. The claim alleged that police failed to defuse the situation, didn’t provide evidence that the brothers were armed or fired their weapons, and didn’t provide timely medical care to the brothers after they were shot.
“The two deaths resulted directly from the supervising officers’ failure to gain command and control of the scene and of a non-combative situation well within their grasp,” stated the claim. “[The officers] individually and collectively inflamed a domestic disturbance call into an unacceptably chaotic situation.”
Cocreham sued the city later that year in the Arizona District Court.
In an interview concerning the settlement, Cocreham said that she was still working to recover over the damage her home sustained.
“It cost the city money, it cost taxpayers money, it cost the victims money, but it cost you your soul,” said Cocreham. “They’ll try to bring you down as much as you can, they can and they love it, but you know what? You didn’t win this time, because I didn’t lose my boys.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A Christian university’s case against a Phoenix school district over alleged religious discrimination got a hearing on Tuesday.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Arizona Christian University (ACU) against the Washington Elementary School District (WESD), spoke with AZ Free News after the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Arizona District Court.
ADF lawyer Jake Reed said they felt confident in their legal arguments and that the judge that heard the case, Steven Logan, was well-versed on the arguments ahead of Tuesday’s hearings. Reed said they’re hoping for a ruling within the next few weeks, considering ACU needs to place their student teachers for the upcoming year by the end of this semester.
“This is a pretty simple case about religious discrimination,” said Reed. “A public body is telling a university they can’t place their teachers because of their religious faith.”
WESD terminated its contract with ACU in February. Its governing board members cited ACU’s Christianity as a principal factor for their decision. Leading on the effort was board member Tamillia Valenzuela, who said that ACU’s Biblical perspective that traditional sexual morality and the standard of marriage between one man and one woman directly opposed her and other LGBTQ+ community members. Valenzuela received support from fellow board members Kyle Clayton and Nikki Gomez-Whaley.
“[W]hen I went and looked into not only [ACU’s] core values but then the statement of faith that they ask their students to sign and live by, what gave me pause was it’s not just teaching but it’s teaching as they say with a Biblical lens, with a proselytizing is embedded into how they teach, and you know, I just don’t believe that belongs in schools,” said Clayton. “I would never want, you know, my son to talk about his two dads and be shamed by a teacher who believed a certain way and is at a school that demands that they, you know, teach through [a] Biblical lens.”
Gomez-Whaley said she would be open to those who claimed to be Christians who were accepting of LGBTQ+ lifestyles.
“[E]ven though [ACU] may not do anything illegal where they are preaching or using Bible verses, I do believe that we owe it to especially all of our students when we’re working in equity but especially our LGBTQ students and staff who are under fire who are not protected, and who we have already pledged to support,” said Gomez-Whaley. “We cannot continue to align ourselves with organizations that starkly contrast our values and say that we legitimately care about diversity, equity, and inclusion and that we legitimately care about all of our families.”
Reed shared that in the 11 years of WESD and ACU’s relationship, there were well over 100 students placed as either student teachers or in teacher shadowing positions. Of those students, 17 went on to be hired by WESD.
When asked whether WESD could attempt religious discrimination in future contracting decisions under the guise of other reasons, Reed said that those incidents, if they were to occur, would have to be scrutinized.
“The government can’t treat certain people worse than everyone else. Students shouldn’t be denied opportunities because of their religious beliefs,” said Reed. “The government can’t pick and choose what beliefs they allow.”
WESD proposed to settle by extending a separate agreement with ACU for one more year — but not the agreement at issue.
Ahead of the hearing the judge denied an amicus brief filed last week by The Goldwater Institute, a public policy research and litigation organization. Logan stated in his order that the WESD didn’t consent to the brief and that the Goldwater Institute didn’t present relevant matters that hadn’t already or couldn’t be brought to the court by either party.
“The parties’ briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is complete, thorough, and more than sufficient for this Court to make a ruling,” wrote Logan.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Tuesday, the Arizona District Court issued a temporary restraining order against drop box monitors with Clean Elections USA. The order lasts through Election Day for fourteen days.
The court consolidated two cases against the drop box monitors: League of Women Voters of Arizona v. Lions of Liberty, et al and Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, et al v. Clean Elections USA et al.
Judge Michel Liburdi ordered Clean Elections USA to refrain from engaging in or training, organizing, or directing others to monitor drop boxes. They may not enter within 75 feet of a ballot drop box or entrance to a building where a drop box is located, or follow individuals delivering ballots to a drop box outside that 75-foot margin. They may also not speak first to individuals dropping off ballots within 75 feet of a drop box. They may also not openly carry firearms within 250 feet of a ballot drop box, but may conceal carry.
Liburdi also ordered Clean Elections USA and its founder, Melody Jennings, to post the following on the organization website and her Truth Social account:
“It is not always illegal to deposit multiple ballots in a ballot drop box. It is legal to deposit the ballot of a family member, household member, or person for whom you are the caregiver. Here are the rules for ballot drop boxes by which I ask you to abide…”
Followed by a copy of state law concerning voter fraud or a link to the law, Jennings complied. Although on Wednesday, Jennings responded to Republican secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem that she and others would continue to watch drop boxes “lawfully and peacefully” as he requested.
In an interview with controversial pundit Steve Bannon, Jennings described the restraining order as an “infraction of the First Amendment.” Jennings said she would be relying on eyewitnesses to file affidavits if they see suspicious activity.
One of the major firms representing the plaintiffs in the cases was the Elias Law Group: Russiagate lawyer Marc Elias’ firm. The Department of Justice (DOJ) also joined the case on Halloween, which was Monday.
As required by federal court order, Clean Elections USA founder Melody Jennings posted on Truth Social that there are multiple reasons why Arizona voters can legally return more than one ballot to a drop box after her group baselessly accused individuals of being "ballot mules." pic.twitter.com/iacPDyNg8l
