Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
E-Newsletter: Communities United Against Police Brutality
KEEP UP THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH!
PS&RS Meeting
Wednesday, April 23
1:00 p.m.
Minneapolis City Hall
350 S 5th Street, Rm 317
When we last reported on the machinations of free speech in Minneapolis, the "Free Speech" Working Group was looking at three proposals--two would require mandatory permits and one would "encourage" voluntary permits, even for demonstrations on sidewalks that don't block the streets or pedestrian traffic. We are, of course, opposed to all of these measures--even the "voluntary" scheme would allow the police chief to be the sole arbiter on who gets permits and would allow the cops to change the rules "on the fly"--while an event is in progress. See the statement below for a full analysis of why we oppose these measures.
The fight for free speech has moved to a new stage as the city council essentially relieved the "Free Speech" Working Group of their duties after it appeared that the group was leaning strongly in favor of the proposal for voluntary permits. This didn't square well with certain more reactionary city council members, who want to use this opportunity to force through a highly restrictive ordinance that would hamstring the community for years to come. At its last meeting, the Public Safety & Regulatory Services (PS&RS) committee thanked the working group for its efforts and took the ball back out of their court, ordering the city attorney's office to prepare a "staff recommendation" [read: legal justification for what the council president wants] to be presented at the next meeting. April 23rd is this next meeting. The meeting after, May 7, other members of the "Free Speech" Working Group will have their turn to talk, including the police chief and fire chief. Finally, on May 21 there MAY be a public hearing (no guarantees) and then the committee will take a vote. Note the elaboate effort to block out all input from the community.
THAT'S WHY YOU NEED TO BE AT THIS NEXT MEETING. We need to sit right out front and let it be known that we will not go passively away while they decimate our First Amendment rights. And we need to be at every meeting along the way, objecting to their efforts to clamp down on free speech. So mark your calendars now: April 23, May 7, May 21, all at 1:00 p.m.
In recent months, the city councils of Minneapolis and St. Paul formed “Free Speech” Working Groups ostensibly to “protect” free speech during the Republican National Convention. However, these groups have met secretively and pressed for new ordinances that would clamp down on dissent and criminalize activities that are perfectly legal if engaged in for purposes other than protest. St. Paul has already passed a draconian ordinance and has begun “practicing” use of it on protesters.
Protest on sidewalks that doesn’t obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic has always been legal and has never required a permit, since it is no different than people gathering to cheer on their sports team, watch a parade, or for any other purpose. The St. Paul ordinance has changed this, and individuals protesting peacefully at an embassy in St. Paul recently felt the “iron heel” of the state when police announced a dispersal order and rushed in to arrest people as they were dispersing.
The Minneapolis “Free Speech” Working Group is working to craft a similar law. There are three proposals on the tabletwo requiring mandatory registration and one on voluntary registration.
We oppose all proposals for regulation of free speech on general principle. We reject the “need” for government “protection” of our free speech.
The First Amendment to the Constitution IS our permit to protest. Under this amendment, the government is prohibited from "abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." We neither need nor ask the City of Minneapolis or any other governmental entity to "protect" or "guarantee" our right to free speech. The proper role of the government regarding free speech is not to protect it, but to GET OUT OF OUR WAY as we practice what is already guaranteed to us as a right. The First Amendment is there to protect US from THEMthe government.
Permitting schemes are unneeded and won’t be obeyed.
Permitting schemes are a solution in search of a problem. Twin Cities activists have a long history of well organized protest. We do a far better job at marshalling our own crowds than the police ever could. No one has ever been injured during a protest except by actions of police. Even during protests in the streets (which already require permits), protesters are quick to move aside for ambulances and other emergency vehiclesfar faster than the cars that would normally be on the streets.
Members of the Minneapolis “Free Speech” Working Group have repeatedly stated that their primary interest in creating a permitting process is to “gather information” on protestsinformation they are simply not entitled to. Why would the city need to know when people are going to use a sidewalk?
The bottom line: People are going to protest the Republican National Convention. Some will cooperate with the permit scheme but the vast majority will not even be aware of it or will choose to ignore it on principle. No one else gathering on a sidewalk is required to get a permitwhy should people practicing free speech be any different?
Permitting schemes are an invitation to police violence against protesters.
Current law requires permits for demonstrations that block the streets. Proposals under consideration by the Minneapolis city council would criminalize merely gathering on the sidewalk with the intent of expressing political speech. Not only is this unconstitutional but would give copswho often look for excuses to violate the rights of protestersanother tool for repressing dissent. With the city spending large sums of money on Tasers and other weaponry, police will be eager to ply these weapons on protesters. We have already seen this in action at the September 2007 Critical Mass bicycle ride, in which hundreds were pepper sprayed, Tased and beaten while legally riding their bicycles.
The Bush Administration and other Republican leaders are the REAL lawbreakers. What are the cities doing to protect US from them?
While Minneapolis and St. Paul are expending great energy figuring out ways to clamp down on free speech, they are giving free reign to real lawbreakersof national and international laws regarding wars of aggression, torture, human rights, and so much more. These are people who are responsible for the deaths of millions. They kill people to steal their oil. They ply oppressive measures such as roadblocks and checkpoints throughout Iraq and Palestine.
Why are the cities spending enormous amounts of money and effort to control protests when true criminals will be openly coming to our cities? Shouldn’t they be making plans to arrest and prosecute these criminals?
Why are blatant lawbreakers welcomed as “an opportunity” while protesters are seen as “the problem”?
Both groups will bring large numbers of people to the Twin Cities, spending money, and bringing the attention that our city leaders crave. Both will cause some disruptions in the daily lives of our local community. Yet the cities have been working for over a year to accommodate the RNC while pulling out all the stops to thwart and frustrate the planning efforts of protest leaders with excessive delays and constructive denials of the permits we have applied for, unnecessary restrictions on our activities and other tactics. Through this conduct, the cities already show a preference and take a political stand in favor of rich lawbreakers over the community.
Whatif anythingshould the cities do toward free speech?
If members of the city councils really wished to respect our First Amendment rights, they would remove the burdensome permit processes in place in both cities’ parks. They would eliminate ordinances blocking the use of amplified sound at demonstrations. They would craft policies that reign in police and reduce the risk of police violence during protests. These, rather than new restrictions on the practice of free speech, would leave a positive legacy long after the RNC leaves town.
Official channels for police accountability in Minneapolis--the Civilian Review Authority, the Civil Rights Department, the Police Community Relations Council, and the Internal Affairs Department of the MPD--have become, for a variety of reasons, ineffective at addressing improper conduct by police officers. In some cases, agencies lacks the power or political will. In other cases, the agency itself acts as a stumbling block for the community in holding police accountable.
Civilian Review Authority
Started in 1991 after a groundswell of popular demand, this agency has undergone multiple waves of redesigns and reforms. Some have helped to improve functioning but mostly these efforts have weakened an already troubled agency. The agency is further stymied by direction from city attorneys who substitute the interests of the city for the interests of their client. Most recently, the agency has been significantly weakened by a unique interpretation of the law by assistant city attorney Lisa Needham, who directed the CRA to change all of its rulings from sustained or non-sustained to "closed"--a ruling that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual status of the case but everything to do with removing complaints from the realm of public data, even if sustained and disciplined.
With 9 vacancies out of 11 positions, the board of the CRA is currently all but defunct. They haven't held a hearing since December. The city council will question applicants for the 9 open positions at a meeting tomorrow and we'll be monitoring the hearings to get a sense of these potential board members. However, even if all of the board positions are filled with people who believe in police accountability (which is highly improbable), by the time the new board is trained and begins hearing cases again--June or July at best--they will already be months behind.
The agency itself is chronically underfunded, with a terrible shortage of investigators. An outreach position mandated in the enabling ordinance for the CRA has never been funded. Thus, many in the community are not even aware of the existence of the CRA or how it operates. This is probably for the best, as the tiny staff of investigators is still working on cases from as far back as 2005 and 2006 and clearly can't deal with a workload commensurate with the actual numbers of brutality cases in the city.
Internal Affairs
Many people, perhaps swayed by TV shows or movies, harbor the idea that when something goes wrong with police they should run down to internal affairs to complain. In cities outside of Minneapolis, there generally isn't anywhere else to complain. However, in Minneapolis, Internal Affairs has traditionally been a politics-laden agency used by MPD leadership to handle internal personnel issues (like coming to work late) or to punish their political rivals. CUAPB analyzed 10 years worth of Internal Affairs complaints and found that the agency only upheld two complaints by community members out of the more than 900 complaints received from the community during that time. Further, CUAPB has documented multiple incidents of retaliation by police against people who have complained to Internal Affairs. As a result, we generally steer people away from complaining to IAD.
In recent years, the agency has cleaned up its act a bit under the leadership of Susan Piontek. IAD recently upheld an especially egregious complaint of excessive force against William Woodis--perhaps MPD's most brutal cop--and recommended termination. However, Chief Tim Dolan overruled IAD, showing that under this chief the agency lacks the power to make its recommendations stick.
Civil Rights Department
The Civil Rights Department has chugged along in the city for years, doing virtually nothing to uphold anyone's civil rights. The position of director of this agency has been a patronage job doled out by the mayor to loyalists who work hard at looking the other way while the city fails to uphold its own laws on granting contracts to minority and women owned businesses. One of the most important ways to judge the effectiveness of a civil rights unit is to look at the dollar volume of civil rights judgments secured by the agency. In this regard, the Minneapolis department has an extremely anemic record as it pursues proportionately a much lower rate of cases and secures far fewer judgments than other agencies of similar size.
Under the weak leadership of current director Michael Jordan--a former St. Paul cop--the agency infuriated community members by ignoring complaints by five Black police officers, who are now suing the city. A few people we have worked with have tried to file civil rights complaints against police for patterns of racial profiling or harassment and have run into a brick wall. It has certainly been interesting, to say the least, to watch Jordan--a guy who should have at least a passing interest in civil liberties--sit in silence at the Free Speech Working Group meetings each month.
Police Community Relations Council
Perhaps the most dysfunctional body of them all is the PCRC. This is a grouping of representatives of the city and representatives of the community (that were mostly also hand-picked by the city) who were responsible for the disappointment known as the federal mediation agreement. For a detailed analysis of this agreement, go to http://www.charityadvantage.com/CUAPB/AnalysisofFedMedAgree.asp . From jump, this grouping had disaster written all over it. On one side sat city representatives who were far more interested in pushing the city's agenda and undermining the process than actually mediating to resolve problems. On the other side sat a few good people but far more people with serious ego issues and narcissistic tendencies. The community was, for the most part, left out in the cold and this is reflected in the poor quality agreement that was finally signed in December 2003. The agreement is set to expire at the end of this year and there has been almost no process on the points in the agreement, despite the fact that they didn't require the MPD to do all that much in the first place.
The community side of this equation voted unanimously on December 5, 2007 to sue the city for noncompliance with the mediation agreement and this was communicated to the city in January. However, behind the scenes some members of the community side started meeting with the city in defiance of the vote. At this point, it is not clear whether the community side has the wherewithal to go through with the lawsuit. If they don't, the mediation agreement will be just another set of broken promises to the community.
Where to from here?
In our next newsletter, we will examine the role of the courts and non-government organizations such as CUAPB in police accountability. We will also be able to report on the selection of CRA board members by the mayor and city council.
By Katrina Plotz
April 15, 2008
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/04/14/critical-mass-not-guilty.html&print=1 #
On April 14, after a week-long trial, Gus Ganley was found not guilty of charges stemming from last August’s clash between Critical Mass bike riders and Minneapolis police. On August 31, 2007, Gus Ganley was among 19 people arrested during Critical Mass, a bike ride that takes place on the last Friday of every month in Minneapolis. The August event, which drew hundreds of riders, included participants in the pReNC, a gathering organized by the RNC Welcoming Committee, an anarchist/anti-authoritarian group planning protests at next fall’s Republican National Convention.
After being held overnight, the 19 were released and most had their charges dropped. It wasn’t until two weeks later that Ganley learned he was being charged with assaulting a police officer and obstructing the legal process using force – both gross misdemeanors and fleeing a police officer – a misdemeanor.
“My heart sank,” said Ganley, a twenty-one-year-old film student at the University of MN. “I couldn’t believe it.” If convicted, Ganley could have faced up to two years in jail and a $7,000 fine. He was offered a plea bargain that would have required him to plead guilty to one of the gross misdemeanor charges in order to have the other charges dropped.
“I never considered it,” said Ganley. “I wasn’t going to plead guilty to something I didn’t do.” The case went to trial last Monday and concluded yesterday when a jury found Ganley not guilty on all counts. Approximately ten supporters, many of whom were also present at the August Critical Mass, attended the trial and were on hand to congratulate Ganley after the verdict was announced.
“This is the result I was expecting,” said Ganley after the trial. “But you can’t be too confident. I never should have been here in the first place.”
Ganley, who was represented free of charge by National Lawyer’s Guild attorneys Jordan Kushner and Carla Magnuson, said he was fortunate that so many eyewitnesses testified. Several took photographs and cell phone video of the incident, which ultimately decided the case in Ganley’s favor.
“We were able to reach a verdict fairly quickly,” said an anonymous juror as she left the courtroom. “The defense had much stronger evidence on their side.”
The defense called a total of 11 witnesses who described the August Critical Mass ride as unusual from the beginning.
“There were three police cars following the ride and they were being unusually aggressive,” said Andy Fahlstrom, a witness for the defense. He said police used their sirens during the ride without explanation and said police drove their squad cars within inches of some cyclists. “A couple times, I asked them not to drive so close to people,” said Fahlstrom. “I felt like they were endangering people’s safety.”
Other witnesses testified that they immediately noticed a heavy police presence even before the ride began.
“In the past, we’ve sometimes had one police car monitor the ride from the back,” said Fahlstrom. “But this was different.”
Police Sergeant David Stichter, the first witness for the prosecution, testified that a task force was created to monitor the August 31 Critical Mass ride, which included three traffic enforcement officers, three intelligence officers in unmarked cars, and two officers in a state patrol helicopter. When asked if he was expecting trouble during the ride, Stichter testified that the task force was informed ahead of time that members of the RNC Welcoming Committee would be at the event. He was told to be prepared for “potential property damage or assaultive behavior,” and mentioned that officers from Ramsey County were present during the briefing. Supporters present at the trial speculated that Ramsey County officers were involved because police believed the August 31 Critical Mass had implications for the 2008 RNC in St. Paul.
Officers were already on hand for an informal meeting of cyclists in Loring Park around 6 pm on August 31. Participants shared flyers describing their rights as cyclists and as citizens when dealing with police. Before the ride began, a member of the RNC Welcoming Committee made an announcement about organizing workshops scheduled for the weekend and emphasized, “We want this to be a safe ride and we don’t want anyone to get arrested.”
Stichter described two incidents during the middle of the ride that eventually led to a larger confrontation between police and cyclists – one involving the attempted arrest of a biker who allegedly eluded the police, and another involving a rider who was apprehended by undercover officers, but released in a case of mistaken identity.
Stichter testified that as the ride approached the corner of Grant and LaSalle Avenues, he decided to arrest a cyclist who was “swerving back and forth in front of police cars.”
That individual was 17-year-old Isaac Siegel-Peter who testified during Ganley’s trial. “I was not intentionally blocking any police cars,” said Siegel-Peter. “I really had no idea why I was being arrested.”
As Siegel-Peter was led to a squad car in handcuffs, police arrested Critical Mass rider Paul Kristapobich who was asking what the charges were and using a voice recorder to document the incident.
After the second arrest, Stichter testified that cyclists surrounded police and began chanting, “Let him go!” and “What’s the charge?” At that point, officers issued a call for help and several squad cars arrived at the scene.
Gus Ganley observed the arrest of Kristapobich and was among the people calling for his release. Officer Richard Lillard, the second witness for the prosecution, testified that Ganley was told to “get back” and that he seemed to be “inciting the crowd.”
When asked if he grabbed anyone during the incident or used mace on anyone, Lillard denied it. Defense attorney Jordan Kushner then introduced three videos showing Lillard using mace, running into the crowd, and grabbing someone off of his bike and throwing him to the ground. The video also showed Lillard grabbing Ganley and shoving him backwards against a police car.
“When I was told to step back, I did,” said Ganley. “And I raised my hands to show I didn’t mean any harm. But I felt it was my right and my duty to stay at the scene and witness what was going on.” Ganley testified that after Lillard pushed him against the police car, he was sprayed with mace and could no longer see clearly. After being shoved again by Lillard, he said he was tackled by three officers, punched several times, and handcuffed.
Officer Craig Williams, the final prosecution witness, was one of the officers who responded to the call for help. He testified that after eluding Officer Lillard, Ganley “squared up with me and swung at my left shoulder, then attempted to flee before being placed under arrest.”
Testimony from all 11 eyewitnesses contradicted Williams’ account. “I never swung at an officer or tried to get away,” said Ganley. “It wasn’t even possible. I couldn’t see or breathe because of the mace and I couldn’t have fled. The police had control of me the whole time.”
Video evidence showed that Williams was one of the officers who wrestled Ganley to the ground, but that the assault that he described did not occur. About ten seconds elapsed between the moment Ganley was grabbed and maced by Lillard, and the time he was tackled by three officers. Williams is not visible in the video until Ganley is being taken to the ground. Photographs show Ganley being grabbed and later lying on his back holding his glasses, which broke during the encounter.
In closing arguments, Kushner described Ganley as a “victim of police brutality who was accused of three crimes he didn’t commit.” After Ganley’s arrest, several more people were arrested or maced and some were shot with Tasers. Many were confronted as they were attempting to walk away from the scene. One was arrested while talking on the phone with an attorney.
During deliberation, the jury requested to see the videos again and asked which officer Ganley was accused of assaulting, obstructing, and fleeing. After being told it was Williams, they deliberated about ten minutes and returned with a not guilty verdict for each of the three charges.
Amid hugs from supporters, Ganley thanked the witnesses especially those who provided visual evidence. “Without the photos and videos, who knows what would have happened,” said Ganley. “It’s scary that the cops can lie so easily and try to get away with it.”
Ganley’s father, Dan, was present throughout the trial and expressed relief and outrage after the result. “Seeing that video brought me to tears,” he said. “It’s terrible what the police did.” He said it was a blessing to hear several witnesses describe his son as kind, thoughtful person. “That was very joyful for me,” said the elder Ganley. “From what I know of my son, he wouldn’t assault anyone.” After the trial, father and son were eager to recover the $3,000 in bail the City has been holding since last August.
Of the 19 who were arrested August 31, only two cases remain open. Charges against Siegel-Peter and Kristapobich, the first two arrested, were dropped months ago. Defense attorney Carla Magnuson said she hoped the result of Ganley’s case would pressure the City to drop the charges against the two others.
“It’s a poor use of taxpayer dollars to try cases like this,” said Magnuson. “The charges were completely unfounded.”
A statement from a Critical Mass community support group described Ganley’s trial as an attempt to cover up police misconduct.
Steven Marsh, a writer for Minneapolis/St. Paul magazine, participated in the August Critical Mass ride and described police behavior as a “dress-rehearsal for the RNC.”
Supporter Karen Redleaf emphasized the importance of solidarity in the face of police repression. “Gus was the one they chose to pick on, but it could have been anyone. By standing up and saying ‘not guilty’ he said it for all of us.”
Katrina Plotz is a substitute teacher, a freelance writer and an anti-war activist. She lives in Bloomington.
By LORA PABST, Star Tribune
March 20, 2008
http://www.startribune.com/local/north/16881526.html
Cars rushed by a small group of protesters outside of Brooklyn Park's Police Department on Thursday. Wind buffeted homemade signs that read "Stop cop harassment of kids" and "Leave our kids alone." Every few minutes a car would honk in support.
One of the protesters, Monika March, said that after police from the inner-ring suburb's department followed her 17-year-old son and questioned him about incidents he said he wasn't involved in, she began to realize she wasn't alone in her concern about Brooklyn Park police. She hopes the protest will help other parents step forward.
"Brooklyn Park is known for this problem," said March of Brooklyn Park. "I know this is not just happening to my son."
She was among a handful of people from Communities United Against Police Brutality demonstrating to draw attention to what they say is an increasing number of incidents targeting youth and people of color in the north metro suburb. The organization, which has brought attention to alleged police brutality in Minneapolis and St. Paul, says it is now reaching out to suburban residents who face similar situations.
The action comes about a month after Minnesota's sixth-largest city hired its first black police chief, Michael Davis. About 30 percent of Brooklyn Park's 72,000 residents are people of color.
"Brooklyn Park has been on our radar for a long time," said Michelle Gross, vice president of Communities United Against Police Brutality. After Minneapolis and St. Paul, her group gets its highest number of calls about alleged brutality from Brooklyn Park, she said.
Police respond
Davis said Thursday that his department hasn't received any allegations of police brutality. "We can't act on what we don't know," he said. "There are a number of ways people can get their message to me."
Brooklyn Park law-enforcement officials also pointed to programs that they have started to improve relationships with immigrants and teenagers.
"We have had a lot of dialogue and outreach going on in the community," said Capt. Greg Roehl. "It's disheartening that they wouldn't come forward to the administration and the department."
But Gross questioned whether those programs include opinions from young people of color. "It seems like you're doing good on one hand and undoing it on the other hand," she said. "One of the things that youth need to be heard about is their relationship with police."
Gross said the issue will only continue to grow in importance as Brooklyn Park, which is home to many immigrants, gets more diverse.
"Brooklyn Park has gone through a lot of changes and some of the people weren't ready for that change," Gross said. "We want to take our message to the community."
Lora Pabst • 612-673-4628
By now we have all heard about the cases--people held in Guantanamo for years who have never had a thing to do with terrorism: farmers on their way to the market, neighbors turned over to the military for a bounty, etc. This article will look at two such cases a little closer to home.
Practice Makes Perfect? Trial #3 for the Liberty City Seven?
2nd Mistrial in The Miami Liberty Seven Case
A federal judge recently declared a mistrial in the second trial against six men accused of plotting to spark an anti-government war by toppling Chicago’s Sears Tower and bombing FBI offices.
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard ordered a mistrial April 16th when jurors reported they were hopelessly deadlocked after 13 days of deliberation in the case of the so-called “Liberty City Seven.” The first trial ended in a mistrial in December 2007 because of a hung jury for the same six defendants and the acquittal of a seventh. These mistrials stem from the fact that this case was a total setup from the start. The FBI created this "gang of seven" from thin air and now can't figure out how to make mythical charges stick.
The seven men started out as unemployed or underemployed slackers, hanging out in a basement, smoking pot, totally penniless, loudly complaining about the government (who doesn't?) and practicing their karate kicks and archery when an FBI operative found them. The FBI agent offered them money, a better place to hang out, and even handed them a "tape of an Al Qaeda swearing-in ceremony."
The men were then arrested, with feds proclaiming to eager media that they had arrested an "Al Qaeda cell on US soil." The feds even held up the tape they gave the men as "proof." They claimed the men planned to bomb certain targets but no proof of any such plans has ever materialized. Moreover, the Liberty Seven men appear to be low functioning individuals, barely able to hold down jobs let alone plot such attacks.
This case has gone through the court system twice, ending in mistrials both times--with juries deadlocked on the facts--though the first trial cleared one of the men. The feds want to take the case to trial a third time, in yet another travesty in the so-called "war on terror."
********************************************************************
Cross Border Collusion: An Update on the Aaron James Story
Aaron James is a Canadian citizen who, along with his mother, came to the Mayo clinic in January 2006 seeking health care. Disappointed that doctors recommended against surgery for his painful arm condition, he boarded a Northwest Airlines plane at the Minneapolis airport for the flight back home. However, the post-911 political climate caught up to Aaron, who is of Afro-Caribbean descent. While waiting for the plane to take off, he set his carry on bag on the seat next to his mother and went to the restroom. While returning to his seat, he passed by a flight attendant, who said something to him that he didn't hear. A few minutes later, that same flight attendant approached him asking him if there was a problem. He repeatedly told her there was no problem but when she continued to harass him, he told her he would be filing a complaint.
Within minutes, five Minneapolis cops boarded the plane, grabbed Aaron and tased him repeatedly, causing him to fall to the floor and gash his head. He was hauled off to jail covered in Taser burns, cuts and bruises and was held for nine days under multiple felony charges. His mother witnessed the attack (police seemed genuinely surprised that there was a witness) and spent those days sleeping on a bench in the police station trying to bail out her son. While in jail, federal agents visited Aaron and asked him to identify men he had never met.
When the case finally made it to court, the prosecutor added a misdemeanor assault charge. A jury--stacked with relatives of Northwest Airlines employees and family members of cops--did not sustain the felony charges but upheld the misdemeanor charge. By that time, Aaron and his mother had spent over $25,000 defending him against bogus charges. Aaron and his mother have also been added to the "no fly" list and returned to Canada by bus. He was to have returned to the US for his sentencing hearing but physically, mentally and financially spent, he has not done so. Instead, he has taken up the work to clear his name by setting up a website ( http://aaronjamesstory.com/), contacting political officials, and going on talk radio shows to tell his story.
Because his conviction is on a misdemeanor, Aaron is not extraditable to the US. Still, Winnipeg cops seem only too eager to help out their brothers to the south. They have repeatedly raided Aaron's home. In the most recent attack, six cops arrived at Aaron's door, guns drawn. They ransacked his apartment, taking his computer and other personal property. They did not have a search warrant. These same cops are being prosecuted for a similar unwarranted raid on another house. Aaron has been to court twice to get his property back and each time the cops have some excuse about not bringing the file with them to court. It is almost certain that Aaron's property was illegally sent to the US and cops are now trying to figure out how to cover that up.
The James family has lived a nightmarish existence for the two years since this incident occurred, never knowing when they will be attacked by police again. All because an oversensitive flight attendant with a hyped-up mix of patriotism, fear and racism targeted Aaron in the post-911 political climate. The James family--more victims of the backward "war on terror."
PS&RS Meeting
Wednesday, April 23
1:00 p.m.
Minneapolis City Hall
350 S 5th Street, Rm 317
When we last reported on the machinations of free speech in Minneapolis, the "Free Speech" Working Group was looking at three proposals--two would require mandatory permits and one would "encourage" voluntary permits, even for demonstrations on sidewalks that don't block the streets or pedestrian traffic. We are, of course, opposed to all of these measures--even the "voluntary" scheme would allow the police chief to be the sole arbiter on who gets permits and would allow the cops to change the rules "on the fly"--while an event is in progress. See the statement below for a full analysis of why we oppose these measures.
The fight for free speech has moved to a new stage as the city council essentially relieved the "Free Speech" Working Group of their duties after it appeared that the group was leaning strongly in favor of the proposal for voluntary permits. This didn't square well with certain more reactionary city council members, who want to use this opportunity to force through a highly restrictive ordinance that would hamstring the community for years to come. At its last meeting, the Public Safety & Regulatory Services (PS&RS) committee thanked the working group for its efforts and took the ball back out of their court, ordering the city attorney's office to prepare a "staff recommendation" [read: legal justification for what the council president wants] to be presented at the next meeting. April 23rd is this next meeting. The meeting after, May 7, other members of the "Free Speech" Working Group will have their turn to talk, including the police chief and fire chief. Finally, on May 21 there MAY be a public hearing (no guarantees) and then the committee will take a vote. Note the elaboate effort to block out all input from the community.
THAT'S WHY YOU NEED TO BE AT THIS NEXT MEETING. We need to sit right out front and let it be known that we will not go passively away while they decimate our First Amendment rights. And we need to be at every meeting along the way, objecting to their efforts to clamp down on free speech. So mark your calendars now: April 23, May 7, May 21, all at 1:00 p.m.
___________________________________________________________
STATEMENT ON PERMITS FOR FREE SPEECHIn recent months, the city councils of Minneapolis and St. Paul formed “Free Speech” Working Groups ostensibly to “protect” free speech during the Republican National Convention. However, these groups have met secretively and pressed for new ordinances that would clamp down on dissent and criminalize activities that are perfectly legal if engaged in for purposes other than protest. St. Paul has already passed a draconian ordinance and has begun “practicing” use of it on protesters.
Protest on sidewalks that doesn’t obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic has always been legal and has never required a permit, since it is no different than people gathering to cheer on their sports team, watch a parade, or for any other purpose. The St. Paul ordinance has changed this, and individuals protesting peacefully at an embassy in St. Paul recently felt the “iron heel” of the state when police announced a dispersal order and rushed in to arrest people as they were dispersing.
The Minneapolis “Free Speech” Working Group is working to craft a similar law. There are three proposals on the tabletwo requiring mandatory registration and one on voluntary registration.
We oppose all proposals for regulation of free speech on general principle. We reject the “need” for government “protection” of our free speech.
The First Amendment to the Constitution IS our permit to protest. Under this amendment, the government is prohibited from "abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." We neither need nor ask the City of Minneapolis or any other governmental entity to "protect" or "guarantee" our right to free speech. The proper role of the government regarding free speech is not to protect it, but to GET OUT OF OUR WAY as we practice what is already guaranteed to us as a right. The First Amendment is there to protect US from THEMthe government.
Permitting schemes are unneeded and won’t be obeyed.
Permitting schemes are a solution in search of a problem. Twin Cities activists have a long history of well organized protest. We do a far better job at marshalling our own crowds than the police ever could. No one has ever been injured during a protest except by actions of police. Even during protests in the streets (which already require permits), protesters are quick to move aside for ambulances and other emergency vehiclesfar faster than the cars that would normally be on the streets.
Members of the Minneapolis “Free Speech” Working Group have repeatedly stated that their primary interest in creating a permitting process is to “gather information” on protestsinformation they are simply not entitled to. Why would the city need to know when people are going to use a sidewalk?
The bottom line: People are going to protest the Republican National Convention. Some will cooperate with the permit scheme but the vast majority will not even be aware of it or will choose to ignore it on principle. No one else gathering on a sidewalk is required to get a permitwhy should people practicing free speech be any different?
Permitting schemes are an invitation to police violence against protesters.
Current law requires permits for demonstrations that block the streets. Proposals under consideration by the Minneapolis city council would criminalize merely gathering on the sidewalk with the intent of expressing political speech. Not only is this unconstitutional but would give copswho often look for excuses to violate the rights of protestersanother tool for repressing dissent. With the city spending large sums of money on Tasers and other weaponry, police will be eager to ply these weapons on protesters. We have already seen this in action at the September 2007 Critical Mass bicycle ride, in which hundreds were pepper sprayed, Tased and beaten while legally riding their bicycles.
The Bush Administration and other Republican leaders are the REAL lawbreakers. What are the cities doing to protect US from them?
While Minneapolis and St. Paul are expending great energy figuring out ways to clamp down on free speech, they are giving free reign to real lawbreakersof national and international laws regarding wars of aggression, torture, human rights, and so much more. These are people who are responsible for the deaths of millions. They kill people to steal their oil. They ply oppressive measures such as roadblocks and checkpoints throughout Iraq and Palestine.
Why are the cities spending enormous amounts of money and effort to control protests when true criminals will be openly coming to our cities? Shouldn’t they be making plans to arrest and prosecute these criminals?
Why are blatant lawbreakers welcomed as “an opportunity” while protesters are seen as “the problem”?
Both groups will bring large numbers of people to the Twin Cities, spending money, and bringing the attention that our city leaders crave. Both will cause some disruptions in the daily lives of our local community. Yet the cities have been working for over a year to accommodate the RNC while pulling out all the stops to thwart and frustrate the planning efforts of protest leaders with excessive delays and constructive denials of the permits we have applied for, unnecessary restrictions on our activities and other tactics. Through this conduct, the cities already show a preference and take a political stand in favor of rich lawbreakers over the community.
Whatif anythingshould the cities do toward free speech?
If members of the city councils really wished to respect our First Amendment rights, they would remove the burdensome permit processes in place in both cities’ parks. They would eliminate ordinances blocking the use of amplified sound at demonstrations. They would craft policies that reign in police and reduce the risk of police violence during protests. These, rather than new restrictions on the practice of free speech, would leave a positive legacy long after the RNC leaves town.
___________________________________________________________
OFFICIAL CHANNELS FOR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY NEARLY NON-EXISTENT IN MINNEAPOLISOfficial channels for police accountability in Minneapolis--the Civilian Review Authority, the Civil Rights Department, the Police Community Relations Council, and the Internal Affairs Department of the MPD--have become, for a variety of reasons, ineffective at addressing improper conduct by police officers. In some cases, agencies lacks the power or political will. In other cases, the agency itself acts as a stumbling block for the community in holding police accountable.
Civilian Review Authority
Started in 1991 after a groundswell of popular demand, this agency has undergone multiple waves of redesigns and reforms. Some have helped to improve functioning but mostly these efforts have weakened an already troubled agency. The agency is further stymied by direction from city attorneys who substitute the interests of the city for the interests of their client. Most recently, the agency has been significantly weakened by a unique interpretation of the law by assistant city attorney Lisa Needham, who directed the CRA to change all of its rulings from sustained or non-sustained to "closed"--a ruling that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual status of the case but everything to do with removing complaints from the realm of public data, even if sustained and disciplined.
With 9 vacancies out of 11 positions, the board of the CRA is currently all but defunct. They haven't held a hearing since December. The city council will question applicants for the 9 open positions at a meeting tomorrow and we'll be monitoring the hearings to get a sense of these potential board members. However, even if all of the board positions are filled with people who believe in police accountability (which is highly improbable), by the time the new board is trained and begins hearing cases again--June or July at best--they will already be months behind.
The agency itself is chronically underfunded, with a terrible shortage of investigators. An outreach position mandated in the enabling ordinance for the CRA has never been funded. Thus, many in the community are not even aware of the existence of the CRA or how it operates. This is probably for the best, as the tiny staff of investigators is still working on cases from as far back as 2005 and 2006 and clearly can't deal with a workload commensurate with the actual numbers of brutality cases in the city.
Internal Affairs
Many people, perhaps swayed by TV shows or movies, harbor the idea that when something goes wrong with police they should run down to internal affairs to complain. In cities outside of Minneapolis, there generally isn't anywhere else to complain. However, in Minneapolis, Internal Affairs has traditionally been a politics-laden agency used by MPD leadership to handle internal personnel issues (like coming to work late) or to punish their political rivals. CUAPB analyzed 10 years worth of Internal Affairs complaints and found that the agency only upheld two complaints by community members out of the more than 900 complaints received from the community during that time. Further, CUAPB has documented multiple incidents of retaliation by police against people who have complained to Internal Affairs. As a result, we generally steer people away from complaining to IAD.
In recent years, the agency has cleaned up its act a bit under the leadership of Susan Piontek. IAD recently upheld an especially egregious complaint of excessive force against William Woodis--perhaps MPD's most brutal cop--and recommended termination. However, Chief Tim Dolan overruled IAD, showing that under this chief the agency lacks the power to make its recommendations stick.
Civil Rights Department
The Civil Rights Department has chugged along in the city for years, doing virtually nothing to uphold anyone's civil rights. The position of director of this agency has been a patronage job doled out by the mayor to loyalists who work hard at looking the other way while the city fails to uphold its own laws on granting contracts to minority and women owned businesses. One of the most important ways to judge the effectiveness of a civil rights unit is to look at the dollar volume of civil rights judgments secured by the agency. In this regard, the Minneapolis department has an extremely anemic record as it pursues proportionately a much lower rate of cases and secures far fewer judgments than other agencies of similar size.
Under the weak leadership of current director Michael Jordan--a former St. Paul cop--the agency infuriated community members by ignoring complaints by five Black police officers, who are now suing the city. A few people we have worked with have tried to file civil rights complaints against police for patterns of racial profiling or harassment and have run into a brick wall. It has certainly been interesting, to say the least, to watch Jordan--a guy who should have at least a passing interest in civil liberties--sit in silence at the Free Speech Working Group meetings each month.
Police Community Relations Council
Perhaps the most dysfunctional body of them all is the PCRC. This is a grouping of representatives of the city and representatives of the community (that were mostly also hand-picked by the city) who were responsible for the disappointment known as the federal mediation agreement. For a detailed analysis of this agreement, go to http://www.charityadvantage
The community side of this equation voted unanimously on December 5, 2007 to sue the city for noncompliance with the mediation agreement and this was communicated to the city in January. However, behind the scenes some members of the community side started meeting with the city in defiance of the vote. At this point, it is not clear whether the community side has the wherewithal to go through with the lawsuit. If they don't, the mediation agreement will be just another set of broken promises to the community.
Where to from here?
In our next newsletter, we will examine the role of the courts and non-government organizations such as CUAPB in police accountability. We will also be able to report on the selection of CRA board members by the mayor and city council.
___________________________________________________________
CRITICAL MASS: NOT GUILTYBy Katrina Plotz
April 15, 2008
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net
On April 14, after a week-long trial, Gus Ganley was found not guilty of charges stemming from last August’s clash between Critical Mass bike riders and Minneapolis police. On August 31, 2007, Gus Ganley was among 19 people arrested during Critical Mass, a bike ride that takes place on the last Friday of every month in Minneapolis. The August event, which drew hundreds of riders, included participants in the pReNC, a gathering organized by the RNC Welcoming Committee, an anarchist/anti-authoritarian group planning protests at next fall’s Republican National Convention.
After being held overnight, the 19 were released and most had their charges dropped. It wasn’t until two weeks later that Ganley learned he was being charged with assaulting a police officer and obstructing the legal process using force – both gross misdemeanors and fleeing a police officer – a misdemeanor.
“My heart sank,” said Ganley, a twenty-one-year-old film student at the University of MN. “I couldn’t believe it.” If convicted, Ganley could have faced up to two years in jail and a $7,000 fine. He was offered a plea bargain that would have required him to plead guilty to one of the gross misdemeanor charges in order to have the other charges dropped.
“I never considered it,” said Ganley. “I wasn’t going to plead guilty to something I didn’t do.” The case went to trial last Monday and concluded yesterday when a jury found Ganley not guilty on all counts. Approximately ten supporters, many of whom were also present at the August Critical Mass, attended the trial and were on hand to congratulate Ganley after the verdict was announced.
“This is the result I was expecting,” said Ganley after the trial. “But you can’t be too confident. I never should have been here in the first place.”
Ganley, who was represented free of charge by National Lawyer’s Guild attorneys Jordan Kushner and Carla Magnuson, said he was fortunate that so many eyewitnesses testified. Several took photographs and cell phone video of the incident, which ultimately decided the case in Ganley’s favor.
“We were able to reach a verdict fairly quickly,” said an anonymous juror as she left the courtroom. “The defense had much stronger evidence on their side.”
The defense called a total of 11 witnesses who described the August Critical Mass ride as unusual from the beginning.
“There were three police cars following the ride and they were being unusually aggressive,” said Andy Fahlstrom, a witness for the defense. He said police used their sirens during the ride without explanation and said police drove their squad cars within inches of some cyclists. “A couple times, I asked them not to drive so close to people,” said Fahlstrom. “I felt like they were endangering people’s safety.”
Other witnesses testified that they immediately noticed a heavy police presence even before the ride began.
“In the past, we’ve sometimes had one police car monitor the ride from the back,” said Fahlstrom. “But this was different.”
Police Sergeant David Stichter, the first witness for the prosecution, testified that a task force was created to monitor the August 31 Critical Mass ride, which included three traffic enforcement officers, three intelligence officers in unmarked cars, and two officers in a state patrol helicopter. When asked if he was expecting trouble during the ride, Stichter testified that the task force was informed ahead of time that members of the RNC Welcoming Committee would be at the event. He was told to be prepared for “potential property damage or assaultive behavior,” and mentioned that officers from Ramsey County were present during the briefing. Supporters present at the trial speculated that Ramsey County officers were involved because police believed the August 31 Critical Mass had implications for the 2008 RNC in St. Paul.
Officers were already on hand for an informal meeting of cyclists in Loring Park around 6 pm on August 31. Participants shared flyers describing their rights as cyclists and as citizens when dealing with police. Before the ride began, a member of the RNC Welcoming Committee made an announcement about organizing workshops scheduled for the weekend and emphasized, “We want this to be a safe ride and we don’t want anyone to get arrested.”
Stichter described two incidents during the middle of the ride that eventually led to a larger confrontation between police and cyclists – one involving the attempted arrest of a biker who allegedly eluded the police, and another involving a rider who was apprehended by undercover officers, but released in a case of mistaken identity.
Stichter testified that as the ride approached the corner of Grant and LaSalle Avenues, he decided to arrest a cyclist who was “swerving back and forth in front of police cars.”
That individual was 17-year-old Isaac Siegel-Peter who testified during Ganley’s trial. “I was not intentionally blocking any police cars,” said Siegel-Peter. “I really had no idea why I was being arrested.”
As Siegel-Peter was led to a squad car in handcuffs, police arrested Critical Mass rider Paul Kristapobich who was asking what the charges were and using a voice recorder to document the incident.
After the second arrest, Stichter testified that cyclists surrounded police and began chanting, “Let him go!” and “What’s the charge?” At that point, officers issued a call for help and several squad cars arrived at the scene.
Gus Ganley observed the arrest of Kristapobich and was among the people calling for his release. Officer Richard Lillard, the second witness for the prosecution, testified that Ganley was told to “get back” and that he seemed to be “inciting the crowd.”
When asked if he grabbed anyone during the incident or used mace on anyone, Lillard denied it. Defense attorney Jordan Kushner then introduced three videos showing Lillard using mace, running into the crowd, and grabbing someone off of his bike and throwing him to the ground. The video also showed Lillard grabbing Ganley and shoving him backwards against a police car.
“When I was told to step back, I did,” said Ganley. “And I raised my hands to show I didn’t mean any harm. But I felt it was my right and my duty to stay at the scene and witness what was going on.” Ganley testified that after Lillard pushed him against the police car, he was sprayed with mace and could no longer see clearly. After being shoved again by Lillard, he said he was tackled by three officers, punched several times, and handcuffed.
Officer Craig Williams, the final prosecution witness, was one of the officers who responded to the call for help. He testified that after eluding Officer Lillard, Ganley “squared up with me and swung at my left shoulder, then attempted to flee before being placed under arrest.”
Testimony from all 11 eyewitnesses contradicted Williams’ account. “I never swung at an officer or tried to get away,” said Ganley. “It wasn’t even possible. I couldn’t see or breathe because of the mace and I couldn’t have fled. The police had control of me the whole time.”
Video evidence showed that Williams was one of the officers who wrestled Ganley to the ground, but that the assault that he described did not occur. About ten seconds elapsed between the moment Ganley was grabbed and maced by Lillard, and the time he was tackled by three officers. Williams is not visible in the video until Ganley is being taken to the ground. Photographs show Ganley being grabbed and later lying on his back holding his glasses, which broke during the encounter.
In closing arguments, Kushner described Ganley as a “victim of police brutality who was accused of three crimes he didn’t commit.” After Ganley’s arrest, several more people were arrested or maced and some were shot with Tasers. Many were confronted as they were attempting to walk away from the scene. One was arrested while talking on the phone with an attorney.
During deliberation, the jury requested to see the videos again and asked which officer Ganley was accused of assaulting, obstructing, and fleeing. After being told it was Williams, they deliberated about ten minutes and returned with a not guilty verdict for each of the three charges.
Amid hugs from supporters, Ganley thanked the witnesses especially those who provided visual evidence. “Without the photos and videos, who knows what would have happened,” said Ganley. “It’s scary that the cops can lie so easily and try to get away with it.”
Ganley’s father, Dan, was present throughout the trial and expressed relief and outrage after the result. “Seeing that video brought me to tears,” he said. “It’s terrible what the police did.” He said it was a blessing to hear several witnesses describe his son as kind, thoughtful person. “That was very joyful for me,” said the elder Ganley. “From what I know of my son, he wouldn’t assault anyone.” After the trial, father and son were eager to recover the $3,000 in bail the City has been holding since last August.
Of the 19 who were arrested August 31, only two cases remain open. Charges against Siegel-Peter and Kristapobich, the first two arrested, were dropped months ago. Defense attorney Carla Magnuson said she hoped the result of Ganley’s case would pressure the City to drop the charges against the two others.
“It’s a poor use of taxpayer dollars to try cases like this,” said Magnuson. “The charges were completely unfounded.”
A statement from a Critical Mass community support group described Ganley’s trial as an attempt to cover up police misconduct.
Steven Marsh, a writer for Minneapolis/St. Paul magazine, participated in the August Critical Mass ride and described police behavior as a “dress-rehearsal for the RNC.”
Supporter Karen Redleaf emphasized the importance of solidarity in the face of police repression. “Gus was the one they chose to pick on, but it could have been anyone. By standing up and saying ‘not guilty’ he said it for all of us.”
Katrina Plotz is a substitute teacher, a freelance writer and an anti-war activist. She lives in Bloomington.
___________________________________________________________
POLICE TREATMENT OF MINORITIES PROTESTEDBy LORA PABST, Star Tribune
March 20, 2008
http://www.startribune.com
One of the protesters, Monika March, said that after police from the inner-ring suburb's department followed her 17-year-old son and questioned him about incidents he said he wasn't involved in, she began to realize she wasn't alone in her concern about Brooklyn Park police. She hopes the protest will help other parents step forward.
"Brooklyn Park is known for this problem," said March of Brooklyn Park. "I know this is not just happening to my son."
She was among a handful of people from Communities United Against Police Brutality demonstrating to draw attention to what they say is an increasing number of incidents targeting youth and people of color in the north metro suburb. The organization, which has brought attention to alleged police brutality in Minneapolis and St. Paul, says it is now reaching out to suburban residents who face similar situations.
The action comes about a month after Minnesota's sixth-largest city hired its first black police chief, Michael Davis. About 30 percent of Brooklyn Park's 72,000 residents are people of color.
"Brooklyn Park has been on our radar for a long time," said Michelle Gross, vice president of Communities United Against Police Brutality. After Minneapolis and St. Paul, her group gets its highest number of calls about alleged brutality from Brooklyn Park, she said.
Police respond
Davis said Thursday that his department hasn't received any allegations of police brutality. "We can't act on what we don't know," he said. "There are a number of ways people can get their message to me."
Brooklyn Park law-enforcement officials also pointed to programs that they have started to improve relationships with immigrants and teenagers.
"We have had a lot of dialogue and outreach going on in the community," said Capt. Greg Roehl. "It's disheartening that they wouldn't come forward to the administration and the department."
But Gross questioned whether those programs include opinions from young people of color. "It seems like you're doing good on one hand and undoing it on the other hand," she said. "One of the things that youth need to be heard about is their relationship with police."
Gross said the issue will only continue to grow in importance as Brooklyn Park, which is home to many immigrants, gets more diverse.
"Brooklyn Park has gone through a lot of changes and some of the people weren't ready for that change," Gross said. "We want to take our message to the community."
Lora Pabst • 612-673-4628
___________________________________________________________
POLICE STATE UPDATE: THE WAR OF ERRORBy now we have all heard about the cases--people held in Guantanamo for years who have never had a thing to do with terrorism: farmers on their way to the market, neighbors turned over to the military for a bounty, etc. This article will look at two such cases a little closer to home.
Practice Makes Perfect? Trial #3 for the Liberty City Seven?
2nd Mistrial in The Miami Liberty Seven Case
A federal judge recently declared a mistrial in the second trial against six men accused of plotting to spark an anti-government war by toppling Chicago’s Sears Tower and bombing FBI offices.
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard ordered a mistrial April 16th when jurors reported they were hopelessly deadlocked after 13 days of deliberation in the case of the so-called “Liberty City Seven.” The first trial ended in a mistrial in December 2007 because of a hung jury for the same six defendants and the acquittal of a seventh. These mistrials stem from the fact that this case was a total setup from the start. The FBI created this "gang of seven" from thin air and now can't figure out how to make mythical charges stick.
The seven men started out as unemployed or underemployed slackers, hanging out in a basement, smoking pot, totally penniless, loudly complaining about the government (who doesn't?) and practicing their karate kicks and archery when an FBI operative found them. The FBI agent offered them money, a better place to hang out, and even handed them a "tape of an Al Qaeda swearing-in ceremony."
The men were then arrested, with feds proclaiming to eager media that they had arrested an "Al Qaeda cell on US soil." The feds even held up the tape they gave the men as "proof." They claimed the men planned to bomb certain targets but no proof of any such plans has ever materialized. Moreover, the Liberty Seven men appear to be low functioning individuals, barely able to hold down jobs let alone plot such attacks.
This case has gone through the court system twice, ending in mistrials both times--with juries deadlocked on the facts--though the first trial cleared one of the men. The feds want to take the case to trial a third time, in yet another travesty in the so-called "war on terror."
******************************
Cross Border Collusion: An Update on the Aaron James Story
Aaron James is a Canadian citizen who, along with his mother, came to the Mayo clinic in January 2006 seeking health care. Disappointed that doctors recommended against surgery for his painful arm condition, he boarded a Northwest Airlines plane at the Minneapolis airport for the flight back home. However, the post-911 political climate caught up to Aaron, who is of Afro-Caribbean descent. While waiting for the plane to take off, he set his carry on bag on the seat next to his mother and went to the restroom. While returning to his seat, he passed by a flight attendant, who said something to him that he didn't hear. A few minutes later, that same flight attendant approached him asking him if there was a problem. He repeatedly told her there was no problem but when she continued to harass him, he told her he would be filing a complaint.
Within minutes, five Minneapolis cops boarded the plane, grabbed Aaron and tased him repeatedly, causing him to fall to the floor and gash his head. He was hauled off to jail covered in Taser burns, cuts and bruises and was held for nine days under multiple felony charges. His mother witnessed the attack (police seemed genuinely surprised that there was a witness) and spent those days sleeping on a bench in the police station trying to bail out her son. While in jail, federal agents visited Aaron and asked him to identify men he had never met.
When the case finally made it to court, the prosecutor added a misdemeanor assault charge. A jury--stacked with relatives of Northwest Airlines employees and family members of cops--did not sustain the felony charges but upheld the misdemeanor charge. By that time, Aaron and his mother had spent over $25,000 defending him against bogus charges. Aaron and his mother have also been added to the "no fly" list and returned to Canada by bus. He was to have returned to the US for his sentencing hearing but physically, mentally and financially spent, he has not done so. Instead, he has taken up the work to clear his name by setting up a website ( http://aaronjamesstory.com/), contacting political officials, and going on talk radio shows to tell his story.
Because his conviction is on a misdemeanor, Aaron is not extraditable to the US. Still, Winnipeg cops seem only too eager to help out their brothers to the south. They have repeatedly raided Aaron's home. In the most recent attack, six cops arrived at Aaron's door, guns drawn. They ransacked his apartment, taking his computer and other personal property. They did not have a search warrant. These same cops are being prosecuted for a similar unwarranted raid on another house. Aaron has been to court twice to get his property back and each time the cops have some excuse about not bringing the file with them to court. It is almost certain that Aaron's property was illegally sent to the US and cops are now trying to figure out how to cover that up.
The James family has lived a nightmarish existence for the two years since this incident occurred, never knowing when they will be attacked by police again. All because an oversensitive flight attendant with a hyped-up mix of patriotism, fear and racism targeted Aaron in the post-911 political climate. The James family--more victims of the backward "war on terror."
___________________________________________________________
Communities United Against Police Brutality
3100 16th Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Hotline 612-874-STOP (7867)
Meetings: Every Saturday at 1:30 p.m. at Walker Church, 3104 16th Avenue South
http://www.CUAPB.org
Communities United Against Police Brutality
3100 16th Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Hotline 612-874-STOP (7867)
Meetings: Every Saturday at 1:30 p.m. at Walker Church, 3104 16th Avenue South
http://www.CUAPB.org
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Right to assemble threatened in, and by, Minneapolis and it's city leaders respectively
BLACKLOGIC was one of several activist's to receive this posting a TCs activist about the big brother stylings of the RNC, and their efforts to make the constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble at their upcoming convention in 2008 impossible by requiring permits. The Mpls city council has thus far been complicit in this effort to restrict our rights -- again.
What follows is the email in it's entirety with contacts of all the "RNC Working Group Members" in Mpls:
Subject: the right to protest threatened in minneapolis
[My apologies for any double-postings... even so, please forward this to fellow activists and organizers!]
Hello friends,
There seems some sort of conspiracy over at City Hall. Several people, including myself, have tried to call and emailed several different offices today, and prior. We are trying to understand what is being done by the so-called RNC Free Speech Work Group, and where they are in the drafting of a new ordinance to require permits for public rallies (see below).
We have spoken to individuals in the City Coordinator's office, the Mayor's office, and the offices of Councilmembers Gordon, Ostrow and Schiff. We believe (though there are conflicting reports) that the Free Speech Work Group will have it's next meeting on Wednesday, August 8 from 11am to noon. We suspect that these meetings are CLOSED to the public, and this is why we are not getting a straight answer from most the people we speak to. It is outrageous that a committee purportedly working to protect our free speech (in particular during the 2008 Republican Convention), would be meeting in secret!
Some of you haven't received all the messages that have gone around on this, over the last week or so. To catch you up... The proposed permit ordinance is alarming: among other things, it criminalizes protests without a permit (and empowers a police officer to revoke a permit during the course of a protest at their own discretion). Participating in an unpermited public rally or meeting with more than 20 people would be a MISDEMEANOR offense. This policy is unacceptable. Current city policies have no such restrictions.
We need to shine a light on what this committee is doing, and stop them from passing this restrictive ordinance. This message is to alert you to what is going on. While we work to confirm these facts, please discuss with your organization how to respond. The National Lawyers Guild is sending in a letter opposing the ordinance. The Anti-War Committee and Communities United Against Police Brutality are planning to do the same. I will forward our letters when the drafts are final. I would encourage your organizations to send in letters as well. I will include helpful contact information below.
If we can determine whether this meeting is really happening next week, it could be very important to have a presence there. Please pencil it in on your calendar (Wednesday 8/8 @ 11am). Again, I will send out a confirmation when I can get it, probably sometime on Monday.
In solidarity,
Jess Sundin
Anti-War Committee
612.272.2209 (cell)
Free Speech Work Group Members:
Mayor R.T. Ryback (member, free speech work group)
(612) 673-2100
rt@minneapolis.org
Police Chief Tim Dolan
(612) 673-3787
police@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
City Attorney Jay Heffern
(612) 673-2010
cityattorney@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Department of Civil Rights Director Michael Jordan
(612) 673-3012
Michael.Jordan@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Teresa Nelson, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota
* note: she has raised criticisms of the proposed ordinance
651-645-4097 x122
tnelson@aclu-mn.org
Ward 1 Paul Ostrow (chair)
(612) 673-2201
paul.ostrow@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 2 Cam Gordon (alternate)
(612) 673-2202
Cam.Gordon@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 10 Ralph Remington
(612) 673-2210
Ralph.Remington@ci.minneapolis.mn.us Other councilmembers:
Ward 3 Diane Hofstede
(612) 673-2203
Diane.Hofstede@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 4 Barbara Johnson
(612) 673-2204
Barbara.Johnson@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 5 Don Samuels
(612) 673-2205
Don.Samuels@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 6 Robert Lilligren
(612) 673-2206
Robert.Lilligren@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 7 Lisa Goodman
(612) 673-2207
Lisa.Goodman@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 8 Elizabeth Glidden
(612) 673-2208
ElizabethGlidden@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 9 Gary Schiff
(612) 673-2209
Gary.Schiff@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 11 Scott Benson
(612) 673-2211
Scott.Benson@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 12 Sandy Colvin Roy
(612) 673-2212
Sandy.Colvin.Roy@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 13 Betsy Hodges
(612) 673-2213
Betsy.Hodges@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
PROPOSED ORDINANCE:
CHAPTER 462. PUBLIC RALLIES
462.10. Purpose. The purposes of this chapter are:
(a) To protect the rights of all people to the orderly freedom of expression, speech and association guaranteed by the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions;
(b) To impose reasonable time, place, duration and manner restrictions on such expression, speech and association so as to protect the public's safety and access to public buildings and spaces.
462.20. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the terms defined in this section shall have the following meanings:
Business Licensing. All staff from the Business Licensing Division of Regulatory Services, all other City staff that have been assigned to coordinate on the processing and issuance of public rally permits, and all staff from other political subdivisions who are working in cooperation with City staff on the processing and issuance of public rally permits.
Person. A single person, group of persons, firm, partnership, association, corporation or other entity that intends to announce, conduct or hold a public rally.
Public Rally. A group activity involving 20 or more people including but not limited to a demonstration, meeting, assembly, protest, vigil, parades, solicitations or other gathering that takes place on public property for the purpose of expressing views or opinions. Public rallies do not include lawful picketing that has no affect on the flow of pedestrian or motorized traffic on sidewalks, streets and allies.
462.30. Public rally permit required. No person shall announce or hold any public rally prior to obtaining a public rally permit from Business Licensing. There shall be no charge for a public rally permit. Failure to obtain a permit prior to holding a public rally shall be a misdemeanor.
462.40. Written application and process. Business Licensing shall create a written application and procedures for the processing and filing of public rally permits and shall make those documents available to the public physically and electronically. Any person seeking a public rally permit shall submit an application to Business Licensing. The application shall inquire about the precise time, duration, anticipated number of persons and location of the public rally, and shall inquire about other information as deemed necessary by Business Licensing. The application shall clearly set forth all of the requirements that applicants must comply with in obtaining other licenses, permits, or other permissions for the proposed public rally. At any time prior to a scheduled public rally, reasonable time, place, duration and manner conditions may be place on the permit by Business Licensing, only upon written findings of the necessity of such conditions.
462.50. Time for filing and processing public rally permit applications. (a) If an application is submitted one year or more prior to when a person intends to hold a public rally, Business Licensing shall approve or deny the application within sixty (60) days of the date the application is received, or the permit shall be issued.
(b) If an application is submitted at least ninety (90) days but less than one year prior to when a person intends to hold a public rally, Business Licensing shall approve or deny the application within thirty (30) days of the date the application is received, or the permit shall be issued.
(c) If an application is submitted at least seven (7) days but less than ninety (90) days prior to when a person intends to hold a public rally, Business Licensing shall approve or deny the application within five (5) business days of the date the application is received, or the permit shall be issued.
(d) If an application is submitted less than seven (7) days prior to when a person intends to hold a public rally, Business Licensing shall make every possible effort to approve or deny the application the same business day or within one (1) business day, but in all cases shall approve or deny the permit within two (2) business days, or the permit shall be issued.
462.60. Grounds for denying a public rally permit. Business Licensing shall approve an application and issue a public rally permit unless:
(a) the conduct of the public rally will interfere with the safe and orderly movement of emergency personnel or vehicles at the proposed location;
2. the location of the proposed public rally is inconsistent with the anticipated size of the public rally;
3. the proposed public rally would conflict or interfere with a previously approved public rally or other scheduled public activity at the proposed location;
4. the proposed public rally location is adjacent to and would unduly disturb a neighborhood based on the timing or identified activity of the public rally;
5. the proposed public rally may cause physical injury to persons or substantial damage to property;
6. the application is incomplete in some substantive way that would affect the safety of the participants in the proposed public rally;
7. The applicant has not complied with the procedural requirements contained in the application;
8. The applicant has not provided a bond or insurance certificate as required by Business Licensing;
9. The proposed public rally is prohibited by law;
10. The application contains misrepresentations of any kind;
11. The applicant refuses to execute an agreement, as may be required by Business Licensing, to reimburse the public for costs incurred in repairing or restoring any public property to its conditions prior to the public rally;
12. The proposed public rally will interfere with the operations of any governmental agency; or
13. It reasonably appears that the proposed public rally will present a clear and present danger to the public safety or health, or conflicts with security needs anticipated for the time and place of the proposed public rally.
Prior to denying an application for a public rally permit, Business Licensing will make every effort to assist the applicant in finding a suitable and safe location in the public domain that the proposed public rally can safely take place at. Business Licensing shall make specific written findings on all factors upon which an application for a public rally permit is denied. Business Licensing shall not make any findings or deny any application for any reason relating to the content of any proposed expression, speech, idea or other protected activity.
462.70. Appeal of denial of application for public rally permit. (a) An applicant shall appeal the denial of an application for a public rally permit within 5 business days of the denial. An appeal must be submitted on a form provided by Business Licensing. Upon receipt of an appeal of a denial of an application, the Assistant City Coordinator of Regulatory Services shall designate a three-person appellate panel to hear the appeal. Two panel members shall be Deputy Directors or Directors in Regulatory Services, and one panel member shall be a City Council member.
2. The appellate panel shall consider the appeal as soon as possible so as to allow further review by state or federal courts prior to the date of the proposed public rally. If the date of the proposed public rally is less than fourteen (14) days after the appeal was received, the appellate panel shall convene and rule within one (1) business day of the appeal.
3. The appellate panel hearing is not open to the public. At the hearing, the appellate panel may receive and consider all forms of evidence, including hearsay evidence, and may set reasonable limits on the number of witnesses that may be called by Business Licensing and by the appellant. The appellate panel may limit the hearing to one (1) hour to expedite its deliberation and ruling. The appellant may be represented by an attorney.
4. The appellate panel may reverse, affirm or modify the denial of an application for a public rally permit. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the appellate panel shall notify Business Licensing and the appellant of when it will issue its ruling. The appellate panel shall make every effort to rule as soon as possible so as to allow further review by state or federal courts prior to the date of the proposed public rally.
462.80. Violation of permit conditions. If a person violates the conditions of any permit, the permit may be immediately revoked. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to continue to engage in an activity for which a permit was required after the permit has been revoked, provided the person knows the permit as been revoked.
462.90. Rights granted to permit holders. Any person possessing a valid permit has the exclusive right to use the area or facility specified in the permit for the applicable time. It shall be misdemeanor for any person to refuse to leave an area or facility which has been reserved by a valid permit when asked to do so by the permit holder or by any public employee or official.
462.100. Duties of permit holders. It is the duty of the permit holder to obey all laws and conditions on the permit, clean and restore the area used for the public rally to its original condition after the public rally has concluded, and to reimburse the City for all expenses incurred by the City to repair or restore any public property damaged by the public rally.
462.80. Other provisions not affected. This chapter does not alter, replace, modify or otherwise affect any other provisions in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances.
462.90. Insurance required. Upon written findings only, Business Licensing may require an applicant to provide proof of insurance or a bond to alleviate identified risks associated with a proposed public rally.
462.100. Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination. Business Licensing staff is directed to coordinate and cooperate with other political subdivisions, including the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, to the fullest extent possible and as authorized by Joint Powers Agreements or other legal authority on the application process, permitting process, planning, coordination and all other aspects of scheduling and providing safe and available forums for public rallies.
What follows is the email in it's entirety with contacts of all the "RNC Working Group Members" in Mpls:
Subject: the right to protest threatened in minneapolis
[My apologies for any double-postings... even so, please forward this to fellow activists and organizers!]
Hello friends,
There seems some sort of conspiracy over at City Hall. Several people, including myself, have tried to call and emailed several different offices today, and prior. We are trying to understand what is being done by the so-called RNC Free Speech Work Group, and where they are in the drafting of a new ordinance to require permits for public rallies (see below).
We have spoken to individuals in the City Coordinator's office, the Mayor's office, and the offices of Councilmembers Gordon, Ostrow and Schiff. We believe (though there are conflicting reports) that the Free Speech Work Group will have it's next meeting on Wednesday, August 8 from 11am to noon. We suspect that these meetings are CLOSED to the public, and this is why we are not getting a straight answer from most the people we speak to. It is outrageous that a committee purportedly working to protect our free speech (in particular during the 2008 Republican Convention), would be meeting in secret!
Some of you haven't received all the messages that have gone around on this, over the last week or so. To catch you up... The proposed permit ordinance is alarming: among other things, it criminalizes protests without a permit (and empowers a police officer to revoke a permit during the course of a protest at their own discretion). Participating in an unpermited public rally or meeting with more than 20 people would be a MISDEMEANOR offense. This policy is unacceptable. Current city policies have no such restrictions.
We need to shine a light on what this committee is doing, and stop them from passing this restrictive ordinance. This message is to alert you to what is going on. While we work to confirm these facts, please discuss with your organization how to respond. The National Lawyers Guild is sending in a letter opposing the ordinance. The Anti-War Committee and Communities United Against Police Brutality are planning to do the same. I will forward our letters when the drafts are final. I would encourage your organizations to send in letters as well. I will include helpful contact information below.
If we can determine whether this meeting is really happening next week, it could be very important to have a presence there. Please pencil it in on your calendar (Wednesday 8/8 @ 11am). Again, I will send out a confirmation when I can get it, probably sometime on Monday.
In solidarity,
Jess Sundin
Anti-War Committee
612.272.2209 (cell)
Free Speech Work Group Members:
Mayor R.T. Ryback (member, free speech work group)
(612) 673-2100
rt@minneapolis.org
Police Chief Tim Dolan
(612) 673-3787
police@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
City Attorney Jay Heffern
(612) 673-2010
cityattorney@ci.minneapolis.mn
Department of Civil Rights Director Michael Jordan
(612) 673-3012
Michael.Jordan@ci.minneapolis
Teresa Nelson, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota
* note: she has raised criticisms of the proposed ordinance
651-645-4097 x122
tnelson@aclu-mn.org
Ward 1 Paul Ostrow (chair)
(612) 673-2201
paul.ostrow@ci.minneapolis.mn
Ward 2 Cam Gordon (alternate)
(612) 673-2202
Cam.Gordon@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 10 Ralph Remington
(612) 673-2210
Ralph.Remington@ci.minneapolis
Ward 3 Diane Hofstede
(612) 673-2203
Diane.Hofstede@ci.minneapolis
Ward 4 Barbara Johnson
(612) 673-2204
Barbara.Johnson@ci.minneapolis
Ward 5 Don Samuels
(612) 673-2205
Don.Samuels@ci.minneapolis.mn
Ward 6 Robert Lilligren
(612) 673-2206
Robert.Lilligren@ci.minneapolis
Ward 7 Lisa Goodman
(612) 673-2207
Lisa.Goodman@ci.minneapolis.mn
Ward 8 Elizabeth Glidden
(612) 673-2208
ElizabethGlidden@ci.minneapolis
Ward 9 Gary Schiff
(612) 673-2209
Gary.Schiff@ci.minneapolis.mn
Ward 11 Scott Benson
(612) 673-2211
Scott.Benson@ci.minneapolis.mn
Ward 12 Sandy Colvin Roy
(612) 673-2212
Sandy.Colvin.Roy@ci.minneapolis
Ward 13 Betsy Hodges
(612) 673-2213
Betsy.Hodges@ci.minneapolis.mn
PROPOSED ORDINANCE:
CHAPTER 462. PUBLIC RALLIES
462.10. Purpose. The purposes of this chapter are:
(a) To protect the rights of all people to the orderly freedom of expression, speech and association guaranteed by the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions;
(b) To impose reasonable time, place, duration and manner restrictions on such expression, speech and association so as to protect the public's safety and access to public buildings and spaces.
462.20. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the terms defined in this section shall have the following meanings:
Business Licensing. All staff from the Business Licensing Division of Regulatory Services, all other City staff that have been assigned to coordinate on the processing and issuance of public rally permits, and all staff from other political subdivisions who are working in cooperation with City staff on the processing and issuance of public rally permits.
Person. A single person, group of persons, firm, partnership, association, corporation or other entity that intends to announce, conduct or hold a public rally.
Public Rally. A group activity involving 20 or more people including but not limited to a demonstration, meeting, assembly, protest, vigil, parades, solicitations or other gathering that takes place on public property for the purpose of expressing views or opinions. Public rallies do not include lawful picketing that has no affect on the flow of pedestrian or motorized traffic on sidewalks, streets and allies.
462.30. Public rally permit required. No person shall announce or hold any public rally prior to obtaining a public rally permit from Business Licensing. There shall be no charge for a public rally permit. Failure to obtain a permit prior to holding a public rally shall be a misdemeanor.
462.40. Written application and process. Business Licensing shall create a written application and procedures for the processing and filing of public rally permits and shall make those documents available to the public physically and electronically. Any person seeking a public rally permit shall submit an application to Business Licensing. The application shall inquire about the precise time, duration, anticipated number of persons and location of the public rally, and shall inquire about other information as deemed necessary by Business Licensing. The application shall clearly set forth all of the requirements that applicants must comply with in obtaining other licenses, permits, or other permissions for the proposed public rally. At any time prior to a scheduled public rally, reasonable time, place, duration and manner conditions may be place on the permit by Business Licensing, only upon written findings of the necessity of such conditions.
462.50. Time for filing and processing public rally permit applications. (a) If an application is submitted one year or more prior to when a person intends to hold a public rally, Business Licensing shall approve or deny the application within sixty (60) days of the date the application is received, or the permit shall be issued.
(b) If an application is submitted at least ninety (90) days but less than one year prior to when a person intends to hold a public rally, Business Licensing shall approve or deny the application within thirty (30) days of the date the application is received, or the permit shall be issued.
(c) If an application is submitted at least seven (7) days but less than ninety (90) days prior to when a person intends to hold a public rally, Business Licensing shall approve or deny the application within five (5) business days of the date the application is received, or the permit shall be issued.
(d) If an application is submitted less than seven (7) days prior to when a person intends to hold a public rally, Business Licensing shall make every possible effort to approve or deny the application the same business day or within one (1) business day, but in all cases shall approve or deny the permit within two (2) business days, or the permit shall be issued.
462.60. Grounds for denying a public rally permit. Business Licensing shall approve an application and issue a public rally permit unless:
(a) the conduct of the public rally will interfere with the safe and orderly movement of emergency personnel or vehicles at the proposed location;
2. the location of the proposed public rally is inconsistent with the anticipated size of the public rally;
3. the proposed public rally would conflict or interfere with a previously approved public rally or other scheduled public activity at the proposed location;
4. the proposed public rally location is adjacent to and would unduly disturb a neighborhood based on the timing or identified activity of the public rally;
5. the proposed public rally may cause physical injury to persons or substantial damage to property;
6. the application is incomplete in some substantive way that would affect the safety of the participants in the proposed public rally;
7. The applicant has not complied with the procedural requirements contained in the application;
8. The applicant has not provided a bond or insurance certificate as required by Business Licensing;
9. The proposed public rally is prohibited by law;
10. The application contains misrepresentations of any kind;
11. The applicant refuses to execute an agreement, as may be required by Business Licensing, to reimburse the public for costs incurred in repairing or restoring any public property to its conditions prior to the public rally;
12. The proposed public rally will interfere with the operations of any governmental agency; or
13. It reasonably appears that the proposed public rally will present a clear and present danger to the public safety or health, or conflicts with security needs anticipated for the time and place of the proposed public rally.
Prior to denying an application for a public rally permit, Business Licensing will make every effort to assist the applicant in finding a suitable and safe location in the public domain that the proposed public rally can safely take place at. Business Licensing shall make specific written findings on all factors upon which an application for a public rally permit is denied. Business Licensing shall not make any findings or deny any application for any reason relating to the content of any proposed expression, speech, idea or other protected activity.
462.70. Appeal of denial of application for public rally permit. (a) An applicant shall appeal the denial of an application for a public rally permit within 5 business days of the denial. An appeal must be submitted on a form provided by Business Licensing. Upon receipt of an appeal of a denial of an application, the Assistant City Coordinator of Regulatory Services shall designate a three-person appellate panel to hear the appeal. Two panel members shall be Deputy Directors or Directors in Regulatory Services, and one panel member shall be a City Council member.
2. The appellate panel shall consider the appeal as soon as possible so as to allow further review by state or federal courts prior to the date of the proposed public rally. If the date of the proposed public rally is less than fourteen (14) days after the appeal was received, the appellate panel shall convene and rule within one (1) business day of the appeal.
3. The appellate panel hearing is not open to the public. At the hearing, the appellate panel may receive and consider all forms of evidence, including hearsay evidence, and may set reasonable limits on the number of witnesses that may be called by Business Licensing and by the appellant. The appellate panel may limit the hearing to one (1) hour to expedite its deliberation and ruling. The appellant may be represented by an attorney.
4. The appellate panel may reverse, affirm or modify the denial of an application for a public rally permit. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the appellate panel shall notify Business Licensing and the appellant of when it will issue its ruling. The appellate panel shall make every effort to rule as soon as possible so as to allow further review by state or federal courts prior to the date of the proposed public rally.
462.80. Violation of permit conditions. If a person violates the conditions of any permit, the permit may be immediately revoked. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to continue to engage in an activity for which a permit was required after the permit has been revoked, provided the person knows the permit as been revoked.
462.90. Rights granted to permit holders. Any person possessing a valid permit has the exclusive right to use the area or facility specified in the permit for the applicable time. It shall be misdemeanor for any person to refuse to leave an area or facility which has been reserved by a valid permit when asked to do so by the permit holder or by any public employee or official.
462.100. Duties of permit holders. It is the duty of the permit holder to obey all laws and conditions on the permit, clean and restore the area used for the public rally to its original condition after the public rally has concluded, and to reimburse the City for all expenses incurred by the City to repair or restore any public property damaged by the public rally.
462.80. Other provisions not affected. This chapter does not alter, replace, modify or otherwise affect any other provisions in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances.
462.90. Insurance required. Upon written findings only, Business Licensing may require an applicant to provide proof of insurance or a bond to alleviate identified risks associated with a proposed public rally.
462.100. Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination. Business Licensing staff is directed to coordinate and cooperate with other political subdivisions, including the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, to the fullest extent possible and as authorized by Joint Powers Agreements or other legal authority on the application process, permitting process, planning, coordination and all other aspects of scheduling and providing safe and available forums for public rallies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
