A Fall River, MA. man has been charged with violating the Massachusetts wiretapping statute for recording a police officer talking on his cell phone and cursing while working a street detail.
by Carlos Miller of PINAC (3-8-14)
Fall River, MA — A Massachusetts cop who had been sitting in his car, cursing loudly into a cell phone, noticed another man appearing to video record him from his front porch, so he put his phone down and asked the man if he was, indeed, recording.
“That’s right, I’m videoing you,” confirmed George Thompson, who said he had his arm fully extended, holding his iPhone in full view.
Fall River police officer Thomas Barboza then stepped out of his car and stormed up to Thompson, arresting him on state wiretapping charges, calling him a “fucking welfare bum.”
Thompson spent the night in jail as Barboza placed the phone in the evidence room.
And then the footage mysteriously disappeared from the phone.
Well, that’s the story Fall River Police Chief Daniel Racine is spinning to the local media, trying to convince them that Thompson went on iCloud and deleted the footage to prevent them from viewing it
Thompson – who spent a night in jail after the arrest – said Officer Barboza confiscated his iPhone. A review of the video would likely clear up the issue of concealment, but Fall River Police Chief Daniel Racine said the iPhone was erased while it was in an evidence room at the police station. They have issued a warrant to Apple Inc. to find out how the phone was reset.
“If a Fall River police officer erased that video, he’s fired and I would suspect the district attorney would take out charges,” Racine said. “If any other individual did that, we will take out felony charges.”
An iPhone can be wiped out remotely in the event it gets lost or stolen, but Thompson denied that he did so, saying he gave his password to police so officers could retrieve the video to use in his case.
“I wanted the police to see it, I wanted everybody in the city to see it,” Thompson said.
Huge mistake on Thompson’s part to provide them the password. Why even have a password if you’re going to hand it to the same thieves that stole it from you?
But that pretty much makes it clear that police deleted the video because why would the 51-year-old man, who doesn’t seem very tech savvy, go through the trouble of erasing the footage remotely after he voluntarily provided his password?
The truth is, this was an unlawful arrest, despite the claims that Thompson was surreptitiously recording, which is a crime in Massachusetts, even in areas where people don’t have an expectation of privacy.
After all, how else did Barboza notice him recording in the first place?
But Thompson doesn’t seem to have a lot of money, so it’s obvious the cops are going to drag this out in the hopes he strikes a plea deal, which would prevent him from suing them.
However, Thompson also seems to have a lot of fight in him, even posting a sign in front of his house stating “bad cop, no donut,” so it doesn’t look as if he will be accepting any deals soon.
Thompson was also charged with resisting arrest, which we all know is the added contempt-of-cop charge they love to tack on.
But in adding that charge, he admitted that Thompson was openly holding the phone in his right hand, which indicates he was not recording surreptitiously.
“In attempting to placed [sic] the cuff on the right wrist, he resisted pulling his hands apart,” Barboza wrote. “Thompson was at the time holding his video taping phone in his right hand. I then knocked the phone from his hand and pushed him onto the porch floor.”
The Supreme Judicial Court has held that a recording is “secret” unless the subject has “actual knowledge” of the fact of recording. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 349 N.E.2d 337, 340 (Mass. 1976). It has also made clear that “actual knowledge” can be proven by “objective manifestations of knowledge” to “avoid the problems involved in speculating as to the [subject’s] subjective state of mind.” Id. at 340-41. Moreover, the court has noted that “actual knowledge” does not require that there be any explicit acknowledgment of or reference to the fact of the recording. Id. at 340 (“[T]he person recording the conversation [need not] confirm the [subject’s] apparent awareness by acknowledging the fact of the intercepting device.”).
Barboza’s actions are not surprising considering Racine’s capability to spin this story in support of the officer, whom the chief claims was suspended without pay after admitting to using foul language on the phone – a claim I would love to see verified because I’m not believing a word out of his mouth.
There are several apps out there that allow you to store your footage remotely, preventing cops from deleting it if they confiscate your phone, but I’ve been experimenting with one called Fi-Vo that automatically stores the video in your Dropbox account.
Police Rationalize Murdering Unarmed Anaheim Latino for Dress & Neighborhood
Manuel Diaz with his daughter in undated family photo
Rania Khalek
by Ranika Khalek (3-7-14)
Anaheim, CA — On July 27, 2012, 24-year-old Manuel Diaz was shot in the back of the head by Anaheim police officer Nick Bennallack. Officers then stood over Diaz, who was unarmed, for three minutes, watching him twitch and bleed out before doing anything. It was an execution.
Almost two years later, a federal jury has rejected a lawsuit against the officer and the city filed by Diaz’s mother claiming police used excessive force. Why? Because it happened in a neighborhood where there are gangs and Diaz was, according to police, dressed like a “gang member”.
One of the jurors said that on Anna Drive, where the shooting happened, police could reasonably expect that a man dressed like a gang member and running from them could have a gun. The neighborhood is claimed by an Anaheim gang that was at the center of a multi-agency firearms and narcotics investigation.
In other words, had this happened in an upper-class suburban neighborhood free of gang activity, perhaps then it would qualify as excessive force. But, in the working class and poor Latino neighborhoods of Anaheim, young men like Diaz are fair game for police execution, armed or not (Diaz was not).
Humberto Guizar, the Diaz family attorney, called the jury’s decision, “ an indictment on the community,” adding, “They denied him justice because of where he lived.”
The jury, comprised of six men and two women (four white, three Latino and one Asian), deliberated for just two hours before reaffirming the long held belief that unarmed Latino men are disposable.
To be clear, “gang member” is code for nonwhite, usually black or Latino. Immediately after Diaz was killed, Anaheim police (in between shooting rubber bullets at women and children protesting the killing) painted him as a gang member who despite being unarmed probably did something to deserve his fate. And it worked. The cop who killed Diaz was cleared of any wrongdoing by the city. All that was left was this lawsuit brought forth by Diaz’s grieving mother. She plans to appeal.
Baltimore, MD — Still not having finalized the $250,000 settlement for deleting a man’s images from his phone, the Baltimore Police Department continues to harass and intimidate photographers, including a photojournalist from the Baltimore Sun last month who was trying to photograph the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting.
Obviously, they would rather not let the image of a man shot by police make it into the newspaper.
But they once again opened themselves up to liability by shoving photo editor Chris Assaf away from the crime scene tape, where he had every right to be, while allowing countless other citizens who were merely watching to remain behind the tape as evidenced in the last sentence of this story.
However, another Sun photographer, Lloyd Fox, managed to photograph the bullying, posting the images on their news site, revealing a fascinating sequence of photos showing Assaf and the cop coming to a head-to-head standstill in the middle of the street.
Very impressive effort from Assaf. I wonder if he switched any of his cameras to video mode to capture the verbal exchange.
While photographing outside the police tape — which marked the established perimeter — an officer told him he would have to move across the street. Assaf protested, stating he was outside the established perimeter of the crime scene and he had every right to photograph from where he was standing.
While asking for the officer’s name, a second police officer grabbed Assaf and began pushing him across the street. Assaf on numerous occasions requested that the officer release him, saying that his rights were being violated. Baltimore Sun photographer Lloyd Fox witnessed and documented the scene. Baltimore Police said they are investigating the allegations.
If this were an isolated incident caused by one overzealous police officer, it might be possible to look past it. But, as I wrote in the 2012 blog post, there seems to be a misconception among some police officers and others in authority that they can stop not only the press but anyone taking pictures or recording police activity at a crime scene.
The good news is that a mainstream media publication is willing to admit this was not “an isolated incident,” which is generally the attitude they take when one of their photographers gets harassed in order to not ruin their professional relationship with the cops.
But relationships work both ways. If one side disrespects the other, the other side should not hesitate to call them out on it.
Besides, Baltimore police have such a sordid history of violating the rights of photographers that the United States Department of Justice issued them a set of guidelines in 2012 they must follow. But we haven’t heard much from the USDOJ since.
The Sun interviewed the president of the Maryland State Fraternal Order of Police, so he gave the customary spin as agreeing that we do have the right to record cops, but that sometimes the videos don’t tell the whole story – neglecting to acknowledging that many times, police reports don’t tell the whole story, which is why we should record every interaction with police.
One cop who didn’t bother with the usual spin was Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson, whose officer was caught on camera last month pushing and shoving a videographer, telling him he had “lost” his freedom of speech.
“The words of and demands to cease filming by sworn personnel and citizen volunteer auxiliary officers were incorrect, inappropriate and unnecessary,” Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson said in a statement. “They were not helpful in bringing this incident to closure. As we already have stated, all aspects of this encounter are under investigation, and all personnel will be held accountable for their actions.”
In fact, Johnson placed the officer on unpaid administrative leave. But then again, the cop was an auxiliary officer, meaning he simply volunteers as an officer, so maybe he was trying to earn himself a paid position.
We will never know because as critical as Johnson was of the officer’s actions, he never did release his name, which is important for us to keep a track record of officers in case they become habitual offenders. No different than what they do to us.
So remember, next time you get harassed for recording on the streets, do your best to ask the officer’s name, which is usually required under departmental policy.
But be forewarned. Cops don’t like it when you ask their names so many times they will arrest you, telling you their name will be included in the arrest report.
Baltimore Sun photographer Christopher T. Assaf is confronted by police at the scene of a shooting along Centre Street under I-83.
Robert Hamilton says of the incident:
A police officer forcibly escorted Baltimore Sun photo editor Chris Assaf away from the scene of a police-involved shooting on Feb. 21. He had been taking pictures from outside the police lines, but an officer told him he had to move back further. Assaf protested, stating he was within his First Amendment rights to be where he was standing. Another officer then forced him to move. The Sun is posting all of Assaf’s images from the shooting scene as well as photos taken by Sun photographer Lloyd Fox, who witnessed and documented the incident.
Lt. Eric Kowalczk, the chief spokesman for the Baltimore Police Department, said the department has opened an internal investigation into the allegation. He declined to comment more specifically on the incident, “because we have an investigation and we don’t want to prejudice that.”
A recent event brought this close to home when Baltimore Sun photo editor Chris Assaf was confronted by a Baltimore City police officer at the scene of a police-involved shooting. The incident happened in close proximity to The Sun at the intersection of Centre Street and Guilford Avenue, so Assaf was able to respond quickly to the scene.
While photographing outside the police tape — which marked the established perimeter — an officer broke the tape and told him he would have to move across the street. Assaf protested, stating he was outside the established perimeter of the crime scene and he had every right to photograph from where he was standing.
While asking for the officer’s name, a second police officer grabbed Assaf and began pushing him across the street. Assaf on numerous occasions requested that the officer release him, saying that his rights were being violated. Baltimore Sun photographer Lloyd Fox witnessed and documented the scene. Baltimore Police said they are investigating the allegations.
If this were an isolated incident caused by one overzealous police officer, it might be possible to look past it. But, as I wrote in the 2012 blog post, there seems to be a misconception among some police officers and others in authority that they can stop not only the press but anyone taking pictures or recording police activity at a crime scene.
Just recently Sergio Gutierrez was recording Maryland State Police making arrests outside a Towson bar. With the video camera rolling, an officer approached him and told him to stop because he was distracting them. When Gutierrez asked what law he was violating, an officer gets up close and tells him to “shut your [expletive] mouth or you’re going to jail.”
Gutierrez responded, “I thought I have freedom of speech.” The officer responded, “You just lost it,” as the camera is jostled and the person recording says he is being pushed.
In response, the Baltimore County Police Chief said in a statement, “The words and demands to cease filming by sworn personnel and citizen volunteer auxiliary officers were incorrect, inappropriate and unnecessary.”
Maryland State Fraternal Order of Police President John “Rodney” Bartlett stated, “From when I started policing 35 years ago, it’s clearly changed. I think all of these officers out there, no matter where we are or what generation, have a certain sense now that there is a possibility that they are being recorded, they are being filmed. Based on that, we encourage our officers to be aware of that and conduct themselves accordingly.” But he also said that sometimes clips that surface on the Internet or news reports don’t tell the whole story.
“Sometimes it doesn’t capture the whole perspective of what’s happening,” he said. He cited an example of a tape where an officer’s conduct is questioned, but police obtain footage from a nearby business surveillance system that shows bottles were being thrown at the officer.
When confronting a photographer who is taking pictures in a public area such as a train station, police and other officials will often cite the Patriot Act as forbidding photography. The Patriot Act does not forbid photography.
Someone who has been at the forefront of defending photographers’ rights is Mickey H. Osterreicher, General Counsel for the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and editor of their press advocacy blog. In an article written in May 2011 by Baltimore Sun reporter Michael Dresser, Osterreicher stated, “I call it the Patriot Act gone wild. For some reason, police see someone with a camera and they don’t want them to take pictures or want to assert their authority.”
Osterreicher did a Q&A on the subject with The New York Times blog, LENS, in which he addressed the attack on photographers’ rights to take pictures in public places. New York Times freelance photographer Robert Stolarik was arrested in August 2012 while photographing police during a street brawl.
As mentioned, the Baltimore City police have had their own issues dealing with photographers filming or photographing police officers. In 2010, Christopher Sharp had his cell phone confiscated after filming police arresting a woman during an altercation at Preakness. Sharp, represented by the ACLU, filed suit against the Baltimore Police Department. Four years later, Baltimore is set to pay $250,000 to Sharp, according to a settlement proposal that will be presented to the city’s spending panel this month.
The Baltimore Sun’s photographers grapple with public access issues quite often. Even though the laws are fairly cut and dry, the response from authority figures is not. Whether it’s a security guard, Maryland Transit Administration official or police, there are too many times when someone looks to assert authority when it’s inappropriate.
Meanwhile, our photographers strive to remain as professional and polite as possible while still defending their First Amendment rights as members of the press and as citizens.
(Robert Hamilton is The Baltimore Sun’s director of photography. Sun reporters Justin Fenton and Colin Campbell also contributed to this article.)
Mark Lambrych had a very unfortunate and suspect brush with the law in his community. He describes how he was assaulted, arrested, and charged as follows:
“Corrupt Video just recovered, more videos still to repair after in police custody for a false violation!
After just calling 911, A police car drives by me even though I’m flagging it down on a narrow road, he drives right past me. I approach the police car wait next to it, obviously indicated that I’m waiting to speak to the officer. INSTEAD the officer approaches me and attacks. Charges me with obstruction of governmental administration a misdemeanor. Penalty 1 year jail. The data on the phone was corrupt and shows signs of tampering and erased data.
Someone online was able to recover one corrupt video. Working on the other parts where I’m screaming in pain and it gets much worse.
The dashcam video they clam was not in the police car at the time, and records of the 911 call have been unable to obtain.
There is even more to recover. If you would like to help recover the other files feel free to download them here: https://mega.co.nz/#F!cFNT1IIb!F_ILHh94qqY9o76gGAH9vA
This event happened the 18th. of july 2013 The officer is still working, and I have a very nice picture of him to help others say clear of a similar situation.”
——————————————
“Managed to retrieve the audio track”
by Carlos Miller of PINAC
Oneida, NY — Even after Mark Lambrych recovered the footage that had been deleted after his arrest, showing a volatile deputy storming up to him and yelling “get the fuck out of here” before pouncing on him and arresting him, ordering him to “stop resisting” as Lambrych pleads that he is not resisting, his lawyer still believes he is guilty.
Guilty of video recording the cop from a public street instead of leaving as he was told. Guilty of harassing a neighbor for pointing a camera towards his home. And guilty of pretending to be a journalist when he doesn’t even work for a television station or newspaper.
But obviously you get what you pay for when you opt for a public defender in Oneida County in upstate New York, one who specializes in divorce law. Especially when your alleged “victim” is one of the most well-connected and influential men in town.
But if anybody is guilty, it is Oneida sheriff’s deputy Lee David Broniszewski for attacking him, then deleting his footage as well as for filing a false police report against Lambrych, which left him in jail for ten days on a single charge of obstructing governmental administration where he was not even allowed a single phone call to have someone bail him out.
And if anybody else is guilty it is purported victim Patsy Duggleby, a 66-year-old man who not only sits on the planning board of Vienna, a lakeside town of less than 6,000, but calls himself the “captain of the fire police,” meaning he may have been on the scene of at least two fires that led to the arrest of fellow firefighters on arson charges last year.
Duggleby, who once sat on the town’s ethics board, lied in a deposition about the events that took place on July 18, 2013, claiming that Lambrych had not only harassed him earlier that year at the scene of a house fire, which is believed to have been started by arson, but had trespassed on his property and become belligerent with the deputy on the day of his arrest.
And Lambrych’s lawyer, George Massoud, can be heard on an audio recording telling his client a number of ludicrous things like he should not have placed his hand up when the deputy was about to pounce on him, which can be seen in the :32 mark as clearly a natural reaction and not violent in any way, or that he has less rights to shoot video in public because he is not an “accredited member of the media.”
New York is a one-party consent state when it comes to recording conversations, meaning you do not have to advise the person you are talking to that you are recording, which is why we’re able to provide the clips below.
Mark’s PD (public dump) court appointed lawyer dissembles regarding tapes
Mark’s PD (public dump) lawyer misinforms him about citizen photography
Massoud has been urging him to accept a plea deal where he would be forbidden from ever pointing a camera in the direction of Duggleby’s home, which he rejected because he never leaves home without at least two cameras and he maintains a Facebook page called Oneida Lake Campgroundswhere he is always posting photos of the area.
“I live within eyesight of his home,” he said in an extensive interview with Photography is Not a Crime. ”What happens if I get a pair of Google glasses and even look in that direction?”
The problem is, he can’t afford a proper lawyer. And from the sounds of it, it doesn’t appear as if any lawyer in that town would want to go against Duggleby.
So up until now, he has been fighting this on his own, even though he is scared, confused and unsure of whom to believe (it took more than a day to persuade him to even go on the record with me).
But, Mark is strong enough not to accept his lawyer’s plea deal. And, he was smart enough to recover the video files from his camera after they finally returned it to him last month, more than seven months after his arrest.
Even when he realized the files were corrupted, he was persistent enough in finding somebody who could repair them, ending up on Reddit where more than 80 people participated in the challenge, recovering several clips, which when pieced together, prove Lambrych’s innocence. (you can see them below.)
From there, the video of his arrest went viral, but up until now, the story hasn’t been told.
Denied Access to Public Land
The problem is that Duggleby has been treating the public land across the street from his home, Fels Street to be exact, as his private property, chasing Vienna residents off when they try to use it to launch their boats into the creek. He even placed a flagpole on that land in a defiant territorial claim.
It got to the point where a small group of residents launched a petition in the hopes to get town officials to recognize the property as public, but it only generated 11 signatures, obviously not enough to sway officials against Duggleby. Click here on Google Maps to get a better idea of the area, even though it doesn’t offer a Street View.
The Arsons
Then there were the arsons. A whole string of them during the first part of last year that kept all the local volunteer fire departments busy.
One of these fires started at the home of Lambrych’s friend last April, which was unoccupied at the time because it is used seasonally. But, Lambrych always makes it a point to keep his eye on the home because it had been burglarized a few years earlier (by an ex-cop nonetheless), so he rode his bike up to the scene with his cameras to start taking photos.
Lambrych was chased off by firefighters and deputies, who accused him of obstructing, as he explains in an e-mail:
I stood next to some plain-clothes guy and he asked me who I was filming for, assuming I was part of a news crew as everyone does. I told him I was filming for the owner, then the fire chief came over (I think it was the chief), asked me who I worked for I said no one. When I said this, he got into my face and touched the cameras and said he doesn’t want to be goddamn filmed and called a deputy over. The deputy grabbed and shoved my camera down.
The fire had already been put out and there didn’t appear to be much damage, so he didn’t bother sticking around, riding his bike to a friend’s house where he stayed a few hours before heading back home. That was when he noticed a white pickup truck in front of his friend’s house with the engine running and the windows fogged up.
Mark rode up to take a closer look when he met Duggleby for the first time. Duggleby immediately ordered him away, threatening to run him over with his truck. Lambrych rode away and didn’t think too much of the incident until he received a court summons a few weeks later.
Below is Duggleby’s complaint of harassment against Lambrych that led to the summons, which has since morphed into his July arrest as a single case.
Less than a month after this encounter, two local firefighters, including a volunteer fire chief, were arrested on arson charges for fires unrelated to the one mentioned above. One of the men was captured in the act by a trail camera. One can understand their aversion to cameras.
There were several other fires believed to be arson, including the fire at Mark’s friend’s home, which have not been tied to the two men arrested. One has since pleaded guilty,
admitting he started the fire while trying to steal copper wire from the residence.
“There were a lot of unusual house fires during the time,” Mark noted. “After the firemen were arrested, there haven’t been anymore I know of.”
The Arrest
On July 13, 2013, Lambrych was standing on the public strip of land across the street from Duggleby’s home, taking photos of Fish Creek for his Facebook page, when Duggleby walked out of the house, ordering him away from the area.
One of Lambrych’s recovered videos shows Duggleby first telling him to leave the area, then telling him to “come over here” after Lambrych suggested he call the police.
Yet, when Lambrych did walk towards him, crossing the street onto the property with camera recording, Duggleby then ordered him to “Get off my fucking property!” Mark did.
Lambrych then called the local police and waited for them to respond while remaining on the public river bank across the street from Duggleby’s property. This view can be seen in one of the videos below.
Duggleby called the police too, according to his deposition (below). It alleges Lambrych wouldn’t leave the public area in front of Duggleby’s home while holding the camera. Duggleby’s wife, Mary, claimed she felt “threatened” by Lambrych’s actions in her deposition, insisting she wants “criminal action taken against Mark for coming here and filming us and scaring me”. (below)
Deputy Broniszewski arrived, he pulled up in front of Duggleby’s home and began talking to him in his front yard. Wanting to give the deputy his side of the story, Lambrych rode his bike up behind Broniszewski’s car to wait his turn.
Oneida Sheriff’s deputy Lee David Broniszewski
Deputy Broniszewski ordered him to “get the fuck out of here,” which led to his arrest. [Standard police procedure is to separate the parties in conflict upon arriving at the scene, before questioning them independently and out of earshot from one another.]
In the ten worst days of his life, Mark was not allowed to make a phone call. He was placed in a suicide ward.
“The conditions inside were very disturbing,” he said. “The medical attention I requested fell on deaf ears.”
He still faces charges of harassment and ‘obstructing governmental administration’. He really needs a lawyer. On the bright side, he has already been in contact with the ACLU of Syracuse, so hopefully, they will step in.
Oneida County Sheriff: (315) 765-2200.
Mark states, “This guy yells at me on public land, then calls me over to his land and says I was trespassing and harassing him. The side of the road where he calls me from is public state land, thats my bike on the side of the road.
I called 911, and later was arrested for obstruction of governmental administration and savagely attacked by the officer. Police dashcam was visible to me, yet the police department said their was no camera in the car that day at all. The 911 call I didn’t even know it was recording on my other phone, which is good because the 911 call’s was also conveniently missing. When the officer took my phone the videos of him attacking me they seemed to have been erased some m4v files, and tampered with at a time when not in my possession was detected with software. How did I figure this, out about my phone, well I was there and the unerase software logs show dates. However the videos are damaged and i can’t recover yet.
If you can repair these .m4v files. Please let me know. here is the link. it will show the truth, a police officer attacking me, I called 911 yes, also the savage attack afterwards. An unlawful arrest and imprisonment.”
Mark says of this 2nd video clip, “July 18, 2013 8:26pm, An assault on an innocent person and unlawful arrest by this officer? The camera’s ‘m4v’ video appears to have been tampered with. Alterations appear to have been made on July 19, 2013 prior to receiving it from the sheriffs department.”
San Francisco, CA — After being penned like an animal and arrested inside an official “free-speech zone,” a San Francisco-area journalist has filed suit against BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department, for planning his arrest ahead of time.
David Morse, known to the readers of Indybay.org as ‘Dave Id’, was arrested and held in jail along with dozens of protesters after documenting a protest at the Powell Street Station in 2011. Prior to the announced “No Justice No BART” demonstration, BART decided to shut down over one-half of the Powell Street station, forcing the crowd of demonstrators, media, and passengers into a small section of the station. BART riot police then surrounded dozens of demonstrators and journalists for arrest.
After a BART officer grabbed a demonstration organizer by his backpack and lifted him off of the ground, BART’s riot police circled the demonstrators from all directions and trapped the entire group of protesters and media. Police claimed the suspects were blocking the movements of people within the subway station.
But, Morse later learned they had planned his arrest before the protest.
While the other credentialed journalists were released without arrest at the subway station, Morse was arrested and held at the San Francisco city jail. Morse, who has written about BART for years, believes he was singled out specifically for arrest by BART Police Deputy Chief Dan Hartwig, who knew Morse and his work as a journalist covering BART.
Chief Hartwig’s “retaliatory animus” may end up costing BART in court, as a Federal Judge ruled last month that Morse can sue BART Police for their retaliatory arrest.
“They first tried to say that I was chanting and ‘marching’ along with protesters, deliberately blocking fare gates, but after more and more evidence came out, including their own video of me, they’ve changed their tune, now arguing my mere presence combined with people walking around me justified my arrest,” said Morse.
Morse’s case was likely helped by the fact officers admitted in depositions they discussed arresting Morse in their planning meeting before the protest, even printing his picture out on a flier prior to his arrest. (ibid)
Morse is no stranger to the legal arena. After suing the UC Berkeley Police Department, receiving a $162,500 settlement in 2012 following an unlawful arrest that occurred while documenting a protest on campus, Morse is once again seeking damages from public employees paid to “serve and protect.”
BART has a notorious history of serving the public, including tasing a man for no reason, murdering Oscar Grant, not to mention killing homeless men Fred Collins and Charles Hill in separate incidents. Johannes Mehserle, the BART officer who shot Grant in the back while another officer had Grant pinned to the ground, was released from prison after serving 11 months for the crime.
While BART’s settlement to Grant’s family has yet to make a lasting impact on the culture of the department, Morse hopes his case teaches BART not “to penalize journalists it doesn’t like.” The majority of the people arrested at the Powell Street protest chose not to file a lawsuit after being arrested on a pretense in retaliation for exercising their free-speech in BART’s designated ‘free-speech zone’.
The idea of a ‘free-speech zone’ in the first place is a Constitutional anathema to many. For those who find the police infringing further on First Amendment rights, going the extra mile in court may be the step that makes all the difference. While Morse’s case, “is far from over, and victory is not guaranteed,” civil suits provide people with a way to teach police departments like BART no one is above the law–a potential payday for the litigant’s defense of free speech.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff published numerous stories that were, at best, critical of BART and BART police officers, in particular. Plaintiff openly mocked and ridiculed the agency and its officers. These declarations did not go unnoticed at BART. For instance, Hartwig testified that he “maybe” discussed Plaintiff’s articles with Fairow and Chief Rainey. (Dkt. No. 64-1, Ex. A at 43:1-15.) Four other officers also testified they read at least some of Plaintiff’s articles, including Fairow who testified that he read any of Plaintiff’s articles that had to do with the protests. Further, Fairow—who was personally criticized and mocked in at least two of Plaintiff’s articles—ordered the creation of a flyer depicting Plaintiff and Cantor as the primary subjects of the day’s protest. The flyer was discussed and handed out to officers at a briefing the day of the protest. While Hartwig denies he was at the briefing, two other officers testified that he was in attendance. The officers were told that if either Plaintiff or Cantor was witnessed violating the law, he was to be arrested. In other words, Plaintiff was singled out, possibly to retaliate against him for his inflammatory articles.
Further, a reasonable trier of fact could find that Hartwig’s comment to the media following the protest that no “legitimate” members of the press were arrested, suggests animosity towards Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s reporting. While Hartwig testified that “legitimate” members of the media were journalists “we could identify” as a member of the media (Dkt. No. 64-1, Ex. A at 132:11-13), Plaintiff would have presumably fallen into this category since Plaintiff testified that he was wearing his press credentials around his neck during the protest and while he was being arrested. Moreover, it is undisputed that Hartwig knew Plaintiff was a journalist, and, as discussed above, there is evidence that Plaintiff’s conduct at the protest did not go beyond that of other journalists at the protest who were not arrested. A rational jury could thus infer that Hartwig did not consider Plaintiff a “legitimate” member of the media because of the content of Plaintiff’s speech. A rational jury could further infer that this animosity carried over into Hartwig’s arrest of Plaintiff, which occurred only shortly before Hartwig made his comment.
A reasonable trier of fact could also call into question the motivations underlying the arrest given that Plaintiff was subject to a custodial arrest, rather than the cite-and-release procedure used for other arrestees at the protest. (See Dkt. No. 64-1, Ex. A at 143:6-12 (Hartwig testifying that some non-journalists were cited and released).) Further, BART procedures for crowd control include a “cite & release procedure” whereby the default for a misdemeanor arrest is cite and release. BART argues that Hartwig’s decision to not cite and release Plaintiff was nevertheless consistent with this policy because Plaintiff fell within an exception to that policy; namely, “[t]here was a reasonable likelihood that the offense(s) would continue or resume.” (Id. at Ex. B at “BART 019355.”) Hartwig testified that such a custodial arrest was necessary because Plaintiff and Cantor were “the reason for the emotion and passion” and once they were removed, “the center of that inner circle went silent to the point I stepped inside and they all sat down.”
Maryland’s ACLU takes Baltimore’s Police Dept. to the cleaner$!
Baltimore, MD — Concerned that the Baltimore City Police Department routinely violates the First Amendment by threatening citizens who try to photograph or record police encounters, the ACLU of Maryland on August 4, 2011 informed BPD that the organization is prepared to sue on behalf of Christopher Sharp, a man whose personal videos, including many of his young son, were deleted after he filmed Baltimore police officers roughing up a female friend of his in the Clubhouse at the 2010 Preakness Stakes.
The following Video taken of the beating by another observer shows Baltimore City cops using excessive force, the girl laying on the ground did nothing but mouth off and in return got clocked three times and laid in a pool of blood……
The ACLU asserts that after Sharp recorded the police beating, he was detained and harangued by police officers, demanding that he surrender his cellphone as “evidence”. Sharp politely declined, but police continued to demand that he give up his phone. Fearing arrest, he finally handed over the phone to an officer who assured him he would simply download the videos for evidentiary purposes, then return the phone to Sharp. Instead, police destroyed the police encounter videos and all other videos it contained — about two dozen in all — before returning the phone to Sharp.
But, Maryland hardly has a monopoly on police corruption and brutality.
Pennsylvania — The above Dashcam of the BRUTAL beatings of Robert Leone by cops after stopping the wrong man is as bad as or worse than the Rodney King beating. The State’s judicial system charged with doing justice by ALL the parties turns its back on the victim. Pennsylvania State Police pursued Robert for a MINOR traffic violation that he apparently DID NOT commit. While Robert was detained he was nearly killed by the police while they executed their form of street justice. He suffered through 11 hours of multiple beatings. He was tasered at least 10 times. He was also chemically maced. He spent more than 2 1/2 years in JAIL. Robert was charged with felony assault on a police officer because the officer broke his hand when he punched Robert in the head with his fist while he was being detained! This is part of a BIGGER story of police brutality, corruption, and official coverup throughout the Pennsylvania judicial system. This video is chapter one of this story – visit http://worsethanrodneyking.com to watch this story unfold and to participate in the discussion.
After I released this video it quickly went viral. The reaction to this video has been a public firestorm of protests and demands for investigations – and yet the police involved are still on the street. They have NOT been punished in any way. Sadly, not a single politician has taken a stand by publicly speaking up.
Herr Cronce has pronounced civility the order of the day during citizen comment periods at Shelton’s City Council meetings. He avers how they ‘love’ public comments, though a quick glance at their posting of the videos from these sessions reveals comments on Youtube are CLOSED! In fact, the Mayor is so interested in public comments from citizens, he can’t take his eyes off the stop watch he keeps to make sure they don’t exceed 3 minutes. The irony slides off him like water off a Dynasty Duck’s back.
This is the guy who took point while the City defended against an onslaught, a veritable army of bikini barristas, female breasts, and [get this!] ANAL CLEAVAGES. The City is now safe from these slippery slopes to perdition while it does nothing about its own dirty laundry including a ‘C’ street public dump (never closed), a harbor, and an environment heavily tainted by Dioxin. Moreover, the City wants to allow a grade school built next to the Dioxin contaminated dump as part of the Hall Equities development, deeming it (although Cronce almost can’t recall how to spell the acronym–FEIS) environmentally insignificant. That’s right–the City has concluded that exposing our families, our small children to the worst mutagenic, carcinogenic, immunogenic, bio-accumulative, cognition disabling chemical known to man–so dangerous that even the smallest measurable amounts (in parts per trillion) are hazardous and will leave a thalidomide like legacy for generations–is ‘environmentally insignificant’. This heaving, still breathing, sweating anachronism is what City residents have to depend on for the community’s welfare and its children’s health. Good luck with that…don’t forget to be civil and smile at this excuse for an elected public official.
Perhaps some activist or citizen Robin Hood might bring a large scoop of the Dioxin tainted soil from the ‘C’ street dump for the final reading of the environmental death warrant
@ 6:00pm on 3-17-14 in the City Council scheduled meeting? They might/could dump it on the table which the Commissioners are sitting at while taking their full 3-minutes to explain just what it is they’re inhaling and inviting them to take it home to their children and grandchildren! Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Clearly this Mayor and the City Council simply don’t get it…or don’t care. It’s up to citizens to MAKE them care!
Some Ignorant/Greedy residents can be heard pleading growth for growth’s sake, pleading Jobs, Jobs, Jobs while ignoring the health consequences to our children and mothers in the following video. Crimes against humanity are still the order of the day in Shelton as it’s Mayor fiddles while its future burns. Though ‘Jobs’ are obviously needed to achieve a healthy economy, every responsible parent, given the choice, would rather struggle for his child’s next meal than watch that child struggle for its next breath, or witness the birth of children with horrible birth defects resulting from the kinds of toxins they were exposed to by corporate criminals aided and abetted by elected toadies more interested in profits than the health of families in the community. Terry Thomson points out the obvious: It’s all connected–the aquifers, the air, the soils, our mutual interdependence, future generations and our legacy in how we protected what’s left of our environment. The weak argument that Hall Equities’ proposed development of 604 acres has no duty to anyone but itself as defined by its real estate holdings is blatantly incorrect. Environmental Impact studies do not (properly) stop at artificial property boundaries because the harm does not limit itself to those boundaries. If I have poisoned the soil and the underlying aquifers (as is evident in this instance), a community well should not be permitted on the next parcel over simply because a property boundary exists between my holdings (and toxic waste dump) and my neighbor’s. If the City had been more aggressive in holding the proper parties accountable, it would not be holding the bag today. First things first–clean up the environment before considering developing it and exposing our children to the contamination. It’s not only in the soil, but the water, the air and even the food chain. Dioxin is evil, worse than lethal, insidious, bio-accumulative and persistent.
Oakland Bay & ‘C’ Street City Dump: Shellfish nursery & Hotbed of DIOXIN contamination
Studies of Dioxin’s effects in Vietnam
WA State Dept of Ecology declares Oakland Bay Dioxin contaminated shellfish safe
It’s Super Bowl Sunday, a day I particularly enjoy transferring domain names out of GoDaddy, the registrar that once tempted me with low prices but now mostly just annoys me. Here’s how to move your domains to a new registrar quickly, easily and without fouling anything up (you don’t want your website to disappear!) in the process.
Aside: I happen to be transferring domains to FYNE.com, a company I’ve been using for many years that offers great pro features at good value. One thing that’s nice is that they anonymize your domain record for free, so your name and address aren’t crawled by a million spiders (many registrars like the aforementioned GoDaddy charge extra for that “privacy”). If you’re transferring to a new registrar that’s not FYNE.com, don’t worry, these are generic directions and all about how to transfer away from the night mare that is GoDaddy.
1. Make sure your domain is at least 90 days old
GoDaddy fabulously won’t let you transfer a domain name you just registered. (OK, there are some ICANN regulations at work, too.) Of course, if you’re about saving money, you’ll probably wait until your domain is close to expiring before you transfer it – you’ve already paid your year’s rent.
2. Change your GoDaddy settings and get your auth code
In the GoDaddy Domain Manager, find the domain you want to transfer and click it’s lock icon to unlock it (if it’s already unlocked, you can just click on the domain name to manage the domain).
– Make sure that “Privacy” and “Domain Ownership Protection” are Off and that the domain is unlocked (if you just did this, it will still show up as “Locked” as in the screenshot, but don’t worry, if you just unlocked it, then it’s unlocked – GoDaddy is just really slow to update its control panel with recent modifications made).
– Make sure your email address is correct in the administrative contact, because GoDaddy will be emailing your transfer authorization code (Email!?!?! What is this, 1995? @%&*$#@ GoDaddy!)
– DNS settings: Chances are, you’re using GoDaddy’s free DNS service (ns23.domaincontrol.com etc means GoDaddy). If you’re already using your own name servers or some other 3rd party DNS servers, you don’t need to do anything and can skip to the next step.
The important thing to know here is that this setting is part of your domain record, and will transfer over to the new registrar (i.e, it won’t automagically switch to your new registrar’s DNS servers, because there’s nothing about being a domain host that says you also provide DNS), so if you are using GoDaddy’s servers you need to change these now, before you transfer the domain! If you’re using GoDaddy’s DNS and you transfer the domain with the record still pointing to ns.domaincontrol.com, then your site will go dark because ns.domaincontrol.com will start telling folks it’s never heard of your domain.
So, if you’re using GoDaddy’s free DNS service, here’s what you need to do:
– Easy: If you’ve just got a parked domain or you’re only using the domain name for a website – you only care about example.com and www.example.com (and you’re not using subdomains like mail.example.com for your email) – just change these to your new registrar or DNS host’s nameservers. For FYNE, these are ns1.shopco.com and ns2.shopco.com.
– Hard: If you do have special DNS records (like mail.example.com or ones you’ve manually created), you need to load these into your new registrar/DNS host before you change the nameservers. Unfortunately, some big registrars like Network Solutions have crappy systems and won’t let you start setting DNS records on a domain until after you’ve transferred the domain – so if you’re in a situation like this you can either half-ass it and just live with a few hours of downtime while you scurry to reinput your DNS records, or you can use a “real” DNS host like UltraDNS or run your own DNS (which you could just do temporarily – just for a few days and then change nameservers to your new registrar’s free DNS once you’re registered with them). Anyway, once you’ve got your special DNS records set up with your new nameservers (or have decided to half-ass it), follow the directions above in “Easy” to update your domain record with the new nameservers.
– Click “Send by Email” and GoDaddy will email you the transfer authorization code you need to give to your new registrar
3. Transfer the name into your new registrar
Your new domain name registrar’s website will walk you through this. You’ll need to give them the auth code that GoDaddy just sent you.
Once your new registrar has verified the auth code with GoDaddy, it may ask you to confirm the transfer. The new registrar usually does the verification in a few seconds, then sends you an email with a link you have to click to confirm.
4. Wait (Or, go back to GoDaddy Domain Manager and confirm)
You’re done! After you complete the previous step, GoDaddy will send you an email written by someone barely proficient in English to say that the domain transfer is approved and the domain will automatically transfer over in 5 days.
So, you legally don’t have to do anything more at this point. BUT if you’re totally OCD, GoDaddy has created one excess step for you to follow to reassure yourself: you can go back to GoDaddy’s Domain Manager, select Pending Transfers, check the checkbox next to your name(s) and use the Accept/Decline button to Accept the transfer. Naturally, GoDaddy has intentionally worded this to confuse you, so on the confirmation screen I think you actually have to select “Cancel” as in “Cancel this domain from my GoDaddy account” to “Accept” the transfer. So, just don’t get caught by their trap and accidentally cancel the transfer, or you’ll really feel like an idiot. Enjoy your newfound freedom once the transfer is complete. Rinse and repeat.
Brenda Hirschi is the current President of the Shelton School Board. Due to State laws regarding such measures, local school boards have a large say in how their school budgets are balanced, what expenditures will be made, what programs will be maintained, how the schools will be staffed, and what extra-curricular activities will be promoted along with whether the curriculum, especially electives, is a good fit for the community. The PTA and board members as well as school staff are not always of one accord. When differences arise, the disputes can become contentious–as they have over the proposed closing of Shelton High’s pool which serves as the only facility of its kind within Mason County. It serves as a destination for students and residents alike throughout the year for team sports, recreation, instructions on life saving skills like how to swim/rescue. In a county with few funded activities designed for youth, some believe it also serves as a bulwark against crime and drugs by giving young people constructive enjoyable programs in which to participate.
Jackie & Scott MacAlevy w/family
Jackie MacAlevy is a mother of 6, a long time resident, a business woman who partners with her husband’s construction company, and a leader of an area swim team/club who have utilized the pool over the years to good effect, winning a number of regional/national medals and acclaim in the process.
The pool has developed some cracks and serious maintenance problems requiring repairs estimated to range from $250,000 to $1,000,000 in cost. This is money difficult for a lightly populated poor rural community to come by. Brenda Hirschi and her husband, Dean, have proposed closing the pool and using the money saved for its repair to augment other portions of the high school infrastructure, additional classrooms, and the curriculum. Many members of the school board, lead by Ms. Hirschi’s insistence, appear swayed by her arguments. Ms. MacAlevy strongly disagrees and is attempting to rally support for the proposition the pool is a resource the high school, its students, and the community cannot afford to lose–for a variety of reasons.
Such dilemmas are hardly unheard of. But, the rub appears to be the personalities involved and perceived disrespect at public meetings of the staff, participants, and members of the community who hold views differing from Ms. Hirschi’s. This reporter had occasion to take Ms. Hirschi’s measure during her unsuccessful campaign to become a County Commissioner several years ago. At that time, the cause celeb in Mason County was defeating a company named Adage and its plan for a biomassacre plant (giant incinerator) near the high school, recreational field for youth, and residential areas. The proposed plan was massive in scale (denuding woodlands for a 50 mile radius) and threatened to make Shelton the gateway to industrial blight on the Olympic Peninsula. To her credit, Brenda Hirschi opposed this plan. Ironically, she supported a similar if somewhat smaller plan by Simpson Timber (Green Diamond) to add an incinerator to downtown Shelton’s waterfront, further polluting the air, bay, estuaries, and harbor. When asked about the discrepancy in her position, she glibly explained it was because Simpson had been a resident business for many years while Adage was an interloper. When pressed on this contradiction, she became brittle, defensive, and hostile.
Brenda Hirschi spent many years as a federal employee in a fiscal capacity doing bookkeeping and accounting for the government. Her strong suit during her campaign for County Commissioner was pointing out how deficient the County’s budget was, how no accountability was in evidence for large expenditures of public funds and transfers to private for profit corporations such as the EDC (Economic Development Council), and the failure to invite bids for many of the proposed County services farmed out to selected firms. This was not only an invitation to cronyism, corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse, but resulted in a number of lawsuits which forced the County to settle for its failure to honor certain contracts. More recently, the State Auditor’s office found the County had violated its fiduciary duty to properly manage its budge according to State law and issued a directive to pay back the departments it had short changed. It also required a specific plan on how the County was going to fund the Belfair Sewer System (a project that had been Senator and County Commissioner Tim Sheldon’s pet monetary black hole) without defaulting on its bond obligations.
Jackie MacAlevy contacted this publisher to make some of the following observations and criticisms of both Ms. Hirschi as well as the proposal to close Shelton High’s swimming pool:
“Currently I believe I am on Ms. Hirschi’s short list [of personas non grata] at the moment. Upon our first meeting she either had very poor personal etiquette or she was trying to intimidate me. I proceeded to send an email to all 700 district employees regarding the pool closure issue. I believe I got her attention. In a matter of 6 weeks the pool repairs have gone from approximately $250,000 to ‘well over a million’ and she has admitted on the district website (Friday 2-28) they have not received any new bids or the engineering report as yet.”
“At the Tuesday February 25th school board meeting, several [at one such, 3/4ths in attendance were said to have walked out] in the audience walked out. I have requested the audio from the meeting, as I received a second hand account of the events. The report I received is as follows:
“That meeting was the most horrendous display of disrespect, unprofessionalism and belittling that I have ever seen. The “maintenance projects” is where the discussion went awry which included topics of the re-roofing of OBJH, reconfiguration, the new portable to house the ever growing B-5 program and the pool. Although ordering a new portable was in the budget and researched and ready to order; now Wayne Massie was directed to find other space for part of the Early Learning Program by next week or the week after. He was also directed to get exact numbers on reconfiguration options by next week or the week after. While the pool wasn’t directly talked about, there were several comments regarding ‘Education of our students is our priority’ and talk of not enough money. Since Wayne was in charge of the pool committee, it sounds like he let everyone be on it that requested it because he read off about 15 names. The [deadline for completion] is June 30th, though, and the board is so volatile and reactive; I just have a bad feeling we will come up with all kinds of ideas and solutions, but they may have already made their decision. ¾ths of the audience walked out of the meeting (including many administrators) after 1 ½ hours because Brenda H. said such disrespectful things to Wayne and stated that all the problems were because the budget was wrong, insulting many members of the audience. Then, Gene accused everyone of acting like children who didn’t win a baseball game. It really was unbelievable.”
The Early Learning portable above mentioned was discussed and agreed [it] was needed and [to be] funded at the January 28th study session.
I have spoken with several district employees [who] all are upset with the situation. The Journal quotes one who walked out of the school board meeting as saying, “That’s a hostile work environment.”
I agree there is no easy solution to solve all the school district’s budget/funding challenges, but, the environment since January has deteriorated at a rapid rate. The talks about reconfiguration and putting 9 portables at the HS (the cost of the portables is in the ballpark of 1.5-1.8 million dollars) have become a priority in the budget talks. The only locations to put 9 portables is next to OBJH or at/[near] the HUFF n PUFF [trail].
On another front, [on] January 28th, Bob Woods, the maintenance director, was asked if the recent heavy rains and winds had caused any more leaks in the OBJH roof. The answer was ‘no’, and that a repair would fix all the leaking. The estimated cost of the repairs to the roof were approximately $75,000. [This sum doesn’t appear to address the cracks in the pool and the broken mechanical systems associated with it.]
With all of the shifting numbers and shifting talk the whole situation is suspect. After hearing Dean Hirschi speak on several occasions, both past and present, it is clear he is adamant that the pool needs to be closed. It seems Ms Hirschi has taken the same position [as her husband]. She is using the education of the children as a priority/[reason], to close the pool. Being in a community with little for youth to do, taking one more thing [e.g. the pool and the multiple programs it serves] away is very shortsighted and irresponsible to the greater good, the health/[welfare] of the community.
It is my feeling the community, as a whole, needs to be paying attention and asking questions. The outlying districts which send their children to the Shelton High School don’t have representation on the school board. These things [closing the pool] will affect their children as well. There may well be problems within the district and how things have been managed over the years, but the current course may cripple the community for the foreseeable future.” -Jackie MacAlevy-
Indianapolis, IN — Indianapolis police not only had to shell out $200,000 to a man whom they falsely arrested after he video recorded them making an arrest, they are also required to create a new departmental policy that forbids them from harassing citizens who record them.
Obviously, existing law was not enough to deter them from shaking down citizens with cameras.
“Willie King was wronged when the officers stopped his videotaping and took away his cellphone,” said King’s attorney Richard Waples. “We want to make sure that in the future police officers understand that people have the right to video record their actions.”
Within two months of signing the settlement agreement, the city’s police chief must issue a legal bulletin that explains officers should not interfere with civilians who are observing or recording their actions in public as long as these civilians maintain a safe and reasonable distance from the scene, do not interfere with the officers’ work, and do not pose a danger.
Waples, partner at Waples and Hanger, called the settlement an “important victory” and one that “secures the right of all citizens to observe and record police officers’ public actions.”
King began videotaping the officers during the February incident when he became concerned that they were physically abusing the young man they were handcuffing. He retrieved his cellphone from his vehicle and began digitally recording the incident. He first walked to his neighbor’s property, then proceeded to the neighbor’s front porch.
A police officer walked over to King and ordered him to handover his phone. When King did not, the officer grabbed King, tackled him to the ground and, with the help of another officer, confiscated King’s cellphone and arrested him.
A legal bulletin, eh? We’ve seen how effective that was when the Broward County Sheriff’s Office introduced one last year, only for Jeff Gray to prove they still had no clue of the law.
But $200,000 is a solid settlement.
The arrest took place in 2011. You can see part of the video he recorded in this news report after his acquittal.
