Suit Turns D.C. Arrests Into Free Speech Victory

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/01/26/AR2005041902195.html

Joe Mayer attended the demonstration downtown that morning in 2002 to protest what was then a brewing conflict in Iraq. He also went to ensure that his daughter Alexis did not get arrested and potentially harm her fledgling career as a lawyer.

What transpired was what the retired Army colonel most feared: He and his daughter were among a mass of protesters arrested, handcuffed and detained for as long as 36 hours, an ordeal that included hours confined on a bus and many more hours on floor mats at the Police Academy before they were released.

"It was frightening, the police charging at you in their riot gear for no apparent reason," said Mayer, 71, recalling yesterday the clash at Pershing Park. "I'm thinking, 'What's going on?' "

Whatever bitterness he and the other demonstrators experienced Sept. 27, 2002, was at least partially salved this week when the District government acknowledged that the arrests were improper and agreed to pay $425,000 to Mayer and six others who filed suit. As part of the settlement, the District is required to adopt policies aimed at preventing police from making improper arrests at demonstrations.

[High Plains]

1. Adam and Alexis are friends of mine.

He was a key organizer of those events. Now they both get $50,000 from the city for unconstitutional arrests. Ha ha ha ha.

[kamtsa]

2. Now that they got the money, they are everybody's friend

[Lerkfish]

5. explain your comment.

what, exactly, are you implying?

[jayfish]

6. Hell, Yeah, 60G They Could...

be my friends too. :eyes:

Jay

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Replying for future reference.

Gotta go now. Can't waste time doing searches at this moment.

Damn, I don't even have a quick link to my Spider-Man card in this machine.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. "police charging at you in their riot gear for no apparent reason"

This won't be the last time in the land of the free.

[fasttense]

4. Just another reason to join the protest on 4 February or 31 January.

I you protest against the administration's policies, you may make big bucks by winning a lawsuit against the police. Just kidding but really, can we surround the White House yet again on 4 February?

[Romulus]

8. BS settlement . . total BS

The seven plaintiffs each will receive about $50,000 after legal expenses plus a personal letter of apology from D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey.

The settlement money should come from Ramsey's bank account(s), and NOT the DC taxpayers . . .

[donkeyotay]

9. Where's the deterent when somebody else pays?

The people in this government who are breaking the law should be facing the law as individuals just like the people they're arresting. Then it would be a deterent. The right wing law-breakers are hiding behind the government and corporations. They aren't being held accountable.

[greiner3]

10. And DC is supposed to be, techncally anyway, on OUR side; n/t

[freefall]

11. This is interesting but it was published in January 2005 not today. n/t

[RamboLiberal]

12. It was off the WP website - I think they posted the wrong year

I got it yesterday right off the front page of the WP website.

On further checking the story is from last year - somehow the WP goofed yesterday. No surprise to me since I think that paper has gone downhill.

Some interesting info I got though in checking.

Protesters Win Ruling on D.C. Arrests
Assistant Police Chief Can Be Liable for Damages, Federal Appeals Court Says

By Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 14, 2006; Page B06

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that a top D.C. police official can be held personally liable for the arrest of hundreds of protesters at a 2002 anti-globalization rally, but it said more information was needed before it could decide whether Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey can be held liable as well.

The three-judge panel sharply condemned the arrests of nearly 400 World Bank and International Monetary Fund protesters in September 2002 at a downtown park. The ruling called the actions of Assistant Chief Peter J. Newsham "indefensible" and said "no reasonable officer" would have acted as he did.

The decision was a victory for plaintiffs seeking damages against Newsham, Ramsey and other city and federal officials in a class-action lawsuit. Newsham's conduct is at the core of the dispute.

Newsham ordered his officers to cordon off Pershing Park on Pennsylvania Avenue NW during the Sept. 27, 2002, protest and to arrest the people -- some protesters, some passersby -- who were inside.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301808.html

Protesters Sue for Speech Spot
Reflecting Pool Area Off Limits During State of the Union

By Karlyn Barker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A06

Organizers planning a protest during President Bush's State of the Union address next week say they have been denied a permit to hold the demonstration around the U.S. Capitol Reflecting Pool because that area has been reclassified as part of the security perimeter for the day of the speech.

The organizers of the Tuesday protest, called "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime," say the National Park Service and the U.S. Capitol Police initially offered them the Capitol Reflecting Pool as a demonstration site but changed their minds.

Demonstrators have been told to confine their gathering to the gravel walkways on the Mall between Third and Fourth streets, farther from the Capitol. The grassy areas are fenced off because they are being resodded.

Travis Morales, one of the organizers of the demonstration, said the restrictions effectively deny the protesters a meaningful public space to gather as a group. The nearest place to meet together, he said, is Seventh Street, about a mile from the Capitol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502261.html

D.C. Sued Over Response to Inaugural Protesters

By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page B04

The American Civil Liberties Union filed three lawsuits yesterday against the District, alleging that D.C. police made false arrests and indiscriminately used pepper spray in cracking down on demonstrators during last year's presidential inauguration.

The confrontations between protesters and police during and after the inaugural parade -- which was held a year ago today -- were more scattered and less intense than those in 2001 when President Bush first took office.

But in the lawsuits, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court, the ACLU alleges that police went overboard in their response to isolated instances of lawbreaking and ended up violating the rights of peaceful demonstrators and bystanders.

"People who come to the nation's Capital to demonstrate, or to observe major public events, are supposed to be protected by the police, not be assaulted and arrested," Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the local branch of the ACLU, said in a statement. "Soaking people with pepper spray is not a game as the D.C. police seem to have treated it on Inauguration Day last year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903105.html