Student ACAP member
Olympia, WA @ TESC (4-14-14) — The ‘Town Hall’ meeting called by Professor Peter Bohmer and several supporting campus sanctioned student organizations proved to be anti-climactic. Fewer than 2 dozen attended, possibly closer to 15, among which were this reporter, Ray (student editor of TESC’s Cooper Point Journal), one faculty member, and an advocate of the now settled lawsuit against the City of Olympia alleging the municipality engaged in illegal political profiling of area dissidents.
ACAP member posing for photographer in public ‘Town Hall’ meeting @ TESC
Ray takes photos during ‘Town Hall’ meeting @ TESC.
The ‘rules’ of the meeting were written on the chalk board, the first short presentation of the ‘problem’ discussed the John Towery lawsuit where a government agent successfully sought confidences from a coalition of local anti-war activists. The Fort Lewis military command formally admitted in a lawsuit brought against them in federal court that Mr. Towery had, indeed, been acting as their agent. The first speaker attempted to correlate that as an effort to ‘spy’ on Evergreen students and criticized what he claimed to be dissembling from TESC campus police when they denied sharing information they acquired about student dissidents with other government law enforcement agencies.
professor Peter Bohmer
The next speaker was professor Peter Bohmer, who laid out a 4-point proposal seeking to require the school’s administration to discipline anyone found to be sharing information gleaned from observing students on campus and their activities/associates.
Following these two speakers, the floor was thrown open to questions. None (at least initially) were forthcoming. This reporter asked to address the small group and they consented. His remarks were limited to about 3 minutes. This was later expanded to 7 minutes out of consideration for the small number of attendees and few questions. One faculty member expressed concern over being being monitored on campus, despite being a State employee. Other ‘liberal’ faculty members were curiously absent.
Attendees were cautioned during the 3-minute comment to delineate between academic freedom and an expectation of privacy on a public tax supported college campus–especially in public venues or at public events. It was pointed out how instructors were State employees who had no more right to privacy than any other employee while at their workplace–i.e. none! Professor Peter Bohmer knows he is under close scrutiny by government investigators, thus has attempted to conflate academic freedom with privacy in an effort to use the former as a shield against investigation and monitoring his Marxist driven political activities–many involving ‘direct action’/civil disobedience. e.g. block or shutting down Port of Olympia functions and attempts to prevent or interfere with troop movements between Fort Lewis and the Port of Olympia.
The lawsuit complaining of government attempts to monitor said activities has not, to date, gained much traction in federal court. Serious doubts exist as to whether it will succeed. Larry Hildes, a member of the National Lawers Guild, has been the attorney of record for the plaintiffs. Federal Judge Ben Settle, a local attorney from the Shelton area before being appointed to the bench, has presided over the case which is proceeding in the federal courtroom in Tacoma.
As always, the event reflected TESC culture remains schizoid/paradoxical about 1st Amendment principles such as academic freedom, freedom of the press, rights (or NOT) to privacy in public forums, photography, and a firmly grounded understanding of where the boundaries lie without conflating them. It remains hostile to universal application of 1st Amendment principles involving the press, preferring to rely on vague/fuzzy notions of what’s ‘polite’ rather than the letter of the law. The school appears to have many students, staff, and faculty who lack the grasp of a high school civics class student in these matters–a college with a master’s in public administration degree curriculum where graduates will be assuming roles as judges, public officials and administrators, even leaders in the business community will leave the school dangerously ill informed, but powerful. More Town Meetings are in order, but to address the failure of this public institution to adequately educate its charges.
TESC Faculty member concerned about being monitored
Co-ed attending the TESC ‘Town Hall’ meeting
Your reporting is misguided in that you state that the civil suit against Towery “hasn’t gained much traction” when, in fact, that case won its appeal in November 2012 and is headed to trial in either June or August 2014 – and under another Federal Judge than the wrong one whom you have named. I know, I sat in on the depositions of all of the defendants in that case.
Inasmuch as it hasn’t been adjudicated, just yet, the ‘appeal’ must have been an interim one seeking to overturn a dismissal under either Rule 12(b)(6) or a motion for summary judgment. Since you were there, who is now scheduled to be the presiding federal judge, if not Settle? It will be interesting to see how the trial goes. If Larry Hildes can/wants to go the distance, this could make a difference.
It’s a shame federal courts don’t allow cameras…this would be a good case to cover. Whether the government has the right, in law, to implement surveillance of political dissidents is of public interest. The dubiousness of it succeeding is rooted in our sedition laws dating back to WWI and J. Edgar Hoover. The evidence against Daniel Ellsberg was squashed because it involved a government sponsored burglary of his psychiatrist’s office (fruit of a poisoned tree in legal parlance). How surveillance of a group conspiring to interrupt troop movements and disrupt Port of Olympia functions translates to a tort or violation of the dissidents’ civil rights remains a mystery the trial may solve. That’s not to say it might not have been a fine idea, morally. But how does one overcome the government’s sovereign immunity in issues such as the logistics of war in law?
The anti-war dissidents had a clear agenda: to disrupt the movement of war materiel and troops. The lawsuit appears to suggest the government, through its agents, may not monitor such conspiracies, that this is a violation of 1st Amendment principles–ironically for a group so hostile to the press. The above article points out professor Peter Bohmer, intimately involved in the strategy of disrupting Fort Lewis, not merely protesting, now (knowing he is under intense government scrutiny) is attempting to conflate academic freedom with an expectation of privacy on a public college campus as a State employee. That’s a stretch…one the lawsuit may not be able to reach.
Peter Bohmer is not a plaintiff in the case, so his status as a public employee is not an issue.
PMR is not hostile to journalists, as you insist – nor had it been when it still existed, from 2006 through 2009. Your statement that PMR was “so hostile to the press” makes no sense in light of the extensive coverage which PMR enjoyed on most of the occasions when they challenged the Port of Olympia to follow US Treaty Obligations such as the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the Laws of Land Warfare, etc etc.
I suppose when the local drug enforcement units knock down someone’s door to serve a search warrant, you count that as a “conspiracy to destroy private property” and halt your legal analysis before getting to the warrant or the facts of the evidence found after serving it. You might not agree that the United States signed away its right to unilaterally invade a country which never fired a shot at the United States, and signed agreements which make UN Security Council approval mandatory in all such instances, but that’s the law. You might as well get used to it. The invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan did not follow that path, the US Military simply went in and had a puppet regime invite them to occupy the countries retroactively. It has in the decade or more since then become quite clear that the United States holds itself above the law, but that duty falls on our shoulders as civilians and as citizens, and the laws which make aggressive warfare illegal make this duty abundantly clear.
The theory of the case is not mine to tell you, and it is obvious from your prior attempts at analyzing my photography encounter with Pierce County (which turned on what you knew of journalism law rather than inquiring into the facts of the encounter themselves) that you’re more interested in twisting anything you hear into grist for the “Anarchists hate journalists” axe you constantly grind. Suffice it to say the question of what I was doing to gain the attentions I received from Pierce County have more to do with PMR than with my actual actions that day. I’m not being criminally charged, and I am the plaintiff, in that case. That should be a clue.
The name of the judge is well covered in other media, I think you should probably take the time to read about it, by using Google or some other means of search, rather than ask me. It’s obvious enough that you’re uninterested in the facts of the case if you have to make up which judge is assigned to the case.
Oh, and you take creepy pictures of women who are young enough to be your daughter, or your grandchild. If you’re going to do that at least have the decency to keep them with the socks like everyone else. They don’t belong on the internet, you didn’t get a signed consent form for that kind of photography.
On the contrary, with all due respect, Peter Bohmer was a motivating force behind the ‘Town Hall’ meeting being called. He, and a young man embroiled in the Towery controversy were the primary speakers…as the video shows.
Presumably, ‘PMR’ stands for something to do with Port Military Resistance–just a hunch as you don’t say. Having never encountered the acronym previously, nor covered it at the time Towery was working to monitor it, no comment was made about it, per se, at least not here. What has been observed is a culture of hostility on the TESC campus toward the press, or at least reporters who are not lapdogs for certain political r@dicals there. And yes, Peter Bohmer is among them–always has been. This publication has taken no position on whether anti-war resistance is morally justified. It probably is, at least in this instance. What’s disputed is whether anti-war dissidents have a right/expectation of privacy…especially in public venues or at public events (where the public has access). Furthermore, it appears certain students and professors at TESC are attempting to conflate academic freedom with expectations (or NOT) of privacy. This attempt is disingenuous and manipulative. Given TESC is offered as ground zero for the debate, the argument it is a public institution and the professors there are State employees with NO expectation of privacy is well taken.
Peter Bohmer knows full well he is under scrutiny from government authorities. Those investigating events surrounding Pete’s activities would be remiss if they were NOT scrutinizing them! Moreover, Pete’s lack of transparency as a public employee invites such scrutiny. Employment as a college professor does not give license, in law, to conspire against the state. Any competent law enforcement agency profiles and gathers material facts regarding persons of interest/suspects. That’s what detectives/government undercover agents DO!
Your citations referencing the lessons derived from the Nuremberg trials, international law/treaties, the UN Charter (which the U.S. signed onto), the laws of warfare, and human rights are well taken. After all, what was the point of beating the Nazis only to become just like them. Citizens MUST resist efforts by those who would pervert America to turn it into anything resembling the 3rd Reich, whether by fiat or in all but name only. Still, to argue surveillance of dissent, in law, is somehow ‘illegal’ begs the question: It isn’t a matter of whether it (the surveillance of dissidents) is legal, but whether what is being resisted is JUST! If it is not, then true Americans have as much duty to disobey an intrinsically unjust law as they do to obey just ones. That doesn’t, however, mean the odious law is ‘illegal’ or unconstitutional. Murdering Jews and other minorities through the legal mechanisms of the 3rd Reich was entirely lawful. Nevertheless, we executed those who obeyed such laws as they slaughtered millions of innocent men, women, children, and babies–properly so–because they did not follow a HIGHER law, a higher duty to humanity which was self evident. They committed crimes against humanity (e.g. genocide) just as Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld, et ux, did when they embraced torture, extraordinary renditions, and wars of aggression.
The federal courts are not going to allow Larry Hildes or his clients to use the trial as a political stage. They will weigh whether the conduct complained of was lawful or not, else the lawsuit should have been one seeking equitable relief. It does not. None of this was the linchpin for the TESC ‘Town Hall’ meeting. The meeting was called to orchestrate a change in the code of conduct on campus and allow for the disciplining of those (including campus police) who report student/instructor behavior, activities, and associates to off campus law enforcement agencies. That dog won’t hunt.
Not only does Bohmer attempt to conflate academic freedom with expectations of privacy, but you now attempt (badly) to conflate those views expressed here with egregious U.S. polices which violate human rights, international conventions for warfare, and wars of aggression. Nowhere on this community blog has the editor expressed support for such crimes against humanity. Moreover, this publication has repeatedly called for Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, et ux, to be tried as international war criminals. Coy transparent attempts to infer what was never stated herein will be unmasked because the record, which all may see, speaks for itself. This publication does NOT embrace torture, war crimes, or crimes against humanity (including environmental destruction) or the advocates of such atrocities. All people have a duty to resist such violations of natural rights. But only the obtuse would misconstrue the existing state of the law as the main platform on which to do so. The laws are written by the powerful, the wealthy, the comfortable. i.e. They are written by the very war criminals (and their attorneys/legislators) who should be on trial. You will never get a fair trial in the belly of the beast just as Nazi war criminals would not have had much to fear if they’d been tried in German courts. It’s like asking a jackass to criticize it’s own sh*t or the FBI to investigate itself. Take your case to the Hague or a venue where it can get a fair hearing. The pig is NOT going to cut off its ear and hand you a silk purse made from it. Nor will any amount of lipstick make it less of a pig.
Any errors made in reporting and/or misidentifying you in Pierce County, were based on overconfidence in accepting Scott Yoos’ (a reporter) first impressions when he believed it was you. Reporters make mistakes and this one is no exception, without apology.
“Don’t be afraid to make a mistake; your readers might like it.” -R. Hearst-
Actually, (A)narchist *DO* hate photojournalists, at least a substantial number of them. This can be seen in the numerous attempts to assault, bully, harass, intimidate, and maliciously ‘jacket’ journalists. It is a phenomenon that exists around the globe and dates back many decades, including, for example, the George Jackson Brigade’s (a Marxist oriented violently radical collection of Seattle based criminals in the 70’s) who bombed (among others) 2 branches of the Rainier National Bank because, they stated in their communique, it had connections with the family which owned the Seattle Times, a newspaper they described as ‘bourgeois’.
Tony Overman has been mentioned many times previously in this publication as an example of local antipathy toward the press by area r@dicals and Peter Bohmer’s involvement with them. But seeing this culture/pattern of hostility toward members of the press not seen in their c@mp through the prism of another’s experience wasn’t entirely necessary. Personal experience repeated consistently dictated the same conclusion. It cannot be argued it is an aberration. There is a culture of hostility and misapprehensions at TESC about what a ‘free press’ in America means. Those who willfully maintain such misapprehensions are as problematic as the most ugly totalitarian regimes in this respect.
So often, you have challenged conclusions drawn here regarding this issue. Your disadvantage is this publication has a habit of video and audio recording the events upon which its opinions are based. They speak for themselves, and readers are not only welcome to draw their own conclusions, but have the raw data enabling them to do so. Many violent r@dicals are discomforted by being put on record, but it is precisely their propensity to dissemble that makes such documentation all the more reasonable/necessary…and even for the same reason they argue it should not be done: PERSONAL SAFETY! i.e. They have a track record of assaulting photojournalists–on the TESC campus, in Olympia, and on the streets of Seattle. Many direct and thinly veiled threats have been either posted online or communicated during public meetings or in public spaces. The photos, video, audio, and stories (many of them, not all) have been published RIGHT HERE!
While these same r@dicals relish sticking a camera in the face of the police or officials (not that this isn’t a prudent act), they believe in a two-tiered system of civil rights: Theirs and those of the people they condemn. But facts are troublesome. It just ain’t so. LEO’s are not 2nd class citizens; neither are photojournalists. They have the same rights as every other citizen. While the press has no more legal rights than any citizen, they also have NO LESS! The problem with r@dicals is they appear to believe they can pick and choose who has what rights, setting themselves up extrajudicially as judge, jury, and executioner in such matters. When an intrepid photojournalist resists such blatant violations of civil rights, they go ballistic. No amount of pillow throwing can obliterate the record of their assaults which can be found on Youtube and countless other online forums. The reality is, many (A)narchists are simply the flip side of cops, but without the authority/power. If they had as much, they’d be even worse than the current police state.
The guy who spoke at the TESC ‘Town Hall’ meeting referenced judge Settle in one of his online posts. If you don’t care to mention who the current or anticipated presiding judge is, that’s your choice. It isn’t considered critical here to the thrust of the article. The judge was characterized (Settle) by him as reactionary and the reason why the lawsuit against the city of Olympia was settled. Having seen judge Settle in action, both as a judge and a practicing attorney, that opinion isn’t shared here. Settle is extremely fair, competent, knows the law, and is undeterred in applying it regardless of who might object. It’s a shame the same can’t be said for all the sitting judges in Mason County from whence he came.
Who the anticipated presiding judge will be, while not exactly trivial, isn’t worth the time to research just yet. Once the trial story develops, more will come out without burning too much midnight oil. At this time, readers (with you as the exception) probably don’t care. The best guess here is the case will fail to prevail because the legal basis for the complaint can’t be sufficiently developed to convince a jury. Caution, however, dictates the reminder that juries are ALWAYS a crap shoot. You might get lucky–especially in the wake of the Snowden NSA revelations of which the public is now so aware. It’s a seductive argument Larry Hildes has, if not a legally compelling one.
On occasion, photos of much younger subjects than of young adult coeds are published here. You are fabulously critical, but it’s an editorial prerogative. Age has no bearing on expectations of privacy in public places. ‘Permission’ is not required for non-commercial editorial purposes. You probably knew that, but were just checking…right? It has not escaped the notice of this editor how very provincial and prudish (putting it mildly) so many r@dicals prove to be when it comes to pretty women. They’re not alone in paling before anal and mammary cleavages. The puritanical city commissioners of Shelton and the LDS leadership come to mind. You might want to read the article written here about the invasion of bikini barristas being narrowly averted in Shelton.
Thank God for the 1st Amendment in our U.S. Constitution. You and your p@ls give a peek into what a world without it would look like. You would censor this blog based on your bias about whether the permission of the subject covered was obtained. A ‘free press’ wouldn’t mean much under those circumstances. Moreover, you’ve expressed the sentiment the age of the photographer has something to do with what can/should be published. Where did you find this canard?–Church? What does publishing the photo of a pretty young adult coed have to do with socks? Projecting much? At a certain level, you’re obsession about gender, age, and dress is not only insulting to the photographer (assuming you *know* who that is given you didn’t attend the event), but demeaning to the subject. Is it now the purview of middle aged white men (yourself) to dictate what pretty young women should wear or when they should be photographed or by who? You speak of errors in trivial editorial details but speak as though you KNOW no permission was sought/given by the subject of your assertion. Do you?–even if it were required. Are you most disturbed by her beauty?…her age?…her gender?…her dress?…by the age of the supposed photographer?…by the supposed lack of ‘permission’ to photograph?…by the fact ‘permission’, in law, isn’t required?…by the fact you have no editorial control over this publication?
“Journalism is printing what someone doesn’t want published. Everything else is public relations.” -G. Orwell-
Perhaps you should be thanked–for demonstrating what would become of the press in America if you and certain r@dicals were given a chance to reorder the civil rights too many Americans have taken for granted. To preserve the freedoms we have as Americans requires we remain constantly vigilant against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic, and to consistently EXERCISE them, else we shall lose them. Again, thanks for serving as an example of why/how this is so.
Regards.
Where to begin? You skirt the issues, try to redefine what you already wrote, and miss the point entirely.
You directly referenced the group engaging in blockades of the Ports, to stop shipments. That group was called PMR. If you didn’t know what you were talking about before you began writing, then I really don’t think you have the first notion of what being a journalist really means. Hint: it isn’t about rambling on in quantity to hide the fact that you have no idea what subject you are addressing.
You express confusion at the notion that the plaintiffs in the Towery lawsuit are suing, yet the third amended complaint in that case is well covered in the press, available online, and explains itself nicely. You comment on the quality of Larry’s case but you have no idea what his case is. Get a PACER account since you obviously will need one.
You conflate the Town Hall Meeting you cover above with the issues in the Towery lawsuit, the latter of which is the only aspect I commented upon. You conflate your personal beef with anarchists, and their supposed treatment of journalists, with both Peter Bohmer and the civil suit against Towery. You conflate the right to take photos in public, with the taste to refrain from holding up young women as objects of prurient interest. You conflate being a journalist with a motivation to understand the facts with being an asshole and a stalker, who can’t be civil or respect clearly articulated boundaries.
You also mistake the judge in the Strife civil suit (the one which settled before trial) with the one in the civil suit against Towery. Why would you assume these are the same judge? That’s just lazy, that’s not midnight oil.
You’re motivated by animus, not curious as to the facts, and a waste of everyone’s time.
The TESC ‘Town Hall’ meeting (which is what the article was intended to cover) started off with a young speaker who referenced the lawsuit against the city of Olympia and the Towery case. No, every blow hasn’t been followed in either case; nor, despite a Pacer account, will it be.
It’s not the ‘quality’ of Larry Hildes’ case, he’s simply representing the plaintiffs, but the quality of the case the plaintiffs have. This premise is based on the fact the government has always reserved the right to monitor its perceived enemies. It is not supposed to violate the law by invading privacy where an expectation of privacy exists or specific statutory authority prohibiting such conduct exists. Governments, including this one, traditionally monitor suspected seditious elements. If Towery had violated a criminal statute by monitoring your group, I believe he’d have been arrested for it, not commended. There’s no ‘right’, in law, to conspire against the U.S. Government or the U.S. military. Yet the ‘Town Hall’ meeting proponents inferred such acts could be shielded under the guise of academic freedom or possibly an expectation (non-existent) of privacy on campus by State employees from their employer, the State.
In short, the Towery case was introduced by one speaker who had, in your parlance, a personal agenda and it was settled out of court with the City of Olympia–basically for its nuisance value. The PMR was never covered here, nor is it likely to be unless a way into court with camera in hand is found. The basics are sufficient and have already been reported by many. It’s an old story now. Dissidents attempted to interfere with the Ft. Lewis command’s efforts to ship war materiel through the Port of Olympia and troop movements. The government ADMITTEDLY assigned an agent to monitor those activities and any planning/conspiracies to promote them. The lawsuit alleges it was somehow improper or illegal for the government to document all this. Unless some office/home was burglarized or expectation of privacy, in law, breached, the claim is a fiction. Tracking your political beliefs and associates may arguably be repugnant, but it’s not illegal. It never has been. Despite the scandal of almost universal phone data being gathered by our own government, so far as is known, no resulting arrest warrants having been issued.
Your ‘boundaries’ are not shared, not here–neither your ‘values’ or definition of where they lie. You, and your p@ls, may have engaged in civil disobedience, but scream like stuck pigs when called on it. You CONFLATE any ‘right’ to anonymity (sometimes appropriate for PURE Speech) with the misapprehension dissidents engaged in civil disobedience are entitled to remain nameless and unknown to the government. That simply isn’t true, neither in law, nor logic. A government cannot provide for the national defense if it is not allowed to know who its enemies are or investigate those suspected of being among them. In fact, law enforcement is not only permitted to LIE to suspects, but encouraged to do so.
Respect for ‘civil discourse here extends much farther than what you’re capable of. It is YOU who are the ‘st@lker’ (snitch hunter in chief) and who projects your own twisted perversions on others. This pattern of hyper-paranoia and navel g@zing among NW r@dicals continues virtually unbroken. It’s been said there’s no accounting for ‘taste’, certainly not yours it should be added. There’s nothing prurient about any photo taken by any photographer on assignment from this publication other than your labeling it as such by your own confabulated lights. Your assertion to the contrary says much more about you than anyone else. This publication is not responsible for whatever mental health issues you may have. You’ll have to deal with those on your own. Few would get as excited about an on campus photo of an adult coed as you; but lacking much of substance, it may give you something to gossip about. Admittedly, editorial independence is intended as a thumb in the eye of prudes such as yourself–enemies of 1st Amendment principles and many other fundamental liberties–and instructive to others, though it’s not central to why the TESC ‘Town Hall’ meeting was called. There’s no good reason whatsoever to refrain from photographing an adult as they appear in public or to engage in self censorship in deference to your disapproval. The more persons like yourself gripe about it, the more newsworthy it seems to be. Those *ARE* the ‘boundaries’!–at least here. Nor do you set the rules or standards here. Reporting will continue without fear nor favor–not the advocacy journalism you seek, but adversarial journalism–whether that be a photo that seems to leave you short of breath, or unfettered critiques of violent lifestyle r@dicals who reject just laws to massage their own egos. If you/they squirm under such scrutiny, so much the better.
Your hyper-inflated criticisms about trivial errors were discussed today in a ‘media convergence’ held in Olympia. Dana (publisher of the ‘Thunderbolt’) observed this mincing was quite common when the critic had nothing of substance to disparage. You may be a plaintiff waiting for trial in federal court, but this isn’t all about YOU. It’s about violent @narchists who think they can resort to crimes of aggression to make their point or hide behind civil rights inapplicable to that criminal conduct.
Take note. Almost no readers, at THIS point, care what judge you had hearing your case heretofore. This editor is probably the only one besides Larry Hildes who cares simply because of awareness who the judge is can be as important, if not more so, than what the law says. Fear of making a minor error won’t dissuade from making more substantial observations which are material. If you feel it was important, you could have clarified who the judge was as you’ve been allowed more liberty to comment here than you deserve. That you did not reveals someone more interested in nitpicking than setting the record straight about material/relevant facts. Sometimes, as here, what is NOT said/heard is more important than what is. Thank you for demonstrating this uncomfortable truth.
As usual, the raw video of the event was included in the article so readers who wish to do so can draw their own conclusions. This wouldn’t be possible if anyone like yourself had editorial control over the content published here. Fortunately, you do not and never will–because you’re not the main course, only a distraction…and “waste of everyone’s time”.
Regards.
One thing I want to discuss is that weight loss program fast is possible by the appropriate diet and exercise. A person’s size not only affects the look, but also the quality of life. Self-esteem, major depression, health risks, and physical ability are affected in an increase in weight. It is possible to just make everything right and still gain. In such a circumstance, a condition may be the culprit. While a lot of food and never enough physical exercise are usually responsible, common health conditions and widespread prescriptions may greatly increase size. Many thanks for your post here.