MARKS, CAMUSO VOTE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN A COURT OF LAW

PEOPLE DON'T RECALL WHEN THE ALLEGED 'MR. NICE GUY' (not) MICHAEL MARKS WAS AS THICK AS THIEVES WITH PAUL A. CAMUSO

THICK AS THIEVES

WHAT THEY BOTH DID WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

FRAUDULENT MICHAEL MARKS WILL TELL YOU HE GOT RELIGION AND DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM CAMUSO

NOT WHEN DONATO GRABS YOUR FAMILY JEWELS AND YOU GIVE THAT DEER-IN-THE-HEADLIGHTS LOOK TO THE CAMERA, MICHAEL MARKS!

NOTHING'S CHANGED, SAME OLD POLITICAL HACK.

https://casetext.com/case/voigt-v-city-of-medford
MICHAEL MARKS AND ADAM KNIGHT
PUT THEM ON A BILLBOARD

POSTER BOYS FOR BAD BOY BEHAVIOR AND FOR TERM LIMITS


Voigt argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face for two reasons: (1) it vests unbridled discretion in the City Council to decide whether to grant a special permit; and (2) the ordinance, specifically § 94- 81(f), does not contain narrow, objective, and definite standards sufficient to pass constitutional muster. The City contends that if ordinances §§ 94-1, 94-81(a), and 94-81(f) are read together, the Court will find that the City has articulated precise standards for the City Council to follow when granting or denying a special permit. This Court finds the City's argument unavailing. The language of § 94-81(f) is undeniably vague in establishing the requirements which must be met for the City Council to grant a special permit. In MacNeil, this Court (Connolly, J.) found that the same exact language articulated in the first two prongs of § 94-81(f) vested unbridled discretion in the Board of Appeal of Boston (BOA) in the context of Article 6 of the Boston Zoning Code, § 6-3. Civil No. 02-01225. The MacNeil court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional prior restraint because the BOA was guided by subjective standards. Id. Similarly, this Court finds that the first two factors articulated in § 94-81 (f) "comprise purely subjective evaluations of wholly unrestricted factors, and thus vest the denial of a [special] permit in the essentially unbridled discretion of the [City Council]." See id. The ordinance is thus