Saturday, January 18, 2014

NEW YORK CITY TO PAY HISTORIC $18 MILLION SETTLEMENT FOR VIOLATING CIVIL RIGHTS OF PROTESTERS AT 2004 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

Release Date: January 15, 2014
For further information:
Martin R. Stolar
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD - NEW YORK CITY CHAPTER ON THE SETTLEMENT OF THE 2004 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION CASES

Today's announcement of the settlement of the 2004 Republican National Convention civil cases is the culmination of 10 years of work to protect the freedom to dissent from the Bush administration's war-mongering policies.
The National Lawyers Guild's Mass Defense Committee organized the criminal defense of the more than 1800 people arrested during the Convention, providing pro bono lawyers and legal support which resulted in dismissals or acquittals for over 90% of those taken into police custody.
Following the criminal cases, the Guild organized civil rights lawsuits on behalf of those wrongfully arrested and detained, providing legal counsel through its members and affiliated attorneys to vindicate those rights. The settlement agreed to by the City and the plaintiffs does exactly that.
We are pleased that a substantial portion of the attorneys fees from this settlement will be dedicated to the continued defense of the right to dissent and to express that dissent in a public forum. Speaking out about the government's infringements of fundamental human rights is an obligation of every citizen, and is a right which the Guild continues to defend and will defend in the future.
----------
The National Lawyers Guild, founded in 1937, is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York City and it has chapters in every state.


STATEMENT BY RNC PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS:
January 15, 2014
City Hall, New York City

1800 PEOPLE ARRESTED DURING 2004 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION SETTLE LAWSUITS AGAINST NYPD

            On behalf of the more than 1800 people who were unjustly arrested during the 2004 RNC, we are pleased to announce a global settlement of all but a handful of the lawsuits for false arrest and violation of first amendment rights.  The City has agreed to pay out $18 million in this settlement.  This is the largest settlement of civil rights cases arising from mass arrests of protesters in US history.  The City will pay $6,400,000 to 430 individual plaintiffs; $6,600,000 to settle a class action on behalf of approximately 1200 people; and $5,000,000 to attorneys for the individual plaintiffs.  The attorneys will be contributing 10% of their fees to a fund to protect the free speech rights of New Yorkers into the future.



The Arrests at the 2004 Republican National Convention

            At the time of the 2004 Republican Convention, the invasion of Iraq had entered its second year.  New York City had been chosen for the Convention site to align the nominee with the site of the tragic attacks of 9/11.  It was widely known that the Convention would attract many Americans who opposed the war and other Bush administration policies, and intended to make their views known in a peaceful manner, just as people had protested at past political conventions.

            Despite projected fears that peaceful protests would be disrupted by “anarchists,” and the Bloomberg administration’s mistaken conflation of large peaceful protest activity with terrorism and violence, nothing of the kind materialized during the days of protest around the Convention.   Instead, hundreds of peaceful protesters were rounded up in mass arrests at numerous locations around the City during the Convention, most of them on one day, August 31, 2004.  On that day, the first large group of protesters gathered near the World Trade Center site to conduct a peaceful sidewalk march that had been called by the War Resisters League, a pacifist organization – the protest had been featured in that morning’s newspapers as a place people could go to peacefully express themselves.  The protesters discussed their plans with the police before setting off on their march with police approval, but 227 were arrested en masse before they had walked half a block on the Fulton Street sidewalk next to St. Paul’s Church, across the street from Ground Zero.  The mass arrest is depicted on police videos that we have reproduced for distribution.


NYPD RNC arrests ruled illegal, RT America, Oct. 2, 2012



            In 2012, Federal District Court Judge Richard J. Sullivan held that all 227 had been illegally arrested: “The Court therefore finds that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the Fulton Street protesters.”  A thousand more people were arrested later that same day in similar mass arrests.  The Bloomberg administration made a calculated decision to conduct preemptive arrests without probable cause, knowing that taxpayers would eventually pay for that decision.

            Everyone arrested was held at a Pier on the Hudson River that had previously been used as an MTA bus repair facility – cyclone fencing was used to create cages in a warehouse-like area still covered with grease and brake fluid.  Signs still hung from the walls warning workers to wear hazmat suits.  There was no heat, no place to lie down, and a handful of port-a-potties.  Protesters were held in these disgraceful conditions for up to 48 hours before being transported to court facilities – long enough to exhaust them and keep them off the streets until after George Bush was re-nominated.  Many left with skin rashes and respiratory problems, and some developed more serious medical conditions.  Even during the course of the RNC, a state court judge held the City in contempt for detaining arrestees longer than permissible.

            Almost everyone arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and parading without a permit had their charges dismissed, or were acquitted at trials.  We expect many of them to be available to speak directly to the media about their experiences.



The Lawsuits and the Settlement

            Hundreds of people filed individual federal civil rights lawsuits.  A class action was also filed.  The Bloomberg administration viewed the claims as a political challenge to policing policies Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly were intent on defending, just as they have defended their stop and frisk practices.  They deemed peaceful protesters, “anarchists,” and terrorists as a blended “tri-partite threat” to the City.  But no terrorists were to be found among people protesting on the sidewalks of New York during the RNC.  Instead, the City’s policies fell on people who, at worst, caused some crowded sidewalks and snarled traffic.

            Just as the NSA has justified massive collection of information on millions of citizens on the grounds that it will help catch terrorists (although there is no evidence it has done so); and just as widespread surveillance of the private lives of peaceful Muslim New Yorkers has been justified on the same grounds; the surveillance of activists and the arrests at the RNC are a disgraceful example of disregard for the right to speak freely, an infringement of civil rights for partisan political purposes.  Dissent has nothing to do with terrorism, and the RNC experience shows that widespread intelligence gathering on citizens paves the way to curtailing free expression.  The arrests of 1800 people had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and everything to do with a political agenda to silence protest while a political party nominated its candidate.

            According to news reports, the City spent more than $16 million of taxpayer money defending these lawsuits.  The transparent objective of dragging the cases out until Bloomberg left office has now been revealed, at a cost of $18 million more.  The architects of the 2004 RNC policies are now gone – as a new Mayor takes office in New York City, this settlement stands as an emblem of the failure of those policies, from their initial inception to this settlement’s conclusion.

            While the settlement announced today covers the vast majority of RNC cases, the City has yet to resolve some of the most egregious cases. We are hopeful that the new administration will work swiftly toward a just result in these cases, so that this tainted legacy of the Bloomberg administration can finally be put to rest.

Lastly, the new administration must seek to actively protect, rather than suppress, the exercise of free speech and association in this great city.  Those who peacefully dissent from the actions of their government serve as the conscience of our community.  They must be encouraged, not preemptively arrested, caged or otherwise discouraged or abused.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Boisterous Protests at Brown University Curtail Speech by New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly


Students at the prestigious Ivy League Brown University had a petition with over 500 signatures requesting that the scheduled speech by New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly be cancelled. Students were outraged over the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy which was called "racial profiling" by a federal District Court Judge. When Brown University refused to concede to their demands, the students staged boisterous demonstrations both inside and outside the auditorium where Kelly was set to speak, forcing the cancellation of Kelly's speech midstream.

Ray Kelly Lecture at Brown Shut Down By Protest, Brown Daily Herald, YouTube, Oct. 29, 2013

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy

Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy, New York Times, by Joseph Goldstein, August 12, 2013

"A federal judge ruled on Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city, repudiating a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy...

But the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department resorted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as it increased the number of stops in minority communities. That has led to officers’ routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”

The judge called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms, including the use of body-worn cameras for some patrol officers, though she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk.”

In her 195-page decision, Judge Scheindlin concluded that the stops, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause...

The judge found that for much of the last decade, patrol officers had stopped innocent people without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. But her criticism went beyond the conduct of police officers.

“I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” she wrote, citing statements that Mr. Bloomberg and the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, have made in defending the policy.

The judge named Peter L. Zimroth, a partner in Arnold & Porter L.L.P., and a former corporation counsel and prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the United States Constitution. The installation of a monitor will leave the department under a degree of judicial control that is certain to shape the policing strategies under the next mayor."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unconstitutional: Federal judge slams 'stop and frisk', RT America, Aug. 12, 2013



"A federal judge ruled Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics used by the New York Police Department violates the constitutional rights of minorities, much to the chagrin of city officials who insist it's a legitimate crime-fighting tool. Judge Shira Scheindlin said that the controversial policy practiced by the NYPD for years unconstitutionally singled out minorities, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he will appeal the court's ruling that would require the city to place a federal monitor to oversee the program.

Carl Dix, co-founder of Stop "Stop and Frisk," weighs in on the decision with RT's Meghan Lopez."

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

ARCHIVES: Scalia Protests at Princeton University (2001)

University Welcomes Scalia amidst Student Protests, The Daily Princetonian, By MOLLY GULLAND, Feb. 23. 2001

When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia comes to the University to speak this afternoon, he will not be well received by every member of the community. A group calling themselves the F23 Ad Hoc Committee — F23 stands for Feb. 23 — will be staging a protest at 7:30 p.m. outside McCosh Hall.

"Basically, we wanted to make people realize we don't think it's ok for [Scalia] to be invited to campus to speak on our behalf," said Traci Schlesinger GS, who helped organize the event.

Originally, the committee — made up mostly of members of the Democratic Left — expected a small turnout, but received a large response to its e-mail announcing the event, according to Schlesinger.

Despite enthusiastic replies to the e-mail, the group has no estimate of expected participation because organizations that responded did not say how many members they would send. Yesterday's snowfall also may limit attendance.

"We're really unsure how big it will be . . . we think there will be a lot more support than we had originally expected," Schlesinger said.

Scalia — known as one of the most conservative members of the Court — has sparked controversy with many of his views on current political issues. Traditionally, Scalia has ruled against abortion and affirmative action. He also sat on the court during this year's election crisis.

Ian Rozdilsky, a post-doctorate fellow in ecology who is also involved in the event, said the 2000 election was the greatest motivating factor for the protest.

"We believe Scalia's decision over the election was a deathblow to democracy," he said.

According to Schlesinger, the College Democrats, Princeton Pro-Choice and Black Graduate Caucus were just a few of the campus organizations planning to send members to the protest.

Outside groups, including the New Jersey National Organization for Women and Democratic March, also plan to attend, Rozdilsky said. He added that the committee has received encouragement from groups as far away as Florida and Texas, and said there is "widespread support [for the protest] outside the Princeton campus."

The committee plans to hand out flyers with pointed questions to people attending the talk, hoping some audience members will make the justice answer them.

Protesters will also carry picket signs and chant protests throughout Scalia's appearance.

The committee has no other events planned after today's protest — it wants to send a specific message to the University about its decision to invite Scalia to speak here.

"We believe that Princeton shouldn't welcome someone who has acted as Scalia, against democracy," Rozdilsky said.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Voter Registration in Supreme Court

Voter Registration in Supreme Court Spotlight, By Jake Grovum, Staff Writer, March 15, 2013

A key provision of the two-decade-old National Voter Registration Act hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court on Monday hears a challenge that, if successful, could make registering to vote more complicated.

The justices will once again weigh states’ rights against voting rights as the court hears the challenge, brought by the state of Arizona, against a provision of the voter registration law that is credited with streamlining the country’s voter registration process.

The case centers on a dispute over Arizona’s voter-approved Proposition 200, which was enacted in 2004 and requires voters to prove their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. The law contradicts the federal measure, and the clash has grown to incorporate the broader arguments over state control of elections featured prominently in recent court battles over voter ID requirements and a challenge to the Voting Rights Act.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Sarah Silverman Mocks Voter ID Laws With 2012 Election PSA



Sarah Silverman Mocks Voter ID Laws With 2012 Election PSA




Voter ID laws aim to prevent in-person voter fraud. In person voter fraud basically never happens. So why are so many states passing these laws?


Five things you should know about voter ID laws:

1. These are not bipartisan efforts. They are initiated by Republicans, passed by Republicans, and signed into law by Republicans. The State House Majority Leader in PA asserted that these voter restrictions would allow Mitt Romney to win the state.

2. The voters most likely to be burdened by these new voting restrictions are Democrats. Consider which voters don't have ID. Among seniors and young voters, 18% don't have valid ID. Among African Americans, 25% don't have valid ID.

3. Restrictions on voting, like poll taxes and "literacy" tests, have a long history. They are used by one party to prevent supporters of another party from voting.

4. If someone were trying to steal an election, in person voter fraud, where a voter pretends to be someone they are not at the polls, is the last method anyone would chose. Absentee ballot stuffing is much easier. But more Republicans vote by absentee ballot. So no new restrictions on absentee voting.

5. The Brennan Center has estimated that as many as 3.2 million citizens could find it harder to vote because of new voter ID laws.

Website: Let My People Vote