Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

D.C. Settles With Mass Arrest Victims (Pays off protesters!)
washington post ^ | 1/25/05 | Carol D. Leonnig and Del Quentin Wilber

Posted on 01/25/2005 3:49:56 AM PST by Timeout

Here are some snips:

The District government agreed yesterday to pay a total of $425,000 to seven people caught up in a mass arrest at a downtown park in September 2002....The arrests occurred Sept. 27, 2002, during demonstrations against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.... officers corraled demonstrators and anyone else within the boundaries of the park, on Pennsylvania Avenue NW, and charged them with failing to obey police.

The seven plaintiffs were five protesters and two bystanders. Each will receive about $50,000 after paying the legal expenses of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Lawyers Guild and the law firm of Covington & Burling...cont'd below:

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; aclu; bilkthetaxpayer; blackshirts; burling; communistsubversion; covington; covingtonburling; dcchapter; frivolouslitigation; greenhats; imf; nlg; nopermits; nopermitsnecessary; unwashed; verheydenhilliard; worldbank
Under the terms of the agreement, a high-ranking police commander must issue a warning to disperse before police can begin arresting protesters. Officers must be able to prove that individual protesters broke the law and cannot arrest people simply for protesting without a permit. All officers must have clearly displayed badge numbers. Police must also provide phones so that detainees can call attorneys, friends or family members.

Eidinger said he would use some of his cash award to promote the antiwar and anti-globalization message and some to pay for his daughter's education.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, an attorney who helped file the class-action suit, said yesterday's cash settlement was "just a floor" for future negotiations on behalf of her clients. She also said her clients are seeking more substantive changes in police procedures and will not be satisfied until the department eliminates "contemptuous" policies that block and silence demonstrators.

Late last year, the council passed a bill, introduced by Patterson, that would prohibit police from encircling protesters unless they plan to arrest them and would limit the use of physical restraints.

It also would prohibit the deployment of officers wearing riot gear unless there was a danger of violence.

1 posted on 01/25/2005 3:49:56 AM PST by Timeout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Well, great. D.C. public funds now going to support the anti-Americans. But they're literally tying the hands of the police to control groups demonstrating WITHOUT A PERMIT!

Watch for this precedent to now be used all over the country to fund their anarchy.


2 posted on 01/25/2005 3:52:34 AM PST by Timeout (What's the chromosome, Kenneth?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

Hear that UBL? DC is fair game.


3 posted on 01/25/2005 3:52:58 AM PST by Tarpaulin (Look it up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
...But they're literally tying the hands of the police to control groups demonstrating WITHOUT A PERMIT!

What part of "freedom to peaceably assemble" don't you understand?

4 posted on 01/25/2005 4:00:06 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grut

As I understand it, every time the D.C. Chapter of FR wants to have TWO people stand on a corner holding signs they have to get a permit. Why wouldn't we require FOUR HUNDRED people to get one?


5 posted on 01/25/2005 4:03:18 AM PST by Timeout (What's the chromosome, Kenneth?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
It also would prohibit the deployment of officers wearing riot gear unless there was a danger of violence.

So, in other words, a LEO has to be harmed before the riot gear is okay? Oh, nice city they've got there.

6 posted on 01/25/2005 4:14:35 AM PST by mewzilla (Has CBS retracted the story yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

The better question is: are 'permits to assemble' constitutional? I know it's moot in reality, but we need to be careful about giving more than grudging support to deviations from the Constitution, however necessary they may be.


7 posted on 01/25/2005 4:17:30 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Timeout


You know what. This only encourages protestors. Pay off (what is it) 7 and you'll end up having to pay off more and more in future.


8 posted on 01/25/2005 4:17:59 AM PST by LauraleeBraswell ("Hi, I'm Richard Gere and I'm speaking for the entire world. -Richard Gere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

Now that we know who has the "deep pockets", it's time for Washington DC area Freepers to initiate suits against these individuals whose presence threatened violence against us.


9 posted on 01/25/2005 4:25:02 AM PST by muawiyah (Egypt didn't invent civilization time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"Pay off (what is it) 7 and you'll end up having to pay off more and more in future."

Why should they care? It isn't their money, it comes from taxpayers that do not complain.

10 posted on 01/25/2005 4:28:23 AM PST by Inge_CAV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grut

I agree...somewhat. The problem is that some of these groups have publicly announced their intentions to be violent and destroy property. We've seen them do it.

So what are the police to do? They have just as much obligation to protect innocent bystanders and local property owners. I don't see any problem with requiring a permit in that it gives local authorities time to prepare. In this case the police blundered, failing to issue a disburse warning prior to the arrests. So change the procedures. Discipline the officer in charge. But PAY the demonstrators, who failed to get a permit?! That's going too far.


11 posted on 01/25/2005 4:30:29 AM PST by Timeout (What's the chromosome, Kenneth?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

It is time to take these groups down . The National lawyers guild coordinated the protest at the Republican Convention.They reported Police deployments to the protesters.
NYC should sue the lawyers guild for damages and overtime for the extra work.
Moreover businesses should sue Answer for lost business due to protests. A series of class action suits could restrict these types to parks.


12 posted on 01/25/2005 4:39:11 AM PST by Marano NYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
Another windfall for the ACLU.

"Viciously defending America's freedoms ... one buck at a time."

13 posted on 01/25/2005 4:43:21 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

ACLU = The Enemy Within™.


14 posted on 01/25/2005 4:53:29 AM PST by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut

I work in Washington and am conservative as anyone, but the D.C. police really messed this one up folks. Note that some of the people arrested were BYSTANDERS who happened to be passing the park - in some cases just walking to work - and were rounded up and arrested, without warning, opportunity to leave the scene, etc. That's about as pure a civil rights violation as you're going to find.


15 posted on 01/25/2005 5:06:45 AM PST by rockvillem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: rockvillem

As conservative as anyone? Boy I understand your point now, really definitive proof. The bystanders were also As Conservative as Anyone....whenever I walk to work I too like to get as close as possible to smelly, loud, anarchist, I just can never resist the temptation....


17 posted on 01/25/2005 6:05:28 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa

You obviously aren't aware of the facts here. I work in Washington and remember when this happened - Chief Ramsey messed this one up. The police surrounded a park without warning or an order to disburse or anything. People who had the misfortune of being on the sidewalk by the park - including bystanders who might be walking to their office after going to a CVS - were rounded up in the dragnet. They weren't in the throng with the anti-IMF people, carrying signs, etc. There was no probable cause to arrest them. It pisses me off that my tax dollars are going to pay for this, when it was so avoidable (i.e., order them to disburse and then arrest those who don't - these anti-IMF types love the perceived honor of getting arrested).


18 posted on 01/25/2005 6:58:07 AM PST by rockvillem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
As I understand it, every time the D.C. Chapter of FR wants to have TWO people stand on a corner holding signs they have to get a permit.

Wrong. A permit is required for 25 or more. The DC Chapter does it to reserve an area to prohibit interlopers. It also notice the LEOs of our plans and smooths relationships. Makes for a better protest.

As for the punks' lawyers that received a cash award, there was not much peaceful in their assembly. You should recall that one group was pushing a trash container all over the streets looking to vandalize property. Innocent bystanders - I don't think so.

19 posted on 01/25/2005 7:12:44 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine's brother (Crush your enemies; see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women - Conan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rockvillem
That's about as pure a civil rights violation as you're going to find.

I'm not sure I'd put it in the civil rights category. The police screwed up...royally. So punish the police. But why pay anyone $50K?

I'm just saying let's not make the cops' job impossible. Imagine they HAD given orders to disburse. And the guy coming home from the CVS wasn't in the park to hear the order. Then he crosses the park and gets caught up in the arrests. It could easily happen. Would he deserve $50K?

It's the money I resent as well as the fact that we keep making it harder and harder for the cops to do their job.

20 posted on 01/25/2005 7:25:11 AM PST by Timeout (What's the chromosome, Kenneth?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

This is selective application of the law.


21 posted on 01/25/2005 7:27:28 AM PST by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

As I understand it, no permit required for groups of 24 or less.

The police wholesale enclosing the park and arresting everyone in it is a bit too much heavyhandedness on their part IMO.


22 posted on 01/25/2005 7:29:17 AM PST by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rockvillem

Agree.


23 posted on 01/25/2005 7:29:58 AM PST by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

As I said above, I agree that the police were wrong.

But $50K per person?!


24 posted on 01/25/2005 7:32:37 AM PST by Timeout (What's the chromosome, Kenneth?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Grut

I watched these filth assault cops and bystanders down off of D street last week. They ought to have the clubs taken to them.


25 posted on 01/25/2005 7:34:18 AM PST by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

I agree with you that $50,000/person is insane.

Only way that that could be justified is if someone was swept up in the dragnet and lost his job because he was arrested.

My job is like that.


26 posted on 01/25/2005 7:35:42 AM PST by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Grut
"The better question is: are 'permits to assemble' constitutional?"

You could not be more right Grut!

Just a few more degrees F on that boiling water but many on the FR will not notice because someone else is being boiled.

Peaceful assembly (key word "Peaceful) is and should be protected but like the 4th amendment the government with the aid of sleaze ball lawyers and a not so supreme court are eroding these protections on a daily basis.

27 posted on 01/25/2005 7:37:15 AM PST by Wurlitzer (I have the biggest organ in my town {;o))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

$$$$$$$$ bump


28 posted on 01/25/2005 7:40:16 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson