teddooleylaw@winternet.com
SEVEN MAJOR LAWSUITS FILED FOR RNC POLICE MISCONDUCT
In the autumn of 2008, when thousands of good citizens came to St. Paul to express their political will for the next four years, a smaller group came for the purpose of denying those thousands their political freedoms. This group conspired to disrupt our lovely city’s normal flow of commerce and liveability.
These conspirators met clandestinely, all around the country, planning their moves. They had training videos on how to neutralize and disrupt the regular citizens. They purchased new weapons, they appeared in strange formations. They were disguised behind masks. And many of them moved in line with called-out, seemingly planned drills. Many dressed in black as they moved in “black blocks.”
These were the 6500 law enforcement interlopers. And when they left, they left behind much damage to our people, our society and our liberties.
On Thursday, 26 February, seven individual law suits will be filed in the Federal courts, suits against individual officers and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis and Ramsey County.
Plaintiffs Michelle Gross, Mike Whalen, Wendy Binion, Mick Kelly, Alex Lilly and Betsy Raasch-Gilman will appear at the press conference at William Mitchell College of Law on the 26th at 3:30 to address the press. These plaintiffs will be available for questions from the press members.
PREVIEW: Binion, Johnson & Sang http://blip.tv/file/1808487
Kelly http://blip.tv/file/1808587
Teichberg & Katz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIm-IWaOPjo
Whalen's home http://blip.tv/file/1808637 seven
Showing posts with label RNC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RNC. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Friday, September 05, 2008
Labor Day '08: Martial Law St. Paul
Thought I'd share a few images from my walk around the capitol on Labor Day.
I was basically behind the group that got a massive volley of pepper and tear gases, rubber bullets and concussion grenades. The problem was this: After the march from the Capitol to the Republican(t) National Convention -- most of the marchers either began to head home or to a hip hop concert across the river via the Wabesha Bridge (Mos Def, Pharcyde, and Atmosphere played along with country acts Billy Bragg and Steve Earle) The concert location was at Harriet Island, which is a walk across the Wabesha Bridge. Basically, the 3, 500 plus officers, more than half of whom are contracted by the RNC from outside of MN, got upset and started opening up volleys, closing bridges, essentially funneling people into a confrontation of their making. And if you think I'm bullshitting tough because I saw this with my G'*&D#$*ed eyes. I also have 100 minutes of video that I took of the legally permitted and blessedly peaceful march, and my subsequent bike/walk towards the concert.
I hope everyone is having a great week,
Hit me up,
Your Boy,
raz
I was basically behind the group that got a massive volley of pepper and tear gases, rubber bullets and concussion grenades. The problem was this: After the march from the Capitol to the Republican(t) National Convention -- most of the marchers either began to head home or to a hip hop concert across the river via the Wabesha Bridge (Mos Def, Pharcyde, and Atmosphere played along with country acts Billy Bragg and Steve Earle) The concert location was at Harriet Island, which is a walk across the Wabesha Bridge. Basically, the 3, 500 plus officers, more than half of whom are contracted by the RNC from outside of MN, got upset and started opening up volleys, closing bridges, essentially funneling people into a confrontation of their making. And if you think I'm bullshitting tough because I saw this with my G'*&D#$*ed eyes. I also have 100 minutes of video that I took of the legally permitted and blessedly peaceful march, and my subsequent bike/walk towards the concert.
I hope everyone is having a great week,
Hit me up,
Your Boy,
raz
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Police assault on peace advocate: Communities United Against Police Brutality newsletter
Communities United Against Police Brutality
EMAIL NEWSLETTER
July 21, 2008
**********************************************
CUAPB VP BEATEN AND ARRESTED DURING COPWATCH LAST NIGHTEMAIL NEWSLETTER
July 21, 2008
******************************
STAND UP! FIGHT BACK!
Special Copwatch Action
Friday, July 25
7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Corner of 1st Avenue and 10th Street, Minneapolis
For the past several months, CUAPB has been documenting the use of low level offense ordinances such as lurking, loitering, trespass and public urination ordinances against homeless people near shelters. Darryl Robinson, vice president of CUAPB, heads up the project and has spent many hours outside of Harbor Lights, Mary Jo's Place and other areas capturing bad acts by the MPD on film. In the course of his work, he has been harassed repeatedly by police and recently received a trespassing citation himself.
About 10:45 p.m. last night, Minneapolis police attacked Darryl, beating and arresting him for "obstructing the sidewalk." During the attack, they slammed him in the head and face and repeatedly choked him to the point of unconsciousness. While handcuffed, he was thrown face first into the paddy wagon and taken to the Hennepin County jail. Luckily, another copwatcher was out with Darryl and was able to get word to us quickly. A large contingent from CUAPB converged on the jail. Before we arrived, one of the guards attempted to mess with Darryl at the jail but jail staff soon backed off and he was processed out quickly and released to us. Darry's injuries were documented and he was taken straight to the hospital. He sustained head, neck and jaw trauma along with other injuries. Hospital staff initially planned to admit him due to the extent of his injuries but he was eventually allowed to go home from the emergency room early this morning.
Now that the city council has given the MPD a blank check, police think they can get rid of their problems by just intimidating, harassing and even beating and falsely charging activists who dare question them. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND! We need to be right back out at that same corner where police tried to silence the community.
Join us on Friday night for a shelter-based copwatch. Bring a camera or a pad of paper and pen to take notes. Let it be known that the community WILL go wherever we need to in order to hold Minneapolis police accountable for their activities. While you are out with us on Friday, you can learn about other opportunities to help us with the important work of documenting police action against homeless people.
Plan also to be in court with Darryl on August 4, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. at the Hennepin County Government Center when he contests the false charges placed on him for daring to document police misconduct.
___________________________________________________________
RALLY AT CITY HALL TO DEMAND PROTECTIONS FOR PROTESTERSFriday, July 25th, 9:00 a.m.
City Hall
350 S 5th Street, Minneapolis
The Minneapolis City Council recently passed a resolution that strips away our protections from police abuse and brutality when we're exercising our rights to free speech and public assembly. This rotten resolution allows the police to:
* Use rubber bullets whenever they feel it's "necessary"
* Confiscate or destroy cameras if they can be used for evidence
* Conceal their identities
* Infiltrate activist groups and target activist leaders
* Withhold medical assistance after they attack people
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT? If you say "no!" then join us! They passed this resolution without giving us a public hearing, but we're having one anyway! Rally at City Hall and tell the City Council they can't take away our rights without a fight! Then stay for the city council meeting after.
Brought to you by a broad coalition of Twin Cities-based activists. For more information on this issue, contact mgresist@minn.net or recycleme2@gmail.com.
___________________________________________________________
POLICE AND PROTESTER AT THE RNC: MINNEAPOLIS STRUGGLES WITH PLANG.R. Anderson, Jr.
http://www.minnpost.com/
It seems like a distant memory, but eight years ago Minneapolis city leaders and the Minneapolis Police Department were grappling with an influx of young protesters some local and some from far-flung places who were in town to march against the International Society for Animal Genetics conference. The prevailing winds that summer said it was wise to avoid the violence and spectacle of the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle the previous fall.
That sentiment didn't carry over onto the streets, however, as protesters and cops alike engaged in some rather sketchy and brutish behavior; even some police officers at the time weren't sure the MPD performed the best policing practices. Undercover officers joined protests and made arrests, some protest groups were arrested and detained with little reason, pepper spray was used liberally. And some activists felt that their cause was undermined by the dreadlocked anarchy set. Goading of the police was all too frequent.
Recalling those quaint times, it's hard to remember exactly what all the fuss was about, given all that's happened since the summer of 2000, but in the moment folks were vexed enough that the Minneapolis City Council detailed a number of new policing practices in November 2000 that set out to curb the destruction on both sides of the protest line.
A Nov. 22, 2000, document details recommendations from the council's Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee, including "no restricting access to public space without constitutional, reasonable cause," "no use of pepper spray, tear gas or similar substances except in situations justifying use of force," "no use of plastic bullets" and "no confiscation of videotapes, film and other recording materials."
But on June 6 of this year, the committee came up with a new list of recommendations to give direction to the MPD while the Republican Nation Convention is in town come Sept. 1. On June 20, the full council passed a resolution that on its face seems to further limit what the police can do with anticipated protesters, with one exception: Tagged to the end of the resolution, item 24 says: "This Resolution shall supersede the action of the City council on November 22, 2000, adopting a Policy Regarding Police Conduct at Political Demonstrations."
This has some activist groups up in arms, like the group Communities United Against Police Brutality, who point to two key omissions in the current resolution: No talk of restricting use of plastic or rubber bullets, and nothing restricting confiscation of video cameras.
Council member Cam Gordon (Second Ward) proposed an amendment at the June 20 meeting that sought to restore some of the items from the 2000 directive that were left out of the resolution passed last month. Today at 1 p.m., the public safety committee will discuss Gordon's amendment.
"I think were' going to get something done, though not as much as people hope," Gordon said Tuesday. "We'll get something."
Original directive unclear
To hear Gordon tell it, many of his colleagues on the council thought the 2000 directive was unclear; in fact the proposal never officially became a city resolution or ordinance.
"It was messy," Gordon said of the 2000 proposal, adding that it wasn't certain whether the directive carried any authoritative or legal parameters. "There were some good things in it, but it just wasn't very good work."
It's a sentiment echoed by council President Barb Johnson, who added the item about the current proposal superseding the old directive. "We needed significant clarifications about how police should act," Johnson said Monday. "We needed to clear up what we have."
For months the council and community activists have been struggling with what police should do if large numbers of protestrrs come to Minneapolis during the RNC a big "if" given that most of the action will be in St. Paul. The resolution passed on June 20 was the outgrowth of several council meetings and something called the Free Speech Working Group, which was intended to have activists and city leaders hash out an agreement over presumed protests.
And the June 20 resolution does have some points that appear to favor protesters, seeking to curb when the MPD can "disperse" any "participants in a public assembly," suggesting that the MPD make a video of when people are told to disperse, and directing that police "implement a method for enhancing the visibility to the public of the name or badge number of officers policing a planned public assembly."
All good ideas, according to Gordon, but with mixed results. "I wasn't necessarily opposed to this superseding the old directive," he said. "But some of it is about taking the wrong protections and sending the wrong message. I think we sent the wrong message."
The plastic bullets debate
The main part of the wrong message is that the current resolution allows for the MPD to confiscate recording devices, something that Johnson said, on the advice of the city attorney's office, would inhibit routine police work because sometimes cameras are needed to investigate a crime. More importantly, the current resolution allows for the use of plastic or rubber bullets, even though the MPD doesn't use them.
Still, Johnson said, Minneapolis police officers do have non-lethal weapons in their arsenal that could be considered as such, and the city attorney advised avoiding using that language in any kind of council directive to the MPD.
"I think that was of concern," Johnson said, regarding the city's liability on the issue. "Police do have, and I'm not using the right terms, some form of projectiles in their basket. There should be policies in place, but the council is giving direction to the police here. It can't be overkill."
Both Johnson and Gordon are like everyone else in one regard: No one seems to know how many, if any, large groups of protesters will make it to the City of Lakes. But no one wants to take any chances either.
Gordon, the council's lone Green Party member, considers himself a peace and justice guy, but even he knows the sentiment on the council is "a tendency to not have things clearly defined." (The council passed the resolution, written by council members Paul Ostrow, Gary Schiff and Ralph Remington, by a 10 to 2 vote. Gordon and Sandra Colvin Roy were the two dissenters.)
"We should be ready for the police to be tested, and some protesters stirring things up," Gordon said. "Hopefully we can keep it calm so no one gets hurt."
Was the resolution designed to loosen restrictions on the MPD? "I don't know," Gordon said. "It's hard to know where this is coming from. I know the 2000 resolution wasn't popular; Barb wasn't for it, so maybe this is an old dispute."
But Gordon believes that some of his eight-point amendment will at least pass out of committee today. "I'm hopeful about some things in the final policy that are there for legitimate public safety concerns," Gordon said. "But I'll compromise rather than sticking in my heels and probably losing."
Update from public safety committee meeting
Compromise is exactly what Gordon, by all accounts, offered shortly after 2 p.m. Wednesday. Whether that's a good thing depends on your point of view.
Gordon circulated his proposed amendments to Resolution 2008R-248, "Adopting police policies regarding public assemblies," which passed June 20.
"We added a bit of a preamble," Gordon offered, and just three items down from the eight he originally sought as amendments. The preamble puffs up the "command structure" of the MPD, but "wishes to clearly enunciate police policies for such assemblies."
Then the three items tacked onto the end read:
* That MPD presence at public assemblies will be based on legitimate public safety concerns and not be based upon intent to chill First Amendment rights.
* In concurrence with state law, and city ordinance, MPD officers will not use pepper spray, tear gas, or similar substances, or projectiles except in situations where use of force is reasonable.
* That MPD officers shall not confiscate, destroy or tamper with cameras or other recording devices being used to document public assembly activities or MPD enforcement actions. This shall not apply to situations in which a) cameras or recording devices are to be used as evidence, or b) MPD officers arrest an individual in possession of cameras of recording devices.
The amendments were so toothless that Paul Ostrow, who has largely been sympathetic to the police on all matters RNC, cooed his approval. Ostrow drew an audible snort from the 15 or so protesters assembled who held up photos of one woman who was injured by rubber bullets from a department in another city.
"Our police department should be proud of the way they've handled protests," Ostrow said by way of supporting the amendments, apparently forgetting ISAG in 2000 or the incident involving Critical Mass bikers late last summer.
The five public safety committee members present for the voice vote all said "aye," and the motion carried. It now goes before the full council July 25.
Outside the council chambers, not everyone was a thrilled as Ostrow. "I think it's crap," said Michelle Gross of Communities United Against Police Brutality. "It specifically doesn't ban rubber bullets. What this means is that they're probably getting federal money and can't wait to try them out."
Gross, who considers Gordon an ally on police issues--at least she used to--dismissed Gordon's efforts entirely, saying the only option left on the bullet controversy was to try to get people to come to the full council meeting.
"This is something fluffy to throw out to the community," she said. "But [Gordon] has screwed this community. I don't think I've been this mad at Cam. I'm pissed."
And in other protest news...
News that U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen sided with the city of St. Paul Wednesday in regards to the Republican National Convention protest march didn't sit well, naturally, with some of the poo-bahs of the movement.
Meredith Aby of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War was at Minneapolis City Hall Wednesday afternoon the public safety committee pass amendments to an ordinance that could be viewed as anti-protester. The double-whammy had Aby somewhat stirred.
"The judge decided not to ... use her authority," Aby said outside the council chambers, adding that Ericksen is a Bush appointee. "She feels like it needs further discussion, but it's been discussed."
Aby's group applied in October 2006 for a permit to march on Sept. 1, the first day of the four-day convention. On May 16, the city issued a permit for a march from the Capitol down Cedar Street to the back of the Xcel, site of the convention. Citing proximity to the Xcel, security for the president and vice president and other court precedents, Ericksen ruled that the city had been more than generous with the route granted. Aby and others, however, are angling for what she calls a "public" route that involves Seventh Street and Kellogg Blvd. and brings the marchers to the front of the Xcel.
"The route given has several choke points," Aby said, citing part of Cedar and a "triangle" in front of the Dorothy Day Center. "There's no way 50,000 people can cover that. It would take us more than four hours to do that."
Time is also an issue for the protesters. The permit allows for the march to go from noon until 4 p.m., but marchers must be clear of an intersection near the arena by 3 p.m. According to Aby, the march probably won't start early, and some protesters will want to linger with one limited view of the Xcel the route affords. "People won't just turn on a dime" and go back, she said.
Lest one think that Aby is smelling a Bush conspiracy, she spared no harsh words for St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman. "Mayor Coleman is doing everything in his power to limit our space," she said, adding that a Democratic mayor is aligning himself with the other side.
Aby said the only recourse now is to meet with lawyers (again) and "continue our grassroots effort" to highlight the issue.
Even if it's a lost cause, Aby and her cohort clearly intend to go down swinging. "These people have never been to a national demonstration," she concluded. "Or if they have, then they want us to fail."
___________________________________________________________
MAN'S FINGER SHOT OFF WITH NON-LETHAL SPONGE ROUNDJuly 16, 2008
ALOHA, Ore. -- Police shot off a man's thumb with non-lethal sponge rounds after he threatened to kill people with a hammer, officers said.
Officers said they shot Marcelous Agers Jr., 54, six times with the non-lethal rounds and finally had to use a Taser to take him into custody after he continued to advance threateningly on police.
Sponge rounds are designed to be a non-lethal choice for officers that are unlikely to penetrate soft tissue because the round spreads the impact over a wide area, deputies said.
The incident began when deputies received multiple 911 calls about a man with a hammer threatening residents of an apartment complex at 18850 SW 185th Ave.
The callers said that the man was yelling that he "wanted to kill someone," banging on doors and at one point hit himself in the head with the hammer, police said.
Deputies said when they arrived, Agers was sitting on a step muttering to himself while holding a hammer and refused to drop it.
He stood up yelled at the deputy and raised the hammer as if preparing to strike, taking steps that alternated toward and away from the deputy, investigators said.
More deputies arrived at the scene and one of them was armed with a 40-mm multi-launcher armed with six sponge rounds, investigators said.
When Agers began to advance on the deputies, he was shot six times with the sponge rounds, but, although he was injured by the rounds, he continued to advance, investigators said.
Another deputy then got close enough to use a Taser to take him down long enough for the deputies to take him into custody, police said.
Once in custody, deputies saw that one of Agers' fingers had been severed. They found the detached finger and transported it with him to the hospital.
Investigators said it is likely that one of the sponge rounds hit his hand that was holding the hammer tightly and pinched the finger, severing it below the first knuckle.
Agers is still being evaluated by doctors but when released, investigators said he will face charges including menacing, disorderly conduct and unlawful use of a weapon.
Copyright 2008 by KPTV.com. All rights reserved.
___________________________________________________________
NASHVILLE, TN: INJECTIONS USED ON STREET TO SUBDUE SUBJECTSMedical Expert Says Practice Is Troubling
Reported By Demetria Kalodimos
WSMV.com TV-Channel 4 Nashville
July 10, 2008
NASHVILLE, Tenn. While the Metro police had banned the use of Tasers for a time, they still used a controversial method to subdue unruly people, according to an I-Team report.
The city's policy to use the method, which calls for the injection of a drug into a person, came as a "total surprise" to people most would expect to know all about it.
For almost two years, Metro police have had the option of calling for a needle loaded with a strong sedative to control the most unruly people they encounter on the street.
One of the doctors who came up with the protocol said it's the safest option out there and that it is used all over the country
.
But many people said that the injection was news to them, and a top medical ethicist said it's a troubling precedent.
The drug is called Midazolam, which is better known as Versed. People who have had a colonoscopy have probably had a shot of the drug for the procedure.
"The drug has an amnesia effect, and we use that therapeutically because one of the nice ways to take care of the discomfort is to make people forget that they've had it," said biomedical ethics and law enforcement expert Dr. Steven Miles.
But the shots have also been used on the streets on people police said were out of control.
One of the first to get the shot administered to them was Dameon Beasley.
"Well, that night, I hadn't been properly taking my meds, you know, like I'm supposed to. I got so depressed that when I was up on the bridge running into traffic back and forth, cars dodging me, swerving, I ended up with two sharp objects in my hands. By that time, the police had arrived. I was charging them with these sharp objects trying to make them shoot me, actually yelling at them to shoot me," he said.
When a Taser didn't work on Beasley, police turned to a brand new protocol an injection of Versed. Officers called emergency medical personnel for the injection.
"I remember they were holding me down. There was maybe four or five on each side, and I remember they were calling for something, you know. Some guy came up on the left side and hit me with it," he said.
"I do know that whatever it was works immediately. I mean, you ain't got a chance if you are 300 pounds. It's like a horse tranquilizer. I don't care. You're gone. It's a wrap," he said.
Beasley said he had no idea what happened after he was injected.
"I woke up I don't know how much time had passed with a sergeant standing over me telling me to sign here. I didn't know what I was signing, Ms. (Channel 4 I-Team reporter Demetria) Kalodimos. I just signed a piece of paper and was immediately right back out," he said.
Kalodimos reported that Beasley ended up at Metro General Hospital and was then put in psychiatric care. He was not charged in the incident on the bridge.
But Beasley's lawyer, a public defender, had no idea that Versed had been used to subdue him until Kalodimos told him about it.
"Very few people seem to know about the almost 2-year-old policy," Kalodimos said. "The state's largest mental health advocacy group, Nashville's mental health judge, the Nashville Rescue Mission, I've talked to my colleagues around the country, the American Civil Liberties Union, all said they had no knowledge of the use of the drug by police."
"None of the people from the south to the north to the east to the west have ever heard about this kind of program, this kind of use where they basically force an injection upon an individual knowing nothing about his or her medical condition," said ACLU Director Hedy Weinberg.
"I can't tell you why those individuals don't know about it," said Dr. Corey Slovis, Nashville's emergency medical director.
Along with medical examiner Dr. Bruce Levy, Slovis customized a Versed policy for Nashville that is endorsed by a group of emergency medical experts called the Eagles.
"It's something that in the medical community and in the EMS medical community is very common. It's a given. When I surveyed the major metropolitan areas around the country, I think only two cities were not actively using it," Slovis said.
Some have asked the question about potential problems.
Miles said he also had never heard of Versed being used in this way. "There is no research guideline. There is no validated protocol for this. There's not even a clear set of indications for when this is to be used except when people are agitated. By saying that it's done by the emergency medical personnel, they basically are trying to have it both ways. That is, they're trying to use a medical protocol that is not validated, not for a police function, arrest and detention," Miles said.
"The decision to administer Versed is based purely on a paramedic decision, not a police decision," Slovis said.
It's up to the officer to call an ambulance and determine if a person is in a condition called excited delirium.
"I don't know if I would use the word diagnosing, but they are assessing the situation and saying, 'This person is not acting rationally. This is something I've been trained to recognize, this seems like excited delirium.' I don't view delirium in the field as a police function. It is a medical emergency. We're giving the drug Versed that's routinely used in thousands of health care settings across the country in the field by trained paramedics. I view what we're doing as the best possible medical practice to a medical emergency," Slovis said.
Metro Government would not release the names of the eight other people who got Versed injections after police calls. A representative from Metro said that the information was protected in the way a medical record would be. The representative said that only one person out of the nine had shown no improvement after the injection.
Versed was most recently used on a female in early June.
Three women of child bearing age have apparently gotten shots without consent, even though the package insert for Versed suggests that, "the patient should be apprised of the potential hazard to the fetus."
"A single administration to calm a wildly delirious patient down even if she/s pregnant is much safer to the woman and her unborn child than being allowed to be delirious, hypothermic, hyperventilating and perhaps hypoxic," Slovis said.
"I would think that with enough people being able to tackle the person to inject them, there should be another way to try to subdue someone without putting an injection in their vein," Weinberg said.
The biggest side effect that is seen in more than 80 percent of those who are injected with Versed is amnesia.
The side effect raises the question of a person being able to defend themselves in court if they can't remember what happened.
"If they would've said I'd done anything after that shot, hey, I couldn't have argued that fact. I don't remember," Beasley said.
Kalodimos reported that while doing research for this report, she found a post on a paramedics Internet chat site that said, "One good thing about Versed is that the patient won't remember how he got that footprint on his chest."
"We're very careful in Nashville," Slovis said. "Every instance of Versed use is reviewed by the both medical director, myself, our head of EMS quality assurance. We make sure that our paramedics treat patients right."
Miles said it would have been appropriate to put the idea of using Versed before what's called an Institutional Review Board for study to anticipate problems before they pop up.
"It may well be that a protocol could be designed to test the use of Versed in handling agitated persons at the time of detention. I'm not going to say that's not possible, but at any rate, you do it under a condition where you collect data rather than simply just going ahead and doing the drug and waiting to see if problems to develop," he said.
Miles added that, "Doing medicine by the seat of your pants is not the way to develop new therapies."
Slovis said the shots are given as a medical treatment, not a police function, even though ultimately they aid in an arrest.
______________________________
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
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
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Newsletter: Communities United Against Police Brutality
Communities United Against Police Brutality
EMAIL NEWSLETTER
March 18, 2008
**********************************************
MAYDAY! FREE SPEECH UNDER ATTACK!EMAIL NEWSLETTER
March 18, 2008
******************************
As you may remember, Minneapolis and St. Paul have been using some pretty creative ways to try to deny free speech rights to people who are planning to protest the RNC in 2008. They’ve both formed “free speech working groups” that are busy crafting new ordinances and resolutions to severely restrict our ability to protest.
Minneapolis is holding a working group meeting tomorrow and we just learned that there are three proposals on the table:
1) a voluntary proposal that's bad because it includes sidewalks and other traditionally open areas and because it precludes counterdemonstrations
2) a MANDATORY proposal that's bad for the reasons above PLUS criminalizes people who don't get permits
3) an absolutely draconian ORDINANCE CHANGE that would make these assaults on our free speech PERMANENT--so long after the RNC has moved on, we'll be stuck with this crap
We must oppose these proposals (all three are bad), while we still can!
Move heaven and earth to get to this "free speech" working group meeting tomorrow:
“Free Speech” Working Group of the City of Minneapolis
Wednesday, March 19
11:a.m. to 12:00 noon
Minneapolis City Hall
350 S Fifth Street, Room 333
___________________________________________________________
BROOKLYN PARK YOUTH ARE UNDER ATTACK--WE'RE GONNA STAND UP AND FIGHT BACK!
Brooklyn Park cops have always been on our radar screen. For as long as we've had the hotline, BP is the suburb we get the most complaints about. At times, they outranked St. Paul (before Harrington became St. Paul's police chief). So there has always been a problem with racially insensitive and outright thuggish cops in BP.
Their latest move has been to target and attempt to criminalize youth of color and white youth who stand with them. We are working on a number of these cases, in which youth have been arrested standing in the front yard of their own homes, harassed and arrested at school, etc. In one case, some youth were at school when a fight broke out at the end of the day. These young people were not in the fight and had nothing to do with it. As they tried to leave the school, the cop assigned to the school demanded to know the names of the kids involved in the fight. When these youth told the cop they didn't know the names, they were arrested and brought up on false charges, which have changed several times. This is just one of several incidents. Youth in these various incidents will be going to court soon but we need to send a strong message to the BP cops now: "hands off our kids!"
Please join us for a little "education" session with the BP cops. We'll be holding signs in front of the Brooklyn Park police department at rush hour on a busy main artery:
Thursday, March 20
5:00 p.m.
Brooklyn Park Municipal Plaza
5400 85th Street (Intersection with Regent)
Brooklyn Park
___________________________________________________________
The Lyncher in Me with Warren ReadTuesday, April 1, 7 p.m.
Merriam Park Branch Library, 1831 Marshall Avenue, Saint Paul
This event is free and open to the public.
For more information, call 651-222-3242 or friends@thefriends.org
March 12, 2008, SAINT PAUL, MN The Friends of the Saint Paul Public Library presents author Warren Read, reading from his debut book and family story, The Lyncher in Me: A Search for Redemption in the Face of History.
In June 1920, in Duluth, a mob of over 10,000 charged the police station, inflamed by rumors that black circus workers had raped a white teenage girl-charges later proven false. Three men were dragged from their cells and lynched in front of the cheering crowd. Over 80 years later, Read discovered that his beloved great-grandfather had incited the deadly riot years before. In this poignant memoir, Read explores the victims and perpetrators of the heinous crime, and investigates the impact of the long-held secret on his family, calling even himself to task. Listen to excerpts from The Lyncher in Me on Tuesday, April 1, at 7 p.m., at the Merriam Park Branch Library, 1831 Marshall Avenue, Saint Paul.
Warren Read is a writer and elementary school teacher on Bainbridge Island, Washington. This is his first book. This program is free and open to the public. Contact The Friends at 651/222-3242 or visit www.thefriends.org for more information.
___________________________________________________________
CUAPB TO RECEIVE NLG SOCIAL JUSTICE AWARDJOIN US AT THE NLG ANNUAL DINNER
We are extremely honored to learn that the National Lawyers Guild, Minnesota Chapter will be recognizing us with their Social Justice Award at their annual social justice dinner. Larry Leventhal will be presented with the Paul Marino People's Lawyering Award. Cheri Honkala of Poor People's Econonomic Human Rights Campaign will be keynote speaker. Please join us as we proudly receive this prestigious award.
The Minnesota Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild
Annual Social Justice Dinner
Saturday, April 5, 2008
6:00 to 10:00 pm
William Mitchell College of Law
875 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota
To reserve your tickets or for more information, reply to this email or call (612) 326-4315. ___________________________________________________________
RNC WELCOMING COMMITTEE ORDERS TASERS FOR EVERY PROTESTER
By RNC Welcoming Committee , RNC Welcoming CommitteeMarch 13, 2008
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net
The RNC Welcoming Committee (RNC-WC), an anarchist and anti-authoritarian organizing body based in the Twin Cities, announced today that it has ordered tasers for each of its members and friends. The announcement comes on the heels of last month’s St. Paul City Council approval of a St. Paul Police Department (SPPD) request for 234 tasers. Due to a unique corporate-anarchist confidentiality agreement, the exact number of tasers or documentable evidence of this new order will not be disclosed.
Both the SPPD and RNC-WC taser orders are scheduled to arrive before the September 1 so-called Republican National Convention (RNC) in St. Paul. However, “The RNC Welcoming Committee’s order of tasers has absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming Republican convention,” said Ann O’ Nymmity of the RNC-WC. “These deadly, yet humane, weapons are needed simply to protect the safety of members of our community on a day-to-day basis. The timing is purely a coincidence.”
Last month, St. Paul police spokesperson Tom Walsh made similar statements to the Associated Press, saying that in regards to the RNC, his department’s purchase is “in no way related [to the timing of the RNC in St. Paul]. It simply isn’t.”
During scheduled protests of the RNC, local police and federal agents are likely to get violent. In Minneapolis last August, police used tasers and pepper spray to attack a nonviolent Critical Mass bike ride which coincided with the “pReNC”, a weekend of radical organizing in preparation for the RNC.
The RNC-WC does not have state-approved funding revenues. O’ Nymmity explained: “Our plan is to finance the purchase through raids on local WMD manufacturers, such as Alliant Techsystems.” The SPPD is funding their taser purchase through $210,000 from drug raids. O’ Nymmity added: “Through their website, the RNC Welcoming Committee is also accepting contributions from the public.”
Tasers, manufactured by Taser International, Inc., range from $300 to $1,000 and the fashionable weapons come in a variety of styles, including “black pearl,” “electric blue,” “metallic pink,” “leopard print,” and “forest camo.” O’ Nymmity noted, “We imagine St. Paul police will be visiting us soon, and now we’ll have something to talk about when they do. For instance, I can’t wait to compare my leopard print model to St. Paul police deputy chief Matt Bostrom’s metallic pink one!”
Once the RNC-WC order is finalized, the St. Paul Police Department will no longer have a monopoly on the weapons that have been implicated in hundreds of deaths nationwide, including the killing of a Fridley man by Minnesota State Troopers in January.
The Welcoming Committee has no plans to purchase machine guns, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, concussion grenades, batons, water cannons or helicopters, all of which will be at the disposal of local police and federal agents in September.
O’ Nymmity concluded, “Convention delegates and attendees should feel free to enjoy their five-star hotels, three-course meals, and “gentleman’s clubs” without fear of protest or disruption. After all, if they follow the law and don’t start any illegal wars or anything, what should they have to worry about?”
___________________________________________________________
1 in 100 US ADULTS BEHIND BARS, NEW STUDY SHOWSFebruary 28, 2008
By ADAM LIPTAK
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02
Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.
Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 Hispanic adults is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 black adults is, too, as is one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34.
The report, from the Pew Center on the States, also found that only one in 355 white women between the ages of 35 and 39 are behind bars but that one in 100 black women are.
The report’s methodology differed from that used by the Justice Department, which calculates the incarceration rate by using the total population rather than the adult population as the denominator. Using the department’s methodology, about one in 130 Americans is behind bars.
Either way, said Susan Urahn, the center’s managing director, “we aren’t really getting the return in public safety from this level of incarceration.”
But Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and a former federal judge, said the Pew report considered only half of the cost-benefit equation and overlooked the “very tangible benefits lower crime rates.”
In the past 20 years, according the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violent crime rates fell by 25 percent, to 464 for every 100,000 people in 2007 from 612.5 in 1987.
“While we certainly want to be smart about who we put into prisons,” Professor Cassell said, “it would be a mistake to think that we can release any significant number of prisoners without increasing crime rates. One out of every 100 adults is behind bars because one out of every 100 adults has committed a serious criminal offense.”
Ms. Urahn said the nation cannot afford the incarceration rate documented in the report. “We tend to be a country in which incarceration is an easy response to crime,” she said. “Being tough on crime is an easy position to take, particularly if you have the money. And we did have the money in the ‘80s and ‘90s.”
Now, with fewer resources available, the report said, “prison costs are blowing a hole in state budgets.” On average, states spend almost 7 percent on their budgets on corrections, trailing only healthcare, education and transportation.
In 2007, according to the National Association of State Budgeting Officers, states spent $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections. That is up from $10.6 billion in 1987, a 127 increase once adjusted for inflation. With money from bonds and the federal government included, total state spending on corrections last year was $49 billion. By 2011, the report said, states are on track to spend an additional $25 billion.
It cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available. But state spending varies widely, from $45,000 a year in Rhode Island to $13,000 in Louisiana.
The cost of medical care is growing by 10 percent annually, the report said, and will accelerate as the prison population ages.
About one in nine state government employees works in corrections, and some states are finding it hard to fill those jobs. California spent more than $500 million on overtime alone in 2006.
The number of prisoners in California dropped by 4,000 last year, making Texas’s prison system the nation’s largest, at about 172,000. But the Texas legislature last year approved broad changes to the corrections system there, including expansions of drug treatment programs and drug courts and revisions to parole practices.
“Our violent offenders, we lock them up for a very long time rapists, murderers, child molestors,” said John Whitmire, a Democratic state senator from Houston and the chairman of the state senate’s criminal justice committee. “The problem was that we weren’t smart about nonviolent offenders. The legislature finally caught up with the public.”
He gave an example.
“We have 5,500 D.W.I offenders in prison,” he said, including people caught driving under the influence who had not been in an accident. “They’re in the general population. As serious as drinking and driving is, we should segregate them and give them treatment.”
The Pew report recommended diverting nonviolent offenders away from prison and using punishments short of re-incarceration for minor or technical violations of probation or parole. It also urged states to consider earlier release of some prisoners.
Before the recent changes in Texas, Mr. Whitmire said, “we were recycling nonviolent offenders.”
______________________________
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)
