First Amendment Victory for Union County Citizen’s Forum

By County Watchers | June 2, 2014

tina7sm2

For Immediate Release: May 30, 2014
Rutherford Institute
Contact: Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
(434) 466-6168 (cell)
nisha@rutherford.org

First Amendment Victory: Federal Court Rules in Favor of Rutherford Institute Lawsuit Over Citizen Activist’s Right to Display Union County Seal on TV Show

NEWARK, N.J. — In a resounding victory for the First Amendment, especially as it relates to freedom of the press, a federal court has ruled in favor of a political activist’s right to display a county government seal in the background of her public access television show. Rejecting Union County’s claim that activist Tina Renna was infringing on trademark protections associated with the seal, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin McNulty asserted that Renna’s use of the seal is protected by the First Amendment and that the County’s infringement claims were a baseless attempt to impede her free expression in the pursuit of increased government transparency. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed the lawsuit in 2011 after county officials ordered Renna to stop displaying the Union County Seal in the background of her public information show “Union County Citizen’s Forum” because it allegedly infringed on the County’s trademark rights.

The court’s decision in Renna v. County of Union is available at Rutherford.org.

“At its core, the First Amendment is intended to protect the right of Americans to criticize government officials as they see fit,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “In fact, the First Amendment does more than give us a right to criticize our country–it makes it a civic duty. Indeed, duties of citizenship extend beyond the act of voting. Citizens must be willing to stand and fight to protect their freedoms. And if need be, it will entail criticizing the government. This is patriotism in action.”

Tina Renna is a political activist and journalist who has sought to bring more openness and transparency to the actions of the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders. In December 2009, Renna began producing the television show “Union County Citizen’s Forum” which airs on Union County’s public access Channel 35. The show consists primarily of reading the resolutions and formal acts of the Board and covering other public information of local interest. The show’s background is a graphic consisting of the Union County seal with a spotlight shining on it to symbolize bringing to light the activities and workings of the County government. In 2010, Union County ordered Renna to “cease and desist use of the Seal of the County of Union in any way including, but not limited to, displaying it in the background of all television shows.” Renna was also advised that the seal was a pending trademark and that she was infringing on the County’s trademark rights. Renna subsequently turned to The Rutherford Institute for advice and legal assistance.

In April 2011, Institute attorneys informed Union County officials of Renna’s First Amendment right to display the seal in connection with news programming and requested that the County withdraw its claim to trademark protection in the seal. However, the County refused, even though the federal government had rejected the County’s application to have the seal registered as a trademark. In response, Institute attorneys filed a First Amendment lawsuit in federal court asking the court to affirm that Renna has a right to display the seal on her television show because the County seal is not subject to trademark protection and that the display of the seal in connection with news and public information programming is a form of constitutionally protected expression which does not constitute trademark infringement. In ruling on the issue, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin McNulty agreed with the Institute’s arguments that trademark laws do not create protections for the insignias of state and local governments and that Renna’s use of the seal for political commentary does not violate trademark law in any event.

Affiliate attorneys Walter M. Luers and Michael F. Daily are assisting in representing Renna.
________________________________________
Note from Tina Renna

Judge McNulty’s decision chronicles Union County’s intimidation tactics in this matter. During the summary judgment hearing held on May 29, 2014, he asked county counsel for explanations as to why County Counsel Norman Albert asserted that the county seal was trademarked, when it fact it wasn’t. Since Albert has since been promoted to run the county’s personnel department, County Counsel Merman representing the county responded “I don’t know”. Judge McNulty then asked why a representative of Union County government would threaten a citizen with a criminal offence, and again the response was “I don’t know”. I followed up later that day at a freeholder meeting and asked the county freeholders to answer Judge McNulty’s questions, they ignored me.

Since the county won’t answer to, never mind apologize for their abusive behavior, I apologize to the staff of Cranford’s TV 35 for the harassment they experienced from county counsel Norman Albert and the county’s public information officer Sebastian D’Elia. The staff was attacked verbally, and barraged with OPRA requests. Freeholder B.J. Kowalski, a Cranford resident, also harassed the station with a public statement about their programming of freeholder meetings which Cranford Deputy Mayor at the time researched and proved Kowalski’s statement was false. Again, no apology was issued from the county.

Considering the county’s oppressive un-democratic behavior in this matter, what I found particularly appalling was their claim that they owned the exclusive use of their Seal because Hannah Caldwell was depicted on it and this made it unique, and somehow they believed they had to protect Caldwell’s image.

I believe with my whole heart Mrs. Caldwell, a revolutionary, would be very happy that I stood up to the oppressive agents of Union County government.

“Whether the County has tried to bully a constituent is for the public to decide. The issues before me primarily involve the proper scope of trademark law.” …. Judge Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J.

Opinion Tina Renna v. The County of Union, New Jersey

5 Responses to “First Amendment Victory for Union County Citizen’s Forum”

  1. bpaterson says:

    We still live in a democracy.

    Political boss/freeholder Hudak was noted in the latest political mailer “Union County Directions” (which he got the unwitting taxpayers to pay for), on page 2 proudly stated that union county govt will be a “strong government”.

    Luckily, thanks for people like Tina, John and Jim, the people are stronger.

  2. Michael Pierone says:

    I find it outrageous that the county Attorney flat out lied about the trademark status of the County Seal. But not nearly as outrageous as using taxpayer money to attempt to intimidate free speech. The nerve of these people!

    I have no doubt that if they could get away with it they would physically restrain Tina from ever speaking about the County again.

    Their fear of her and her show I count as an ENDORSEMENT of its inherent value.

    Great Job Tina and all involved!

    It is amazing how frequently the county of Union is willing to demonstrate the collective stupidity of the Freeholders and the subservience of its legal counsel to their evil designs … at taxpayer expense.

  3. EyesThatSee says:

    God bless Tina Renna et al. You folks have importunity, the judge has ruled righteously, and the lying thieves have been resultantly exposed yet again!

  4. Patrick Moschetti says:

    Don’t the Freeholders have better things to do? They do not have to be held accountable for their actions because their constituents who vote them in either do not care, are not aware of what they do, or both.

    Tina and her watchdog team are fighting the good fight. I urge other rational union county citizens who care about how government needs to work to attend freeholder meetings to voice your opinions and to modestly provide financial support to the Union County Watchdog Association so they can afford legal counsel when they are drawn into litigation with the county.

  5. Jim Buettner says:

    Interesting, the counsel for Union County perjures himself on behalf the freeholders and still no one is held accountable. It is a sad democracy that we all live under here in UC.