Green is the new Red:

Will Potter on the problem of treating environmentalists like terrorists

When Chicago Tribune reporter Will Potter went to pass out animal rights leaflets, he had no idea the FBI would single him out and pressure him to become an anti-activism informant, threatening his future if he refused. Here, we talk to the TED Fellow and author of Green is the New Red about this experience, which sent him into a whole new area of research. The crux of what he found: environmental and animal-rights activists are now considered the United States’ number-one domestic terrorism threat, and they are being prosecuted as criminals.

Do you think of yourself as an activist?

I don’t consider myself an activist, but there’s certainly an advocacy component when I’m talking about civil rights issues. My background’s in newspaper and magazine reporting. For a long time I tried to pursue the traditional newsroom path, and I was on it for quite a while. Then, when I was working at the Chicago Tribune, I had some experiences with the FBI that put me in a different direction in terms of the issues I was focused on. Then some good friends of mine were wrapped up in different terrorism prosecutions. These experiences immersed me in the issues unexpectedly, and that definitely changed the path that I was on.

What happened with the FBI?

At the Tribune, I was covering breaking news, shootings, murders and local government, and it was all horribly depressing. It was not the type of thing I went into journalism to do. I had a background in college in environmental activism, and protesting the World Trade Organization and the economic sanctions on Iraq, and I wanted to be involved in something positive like that again. So I went out leafletting with a group of people. We just passed out pieces of paper in a residential neighborhood about animal testing. I thought that was the most I could do as a working journalist — something so benign. And of course, since I have the worst luck ever, we were all arrested and charged. It was the only time I’ve been arrested. Those charges were later thrown out, of course. It was a frivolous arrest. And it’s still lawful to pass out handbills.

A couple weeks later, I was visited by two FBI agents at my home, who told me that unless I helped them by becoming an informant and investigating protest groups, they would put me on a domestic terrorist list. They also made some threats about making sure I wouldn’t receive a Fulbright I had applied for, and making sure my girlfriend at the time wouldn’t receive her PhD funding. I really want to think that I wouldn’t be affected by something like that, especially given my activist background, but it just scared the daylights out of me. It really did. That fear eventually turned into an obsession with finding out how this happened, how nonviolent protestors are being labeled as terrorists.

Did they not realize that you were a journalist?

They did, and they obviously didn’t think of the potential of me writing or talking about it. They specifically said, “You are the one of this group that has everything going for you.” They knew everywhere I worked, they knew my editors at the Tribune, they knew different journalism awards I received — and their message was, “Help us or we’re going to put you on a different path.” And they kept saying, “Don’t throw all this away.”

And so at one point, I just said, “What are you going to make go away? This is a class C misdemeanor for leafletting, there’s no way it’s going to hold up in court, and you’re talking about ruining my life.” I of course never became an informant, and never thought about doing anything like that, but — it changed the focus of my work, without a doubt.

Did they bother you after that?

Well, you know, it’s one of those things. It made me realize the power of fear. Because in a situation like that, you don’t know what actually is happening or will happen. There’s no way to find out. Certainly just a few months after 9/11 when this happened, but even today, with the extent of the government’s counterterrorism powers and how they’re being used. So when they talk about making sure I don’t receive a Fulbright, I didn’t receive it, but is that just because I’m not smart enough? Was it because my application wasn’t good enough? I don’t know. It’s impossible to know these things.

Years later, after my book came out, we did a Freedom of Information Act request. I found out that the counterterrorism unit has been monitoring my speeches and book and website. But in terms of day-to-day problems, I really haven’t had any.

How did environmental activism come to be treated as a terrorist crime?

I think the most important thing I found out in my research is that all of this was actually created by the industries that are being protested. In the mid-1980s, these corporations got together and created a new word called “eco-terrorist” — because at the time, these protest movements were growing very quickly and effectively, and they had widespread public support. There clearly was a concern that unless public opinion shifted, there’d be a really big problem on their hands.

So they made up this new word, and then started using public relations campaigns, lobbying, and held congressional hearings. Eventually, that language changed the popular discourse of how we talk about protest. And it was incredibly effective, to the point that now not only does the FBI label animal rights and environmentalists as the number-one domestic terrorism threat — even though they’ve never harmed a single human being — but we have new legislation that singles these protesters out for felonies and as terrorists for what are, in some cases, nonviolent protests.

What is the benefit for the government to bend to the will of the industry? It seems like a huge waste of resources.

Absolutely. That concern about the waste of resources has actually been raised by the Justice Department’s Inspector General in an audit back in 2003 that I found in my research, and by people within government as well, by different congressional reports that have talked about my work. And still, the FBI and Homeland Security maintain this position. It’s a really difficult question to answer. I think there are a few reasons why. Some of them are frankly a direct influence of these industries on elected officials. We found that through open records requests, through lobbying efforts on new terrorism legislation. And partly, I think this has all taken on a life of its own. FBI agents know that the path to career advancement today is by securing terrorism prosecutions. I’ve had current and former FBI agents say this repeatedly. I think these activists are seen as an approachable way of going about that.

And frankly, I think one big reason is that this has worked its way up to the top levels of government — to the point where it’s just not an issue anymore. By that I mean it’s all just become so normal over the years. After September 11th there were these ambitious and sweeping uses of this language that were introduced. Rollbacks of civil liberties. And it was a public outrage. And now, over ten years later, nobody is really talking about the Patriot Act. Nobody is talking about Guantanamo. We’re talking about Edward Snowden and spying, but even then it’s not about gaining back the liberties that have been lost. I think a big part of this is the cultural change that’s happened.

So it sounds like it found its own momentum and no one’s thinking about it anymore.

Absolutely. And as journalist, that’s my biggest critique of how other journalists have contributed to this. When this language began being used, there was not much critical engagement with it. There should have been. Not just a reluctance to use this type of terrorism language against anyone, but also just a complete unwillingness to do so. It automatically skews public opinion unfairly against the people you’re writing about. It’s such an incredibly powerful word, and now it’s just tossed around without much thought. This really indicates to me how much has changed in a short amount of time. We’ve gone from a completely made-up belief — a completely made-up word and campaign — to now this is just business as usual.

Photo: Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance

Could you give us a couple of examples of the people whose lives have been arrested and treated like terrorists?

The rhetoric of these industries has been that we need new terrorism laws to go after extremists who have done things like break windows, and steal animals, set SUVs on fire. These are all obviously crimes, there’s no doubt about that. But what I’ve seen is a shift away from that type of clandestine activity to more mainstream groups.

Just a few weeks ago, some activists in Oklahoma went into a corporate headquarters and dropped a banner in protest of the company’s involvement in natural gas fracking and the Keystone Pipeline. As they dropped this banner, some glitter fell to the ground. The police arrested the activists, and they’re being prosecuted right now for a terrorism hoax. The prosecutors say that they had no way of knowing whether the glitter that fell to the ground was actually glitter, versus a chemical substance or anthrax. Things like this sound completely nuts — but these kids are facing 10 years in prison right now.

Another example is Tim DeChristopher, a university student in Utah who disrupted an illegal oil and gas auction, where public lands were being sold off to corporations. He went in, and he knew he didn’t have any money, but he wanted to expose this, so he kept raising his bidder’s paddle and placed false bids. He cost these industries hundreds of thousands of dollars, and as a result, he was sentenced to two years in prison for that act of civil disobedience. And lawmakers tried to introduce new legislation to label that type of protest as terrorism.

So there’s been this steady creep from the margins to the mainstream. I think the industries being protested are very aware of what the threat is. Tactics like what Tim DeChristopher did are incredibly effective. They inspire people. Not only that, but they cost these businesses lots of money, and they expose illegal actions by governments and corporations. And I think industries are terrified of this. That’s a big part of the reason why these campaigns continue.

You often write about ag-gag laws. What are they?

Ag-gag laws refer to new state-level legislation that’s been introduced in Iowa, Utah and Missouri, some of it still pending, that specifically criminalizes people who take photographs or video of animal welfare abuses, for instance on slaughterhouses and factory farms. These laws are a direct response to a series of investigations by groups like the Humane Society that have led to criminal charges, meat recalls, and also just completely changed the national dialogue about animal welfare, environmental issues and food safety. Rather than try to address these abuses, the industry is just trying to outlaw all of it.

As a journalist, this is especially troubling to me, because if they had existed, they would have made someone like Upton Sinclair a terrorist. I mean, by simply exposing what’s going on in these industries, by investigating and blowing the whistle, people can be prosecuted.

You testified before Congress in 2006 about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. What is it, and what was your experience?

That’s right. I testified about my reporting before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act — a federal law passed in 2006 (which expanded a previous law called the  Animal Enterprise Protection Act). It says that any activists who cause a loss of profits — that’s the language of the bill — to animal enterprises, or that interfere with the operations of these enterprises, can face prosecution. The language, though, is so incredibly broad that when I testified, I was talking about, for instance, nonviolent civil disobedience outside a fur store. Or blocking the entrance to a slaughterhouse. And the sponsors of the bill on the committee acknowledged that it could be used that way. So in other words, a counterterrorism law is being designed to be used against nonviolent protestors. I raised the same concerns I’m raising today — namely, that this sweeping use of terrorism laws could be used against nonviolent protestors, against undercover investigators and whistleblowers.

Another thing people should really know about that law is that it passed the House with only about six lawmakers in the room. On that day, almost all of them were down breaking ground on the new memorial honoring Dr Martin Luther King. So you only had a handful of the people in the room, and they snuck this bill through using an obscure procedure that’s meant for non-controversial bills. So that same procedure was used to honor the St. Louis Cardinals for winning the World Series — that type of thing. And then it was used to push through a terrorism bill that could brand what Dr. King did as terrorism.

And there’s no public outcry?

There is an increasing public outcry from within these social movements, and that’s why the politicians and industries pushed this through in that manner at the last minute — because they saw the opposition growing. But frankly, no one was paying attention to this. I was having a very difficult time even getting the animal protection groups to speak out against it, because they didn’t think it had any chance of actually becoming law. And the general public — it just wasn’t on anybody’s radar.

How did you feel about the experience, and after the law went through?

Initially, I viewed the opportunity as an honor. I mean, I thought it was an incredible chance to talk about my work — most journalists never get that opportunity — and also to help contribute to the political process and change the discussion. But I quickly realized that that’s not what the congressional hearings are about. I mean, they’re all very carefully structured to — they hear from the FBI, and the Department of Justice, GlaxoSmithKline and all these industries, and then they turn to someone like me. I was just really the token gesture of opposition, because this legislation was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. So there was really never any intention of engaging with what I’m saying in a meaningful way. It was just going through these motions in order to pass the bill.

And to me it was — no matter how jaded I’ve become living in Washington, DC — still shocking, to see it operate in that way. And just really disheartening to see the willingness of politicians to push through laws like this.

Tell us about your book, Green is the New Red.

Green is the New Red is an investigation into how these groups became the number-one domestic terrorism threat. But it’s also a look into the stories of the people that have been most affected: the protesters who are being targeted, some of the most important First Amendment cases that have been fought on these issues. And it’s also kind of an exposé on how this language of terrorism has led to the creation of secret prison units in the United States that are being used for domestic terrorists. That’s a long way of saying that I’ve tried to approach the book as a journalist, but also incorporating my own personal experiences with the people that have been affected, to paint a more personal picture of what’s at stake here.

The response has been amazing. When the book came out, I got some really great mainstream praise from Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus awarded it a Kirkus Star. I think what’s most important to me is that in the time since it’s come out, there’s been an increased attention on these issues, and all these different topics are coming together.

These ag-gag laws are starting to show up internationally now. Industries in other countries are saying that they want the same protections that corporations in the United States have. I’ve been really glad to see the work that I’ve done on these issues be useful to people elsewhere.

How do you see this all evolving in the future? It doesn’t sound like it’s going in a positive direction at this point.

Well, yes and no. I mean, certainly with the ag-gag laws — when I first started writing about these issues, I never would have thought something like that would be possible. It was just too far-fetched, even for the topics that I write about.

But the outgrowth of that is also that people are outraged. I mean, the backlash against these ag-gag bills has been so inspiring to me. I gave a lecture at Georgetown Law School that had the ASPCA, the worker’s rights groups, unions, environmentalists, me speaking as a journalist — I mean, all these people were in the same room, and frankly, that doesn’t happen very often. These are people that are often at each other’s throats on a lot of issues. But it’s united them in opposition to this threat.

And it’s also, I think, exposed the power of individuals — people who have very little money, very few resources, but completely challenging and threatening some of the most powerful industries on the planet. It’s a point of inspiration, the idea that people with a pinhole camera or an iPhone can record what happens on factory farms and completely terrify this industry. So things are, I think, going to get worse, but there’s also just so much potential.

You said earlier that leafleting is a benign activity? Benign in the sense that it would not have been seen as a conflict of interest with journalism? Or benign as in not breaking anything?

Both. I definitely was not going to be breaking anything! I’ve never done that. But I guess I thought, working as a journalist, I didn’t want to be out there protesting. I didn’t want to be doing civil disobedience. And I didn’t want to have a leadership role in any kind of social campaign. I just saw it as an easy way to plug into advocacy that was already taking place, to try to make a positive difference. Something I could do in an afternoon. That’s really the extent of my ability to be involved in things, and my willingness to be involved in social issues when I was working in a newsroom.

Now that you’re deeply knowledgeable about and involved in the issue, where would you stand on, for example, breaking into a factory farm and filming?

It’s interesting, because as a journalist, I think in a lot of ways it would be completely appropriate. Jonathan Safran Foer, in his book Eating Animals, talked about how that type of covert investigation is really the only meaningful oversight of this industry. Of course, he has the prominence and the respect, so it was not prosecuted or investigated as terrorism, but I think in a lot of ways, journalists might have to use those types of investigative tools in order to expose what’s happening.

Would you have any protection at all under the banner of journalism?

It’s hard to say, because I feel like as First Amendment rights across the board are under attack right now: journalists have not been exempted from that. We’ve seen significant government surveillance against even the most mainstream reporters at The New York Times and Associated Press. So for someone like me, who prides myself on being independent and freelance, I have even fewer protections than those reporters who are tied to a long-standing media outlet. So it definitely concerns me.

Is it ever difficult to draw the line between being on the side of the activists and being distanced enough to cover them? At what point do you just think: “OK, forget the journalism thing. I’m getting in there and throwing rocks?”

It is a really difficult line to walk, and one that I’ve struggled with for a really long time, especially in working on the book. But I think I came to the realization that what’s most important is not to pretend that those relationships and friendships don’t exist, but to be up front about it. I think my primary obligation as a journalist is to my readers, and to people who are seeing my work, that I have transparency. I don’t pretend to be unbiased, but by acknowledging my biases — and acknowledging those relationships — I think it makes my reporting a lot stronger because people understand my approach and the context in which I’m saying things.

But you know, in terms of where to draw that line, and whether you should just put down the pen and pad and start being involved in these movements — frankly, the reason I do this work is because I saw all of this happening, and I didn’t know what else to do. I’ve never been a great organizer for protests and things, and I’ve never been that inclined to lobby elected officials. I mean, I’m a writer, and I speak, and I do media.  I  thought that was the way for me to contribute, to have a role. I think even given the opportunity, I would still stay on this path, because I think that’s what my skills are more useful for. I think that the challenge is everyone finding out what that is for them.

“Paul French, well-known as ‘Strife’, is an Olympia resident, a musician, and a member of the area’s vibrant @ctivist community.” -WIP-

Paul bristles at having copped a plea upon the advice of his attorney to a charge of which he says he is innocent. He makes a compelling argument lying cops are largely responsible for this kind of injustice. He admits lapsing into depression and even thoughts of suicide as a result when he had a mental breakdown. However, while arguing for justice, truth, and respect for civil rights, he carefully qualifies the kind of journalists he feels deserve the same.

Paul proudly announces his affinity for (A)narchists, claiming they are unjustly discriminated against by authorities. He also made his FB page inaccessible when this reporter commented on the topic he is currently promoting: His lawsuit against OPD for a pattern of false arrests and police reports based on undercover surveillance of the @ctivist groups he frequented.

In the interest of transparency and public awareness, his article published in Olympia’s Works In Progress is re-posted below (before Paul can 2nd guess himself and delete it). He also left a message to this reporter condemning a remark left on his FB page commiserating with his angst about ubiquitous perjury by area police officers under oath and in their reports before (in an apparent fit of pique/paranoia) he terminated public access to it.

The article is a mixture of reciting notorious/obvious instances of police misconduct/brutality, and self serving/pitying opining with an eye to public sympathy and support for his upcoming trial in federal court arising from his civil complaint.

Paul French (aka: Strife) w/his B@nd

by Paul French (aka: Strife) as published through Oly’s Works In Progress

Olympia resident shares his story of blatant police misconduct & persecution

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”                 Martin Luther King, Jr

I still remember where I was when Oscar Grant, an unarmed black man was shot at point blank range by a transit cop while he was lying face down on the cement of an Oakland, California Subway. It was New Year’s Day 2009, two months shy of Grant’s twenty-third birthday, when he was pronounced dead. I was working on my first album, “Love & Rage,” when a member of my hip-hop crew, Thought Crime Collective, rushed over to tell me the news.  This extra-judicial murder ignited my growing anger at a justice system that professes equality under the law but prioritizes people according to race, class, sexuality, gender, and politics. In the following months as the death toll escalated at the hands of police, I realized I had a responsibility to rally others even at the risk of my own comfort and convenience. If I didn’t stand in solidarity with the slain, publicize the causes of structural violence, and fight for accountability, then society whose technological advancement was fast outstripping its conscience would eclipse any hope for social and economic justice.

So on April 8, 2010, I took to the streets of downtown Olympia as part of a protest called the “West Coast Days of Action Against Police Violence.” We marched downtown chanting and handing out flyers about the dangers of unchecked power, white privilege, and the prison industrial complex. Eventually we were surrounded on all sides by a heavily armed phalanx of Olympia Police and arrested in a coordinated takedown. Amidst shouted orders to “get on the ground” we locked arms on State Street and were kettled in a darkened parking lot, greeted by baton blows and pepper ball guns fired inches from our faces. It was during this lightning-quick takedown that Officer Sean Lindros (now a detective) lied and stated I had punched him in the face. He made this claim without a single witness to the alleged assault and without another officer on the scene corroborating his story. The Olympia Police Department (OPD) seized all cameras and recording equipment, and refused to return the cameras until three years later in the summer of 2013, when my lawyer, Larry Hildes, won a settlement against the city.

In 2012, Sean Lindros lost a wrongful arrest lawsuit that my attorney brought against him on behalf of Evergreen student, Loren Klyne. According to court documents, Lindros has been referred to by his superiors as a “cops’ cop, who manages to make an above average amount of arrests and criminal referrals.” He has received a total of eight citizen complaints and two disciplinary actions in the past five years, engaging in “threatening or intimidating behavior towards the public” on multiple occasions, even “brandishing a gun on a traffic stop.” Lindros has three excessive force complaints including a well-known encounter where he slammed Ms. Peralta’s (a.k.a. Pony Black’s) face into the ground in downtown Olympia in 2010. Most recently in 2013, Lindros used a “lateral vascular neck restraint” on a suspect, a maneuver that restricts the flow of blood to the brain and is linked to so many deaths, its use is restricted by the Los Angeles Police Department and was banned by Bay Area Rapid Transit Police in 2011.

In the short video clip used as evidence of my alleged crime, I am in the center of a group, surrounded by twenty-nine people, on my knees with a banner in my lap several feet away from where Sean Lindros claimed he was standing when he was allegedly struck in the face. In his police report, Lindros misidentified the color of my bandana, and in the pictures he took of his “injuries” after the protest, his face showed no visible marks or bruises. I was charged with assault, even though I was simply engaging in my first amendment right to protest and in spite of the fact that I was not in a location where I could have physically struck Lindros. As we were turning onto State Street, I was handed the march banner by a stranger who was not arrested, but had shown up at my house a few weeks prior to the protest. After the takedown, Sean Lindros identified me as “the kid with the banner,” and I was arrested for felony “assault on an officer.”

The details of my criminal case were unfortunate but not uncommon. I was railroaded by my public defender into taking an Alford plea (which asserts innocence but still counts as a guilty plea) and served a two-month sentence in Thurston County Jail for a crime I did not commit. Lacking proof at the time that I had been targeted in retaliation for my activism and music, I was smeared in the media and unable to convince people of my innocence. All of this became too much to bear. Although I have no prior history of depression, I was severely traumatized by this chain of events. Combined with the fear that I would be unable to participate in my graduation at the Evergreen State College, I had my first and only nervous breakdown. Shocked by the ease with which the authorities framed me, and convinced that I would become the victim of an “accident” once I reported to jail, I attempted to take my own life. At my wits end, I isolated myself from the only support system I had, my friends and community. Now after years of committed direct action and much reflection and growth, I am taking the struggle to the next level by suing the Olympia Police Department for false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force, harassment, and violations of my first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment rights.

Those who have followed protests closely in the United States for a span of time can confirm that charges ranging from “assault on an officer” to “obstruction of justice” or “resisting arrest” are often fabricated as a way for law enforcement to cover up their own brutality and wrongdoing. Alleging false charges allows the police to spin news coverage, siphon-off public sympathy from protesters, and pre-empt questions about police overreach.  Even if the charges are never brought before a judge, the police can garner sympathy in the court of public opinion and deny responsibility for escalating or mishandling a situation. Unless there is video evidence to contradict an officer’s allegations, or multiple witnesses who attest to a person’s innocence, the blame is shifted to the victim because of the inherently unequal power dynamics. Courtroom battles in these scenarios often deteriorate into a “he said/she said” stalemate, where law enforcement has home team advantage.

For example, on March 5, 2013, Evergreen professor Peter Bohmer was charged with “assault on an officer” while defending a homeless encampment in downtown Olympia.  Only after video footage confirmed that Washington State Patrol had lied about Bohmer’s actions were the assault charges dropped. [The video may be viewed on youtube: “Peter Bohmer Arrested as WSP Removes Homeless Youth and Activists”] In 2007, a veteran community organizer named Pat Tassoni settled with Washington State Patrol for an undisclosed sum after he was handcuffed, searched, and cited on June 3, 2004 for “failing to produce a license while operating a motor vehicle.” His criminal charges were dropped because he was distributing flyers on foot, walking home from a rally against the Patriot Act at the time he was stopped by a State Trooper. Similar treatment was meted out to local legend Long Hair David (Fawver), founder of the Emma Goldman Youth & Homeless Outreach Project (EGYHOP), who was accosted in 2004 by members of the Washington State Patrol and erroneously charged with assault after lighting sage incense in Sylvester Park.

Then there is the case of Scott Yoos, whose shocking treatment at the hands of the Olympia Police Department made this pattern of mendacity explicit. On June 1, 2011 he was throwing paper towels away in a public dumpster when four officers arrived, he was thrown to the ground, placed in painful compliance holds, and arrested for “trespass”. When publicity about his brutal treatment provoked a groundswell of support, the Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office charged him retroactively with felony “assault on an officer” and “resisting arrest” two months after the original charges were filed.

When cops, who are sworn to impartially uphold the law, enforce it in a discriminatory manner that tramples people’s civil rights, protests become a minefield wrought with unspoken threats and lasting danger. This was demonstrated in the dwindling participation rates in the aftermath of a mass-arrest during anti-war protests organized by a group called Port Militarization Resistance (PMR) in Olympia, Washington. On November 13, 2007, forty-one women, who planned to engage in a non-violent blockade of a military convoy, were charged with “attempted disorderly conduct,” by officers who insisted they knew the groups intentions based on spying. Julianne Panagacos, Andrea Robbins, Julia Garfield, and others arrested at the Port, are now suing the United States Military. Their civil suit alleges that John Towery, a man who the Army paid to infiltrate their anti-war group, supplied law enforcement with intelligence that lead to their pre-emptive arrests, civil rights violations, cruel and demeaning treatment in the jail, and a campaign of harassment that continued long after the protests were over.

Jeff Berryhill, a former PMR organizer and member of Students for A Democratic Society (SDS), is another plaintiff in the civil suit against John Towery. He was subjected to a similar pattern of police profiling, false charges, and pre-emptive arrest. Jeff was singled out at the March 2007 Port of Tacoma Protests, shot by a rubber bullet in the leg at point blank range, and then arrested for assault. In July of 2007, Berryhill was hanging out in downtown Olympia when four cops detained him because he “fit the profile” of someone they claimed had committed a burglary in the area. That night, the cops showed up at his house and arrested him for “disorderly conduct” after he demanded that they cease harassing him. Long-time Works In Progress contributor Wally Cuddeford was tased three times and dragged across the pavement during the same anti-war port protests in Tacoma in 2007. He also received fabricated assault charges after being assaulted by the police. Two years later in January of 2009, Wally was accused of “riot” even though he had merely brought anti-police brutality signs to a march in Olympia. His case was dismissed when the state withheld exculpatory evidence during discovery and Wally argued eloquently in his own defense against the specious notion of “associative culpability.”

This deliberate pattern of targeting those considered “high profile” and influential members of social movements was also carried out against Brendan Dunn, a founding member of the Evergreen Chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a member of Port Militarization Resistance (PMR), and the Olympia Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Dunn settled out of court after assault charges were fabricated against him at a “World Can’t Wait” Rally in Seattle in 2006. Dunn and two associates became known as the “Flag 3” after they refused to hand over an anarchist flag that an officer claimed was a symbol of violence.

It’s difficult to understand the coordinated nature of this campaign of repression without discussing the escalating tension between members of law enforcement, the military, and the local anti-war movement. In order to get a better grasp of why certain individuals were targeted and singled out by officers, it is crucial to discuss the role of John Towery in more depth. In 2009, through independent research done by Drew Hendricks and public records gained by Brendan Dunn, it was revealed that a man who posed as an ally to the anti-war movement in Olympia was actually a member of the Army’s Force Protection Intelligence Unit at Fort Lewis under the Directorate of Emergency Services (DES). From March 2007 until July of 2009, when John Towery’s real identity was revealed, he mapped associations and provided detailed information about protest groups to the United States Military and the Washington State Fusion Center (an intelligence sharing network between local and state law enforcement like OPD and the Washington State Patrol, as well as federal agencies like the FBI, NSA, Department of Homeland Security, and the military).

John Towery’s job was to specifically target Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and other groups at Evergreen State College as well as infiltrate the Port Militarization Resistance (PMR) movement. Towery befriended people under false pretenses, attended meetings and potlucks, and gained administrator access to the movement’s list-serves. He conducted this activity regardless of the fact that these groups were engaged in non-violent direct action against illegal and unjust wars, and despite the fact that his spying was in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which states “it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the army of the United States…to execute the state’s laws.” In 2007, according to public records, Lt. General Charles H. Jacoby Jr. gave John Towery a “Certificate of Achievement” for:

…exceptionally meritorious achievement while providing crucial police intelligence during the Third Striker Brigade redeployment from the Port of Olympia to Fort Lewis… Mr. Towery demonstrated outstanding professionalism and devotion to duty by rendering up to the minute reports that clearly stated the intentions of anti-war protesters at the Port of Olympia. This vital information was relayed to the local law enforcement agencies which assisted them in ensuring that the convoys were conducted safely and without injury to soldiers or damage to military equipment.

Larry Hildes, a member of the National Lawyers Guild, who is bringing my suit against the Olympia Police Department, is also suing John Towery and the US Army over these revelations. Towery’s trial is set for June of 2014 and will raise important questions in regards to the Army’s campaign of illegal spying and the trampling of civil liberties by a deliberate pattern of false arrests, citations, imprisonment, excessive force, and harassment.

The case against John Towery was strengthened in 2010, when Hildes secured a $417,000 dollar settlement on behalf of Phil Chinn, a graduate of Evergreen State College, and another member of SDS and PMR. Though he was driving three miles under the speed limit, Chinn was pulled over by Washington State Patrol on his way to an anti-war protest at the Port of Aberdeen. He was falsely charged with DUI, and, as he was led over to the patrol vehicle, he noticed a picture of his parent’s car that he had driven the day before sitting on the trooper’s dashboard. After criminal charges were dropped for lack of evidence, it was revealed through radio traffic that Detectives with the Aberdeen Police and Washington State Patrol had been watching Chinn’s movements and put out an “attempt to locate” code on his vehicle because there were “three identified anarchists” in the car who were considered “the biggest threat.” (Seattle Weekly,  “Watching the Protesters: These spies may have known too much.”)

This is where the plot thickens. Even after John Towery was forced out of the movement in July 2009, e-mail exchanges reveal that Towery’s supervisor, Thomas Rudd of the Force Protection Division at Fort Lewis, continued to send memoranda and “threat assessments” to individuals in multiple law enforcement agencies. This included members of Washington State Patrol as well as then Police Chief Gary Michel, Commander Steve Nelson, and Commander Tor Bjornstad of the Olympia Police Department. According to these public records, before the November 2007 Olympia Port Protests, Commander Bjornstad met with Thomas Rudd, John Towery, and Cliff Colvin (an informant hired by the Coast Guard) to discuss strategies to neutralize the local anti-war movement. Tactics planned at these meetings included the use of pre-emptive arrests, illegal surveillance, the deployment of chemical agents against peaceful demonstrators as well as other forms of excessive force and brutality.

This strategy was put into effect at the citywide level by Olympia City Manager Steve Hall, who directed City Communications Manager Cathie Butler to infiltrate PMR list-serves, relaying confidential information as well as facilitating false mediation sessions designed to gather intelligence on protesters. Under Steve Hall’s supervision, the Olympia Police Department and the Prosecutor’s Office engaged in harassment, false arrests, and malicious prosecution of selected activists, particularly focusing on women and other protected classes who participated in the Olympia Port Protests. Furthermore, Steve Hall acted with others to deliberately conceal and destroy evidence of this illegal conduct and withheld exculpatory evidence that could have resulted in dismissals and acquittals in numerous cases the city brought against anti-war protesters.

Scarcely a month after the army concluded its second internal investigation into John Towery’s spying, the details of my case demonstrate how this pattern of profiling and repression continued even after Towery had left in July 2009. Two days before the protest I attended on April 8, 2010, Towery’s supervisor at Fort Lewis, Thomas Rudd, sent intelligence about the Anti-Police Brutality March to then OPD Commander Tor Bjornstad, who was on scene for the arrests, and forwarded the Army’s intelligence to Commander Steve Nelson, Lieutenant Ray Holmes, and Police Chief Gary Michel. The arrests of twenty-nine people at a protest on public streets for “pedestrian interference,” an unconstitutional charge used to justify this pre-emptive mass-arrest model, fits the pattern that law enforcement used to neutralize the anti-war movement in years prior. This tactic was seen as late as May 2, 2009 when the last protest against military shipments was effectively prevented by soldiers of the 504th Military Police Battalion, who mass-arrested protesters on civilian territory in Lakewood after I performed at a hip hop show at Coffee Strong, an anti-war café near Fort Lewis.

In an age of capitalist crisis and homeland insecurity, where cops are armed to the teeth with military grade weaponry supplied by federal grants, and fusion centers partner with the private sector achieving power so inconceivable that George Orwell would get nightmares, how do we fight back? How can we rein in these Frankenstein’s monsters before they pre-empt our dreams of a better world or drown future generations in martial law? Refusing to be terrified into silence or overwhelmed by the odds is a start. Educate yourself and others, take the streets, and increase the pressure through dedicated direct action campaigns. Build community solidarity organizations, nurturing a culture of art and music, creativity and resistance. Defend dissidents, whistle-blowers, and journalists with integrity, supporting those who take risks and are targeted for standing up for all of our rights. Demand transparency through public records requests to understand how the system operates, unravel abuse and prevent future Kafkaesque designs. Finally, spread the word through media publicity and wage court battles that reveal the full extent and nature of illegitimate programs, setting legal precedents against unaccountable institutions that hold freedom hostage. In this late stage of our history, these are some of the most effective tools we have left to reverse the rising tide of repression.

My upcoming trial will raise the profile of these matters, and spark dialogue about the draconian violations of our civil rights. I believe that the long shadow cast over Olympia, Washington by this official criminality is just the tip of the iceberg and it’s time to break the ice. Winning this case will bring personal closure for me as well as setting a legal precedent that will hopefully thaw the chill surrounding free speech and embolden others, who have experienced similar abuse, to seek justice. If I can contribute in any way to rebuild the trust that has been shattered in our community, repair the damage done by years of false arrests, frame-ups, police violence, federal intimidation, and military infiltration, then this civil case will have been well worth it.

Please join me on March 11, 2014 at the Federal Courthouse in Tacoma at 9 am for the first day of my trial. For news and updates on my case and the upcoming trial of John Towery please visit my support blog, “We Are All Suspects Now” at http://strife-101-life.tumblr.com/.

Pox, C-Dot, B-Rich, Strife

Who is John Towery?

 [Editor’s Note: From a website created for the express purpose of surveillance and harassing Mr. Towery]

UPDATE: JAN 20, 2014
A lawsuit has been filed against John Towery and other parties involved in this illegal spying. There is a press release and you can read the complaint here. A document showing how this spying resulted in an activist being labeled as a “domestic terrorist” is available here.

UPDATE: JAN 23, 2010
New documents have been released providing intricate detail on much of Towery’s spying. You can grab a copy from our site here (part two is here). In these records are intra-agency memos and hand-written notes detailing the most personal details of the lives of those who fell prey to illegal spying and government surveillance.

This site costs money to host. If you’d like to kick a little change our way, please donate bitcoin to 1NfGBfDNtwkja7uGFyGWBiutpc9QdpzqbV

John Towery is a professional informant who works for the US Army. He works on Fort Lewis, WA in ‘force protection’. Between September 2007 and July 2009, using the alias “John Jacob (agent_orange@riseup.net)”, he illegally infiltrated various anti-war and “anarchist” groups around the Olympia and Tacoma (WA) area including Port Militarization Resistance and Students for a Democratic Society. He also worked closely with the Smash ICE Campaign and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Much of his time was spent befriending anarchists or those whose views had anarchist characteristics. People who knew John Jacob described him as kind, generous, and friendly. He came to meetings and quickly became a trusted individual, leading to him becoming the administrator of the PMR mailing list which gave him access to the name and email address of almost every person in the organization. The information he collected was given to and used by various government bodies including The US Army, The Olympia Police Department, the Tacoma Police Department, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Washington State Patrol, and the Washington Joint Analytical Center. After his outing, he admitted to spying on these groups and passing on information to these agencies. This information collection on US citizens and groups engaged in 1st Amendment protected activities was clearly illegal under a number of statues and violated the rights and civil liberties of those involved.

This story has made it far and there’s a lot of coverage. Some of the best coverage so far came from the first media outlet to break the story: Democracy Now!. The first episode dedicated to this event is available at http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/stream

They also did a second episode with Christopher Pyle, the whistleblower who sparked the Church hearings available at http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/29/pyle

Wikileaks significantly contributed to open discussion about this incident by helping to leak source documents describing military spying activity. Some of these documents were available months before John Towery was outed. And of course, this story would have been heard anywhere had some hard-working activists in Olympia not looked into who “John Jacob” really was.

Other media coverage worth looking at:

Public Records Request finds Olympia Activists Caught in a National Surveillance Program (Brendan Dunn, Works in Progress)

The Death of John Jacobs (Brendan Dunn, Works in Progress)

PMR Activist “John Jacob” Exposed as Military Agent (Drew Hendricks, Works in Progress)

The Spy Who Billed Me Twice (Julian Assange ,WIKILEAKS) Link dead? Try this one.
Source documents worth reading:

Washington Joint Analytical Center Seattle private intelligence outsourcing, 1525 pages, 2006-2008 at WIKILEAKS Link Dead? Try this one

Agent Orange is a Spy for Ft. Lewis (original outing) at Portland Indymedia

Spying on anti-war protesters: US Army Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations, 4 Mar 2009 at WIKILEAKS Link Broken? Try this one.

What proof exist that John Towery was a spy?

Public records show that John Towery sent “Force Protection Intelligence Updates” (at the bottom of this page) to various agencies including the US Army, The Olympia Police Department, and the Tacoma Police Department. John’s home address was surveilled and it was established that John Towery lives there. He was identified as being the same John that infiltrated the various groups stated above. Furthermore, the license plate on his bike which had been seen by various activists matches those found in the “Iron Butt Motorcycle Rider’s Association” membership list under the name John Towery. After the outing, he admitted in person to several individuals that he indeed was passing information on to the US Army, the FBI, the Washington Joint Analytical Center, Washington State Patrol, and various state agencies. His behavior and the information he gained is typical of an infiltrator, such as trying to become an administrator on the PMR listserv (and succeeding).

Why was this spying illegal?

Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, it is illegal for the US Army or other military forces to collect information on US Civillians. Furthermore, had John worked for another agency, such as the Olympia Police Department or the FBI it would have been illegal to do what he had done. Groups such as Students for a Democratic Society and Olympia Port Militarization Resistance are engaged in 1st Amendment protected activity and various state and federal laws including the constitution prevent surveillance and disruption of such groups. Furthermore, since various agencies acted on information that they should have reasonably known were obtained illegally, they were also in violation of the law.

Is John Towery still involved in these groups?

No, he has been kicked out of these groups and removed from their mailing lists.

Are additional pictures available of John Towery?

Yes,. there is a picture of him on his bike (including his plate number for verification) at

http://portland.indymedia.org/media/images/2009/07/392922.jpg

A higher resolution picture of him is available at http://portland.indymedia.org/media/images/2009/07/392921.jpg

If I have information on John Towery that is not known to the public what should I do?

You should see our about us page to get in touch with us.

What have groups such as Port Militarization Resistance done in response to these revelations?

They have publicly outed information about this individual and continued their important anti-war and social justice work.

From: “Towery II, John J CIV USA IMCOM”
To: “LEWIS DES Fusion Cell”
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:47 PM
Attach: 20081212 Daily.doc
Subject: (U // FOUO) 20081212- Fort Lewis Force Protection Daily Update(UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO
Please find attached the Fort Lewis daily force protection update. This
document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and intended for Force Protection and
Law Enforcement personnel only. You may communicate contents in the
summary within your organization, but if you wish to distribute outside
of this community, contact the Fort Lewis FP Fusion Cell at the points
of contact below. If you want to get a copy of the FY09 Threat
Assessment for Fort Lewis email the  lewispmfusioncell@conus.army.mil.
John J. Towery
Fort Lewis Force Protection
COM: 253-966-7317
DSN: 347-7317
 john.towery@conus.army.mil
 john.towery@us.army.smil.mil
ICE Survey for FP Support is at:
 https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&service_provider_id=101874&site_id=348&service_category_id=29

Feb 19 (3:00pm-5:00pm) Jackie Wang: Against Innocence / ACAP + FIST
Feb 20 (5:00pm – ?) “Visions of Abolition” Film Screening & group discussion on prison/police abolition / ACAP
Feb 26 (3:00pm-5:00pm)“Grand Jury Resistance in the Pacific Northwest and Beyond” / ACAP
Feb 27 (6:00-9:00pm) “From Activist to Terrorist” with Will Potter & Jake Conroy / EPIC

March
Mar. 5 (1:00pm-5:00pm) March Prisoner Writing Day / ACAP

Mar. 7 (3:00pm-5:00pm) Portland Anarchist Black Cross: “Revolution on the Inside and Out: Decolonizing Prisons and Supporting Prisoners” / ACAP

April
April 2 (1:00pm-5:00pm) April Prisoner Writing Day

Rethinking Prisons Week: April 7th – 11th
April 7th (3:00pm-5:00pm) PANEL: “THE PATH FROM MIGRANT WORKER TO CRIMINAL TO DIGNITY” / ACAP + FIST + MEXA + EPIC + SDS
April 8th (?) Robert King of the Angola 3 [Tentative] / ACAP
April 9th (3:00pm-5:00pm) Ed Mead & Mark Cook (former members of the Gheorge Jackson Brigade) [Tentative] / ACAP
April 10th (5:00pm-6:30pm) Kristian Williams “Policing And Counter-Insurgency” / ACAP
April 11th (1:00pm-4:00pm) Radical Self-Defense Course w/ Greg Lewis / ACAP

May
May 7th (1:00pm-5:00pm) May Prisoner Writing Day / ACAP

May 12th (3:00pm-5:00pm) Insurgent Theatre: An Interactive Play about Mass Incarceration / ACAP

June
June 4th (1:00pm-5:00pm) June Prisoner Writing Day / ACAP

Spill Larger Than Admitted

Dogs of War

BANGOR, WA. – An oily waste spill into Hood Canal at the Bangor naval submarine base is about 13 times larger than first estimated, Navy officials said.

The Navy said in a statement that about 2,000 gallons of oily waste spilled into the scenic waterway during a transfer of ship overboard discharge Monday afternoon.

The spill initially was estimated to be about 150 gallons.

The Navy, the state Department of Ecology and the U.S. Coast Guard are working together to contain and clean up the spill, which was caused by a malfunction in a pierside oily waste transfer system at the base.

Containment booms were placed around the spill, but not before an unknown quantity of oily waste escaped.

Oil spill response equipment from several regional Navy commands is on scene supporting the cleanup.

The effects of this spill to wildlife or property are unknown at this time, said Navy spokesman Tom Danaher.

Politics of Street Violence & V@ndalism

The strategy of chevauchée seen practiced by the more violent street elements describing themselves as (A)narchists unknown to even some of its own less sophisticated fanatics (except without the horses or discipline) is one of increasing tensions and fear among the general population by assaults (e.g. against photojournalists) or the wanton destruction of property (or both) hoping to precipitate a scenario where the body politic is ungovernable, inter alia an assault/war against the state, society, and citizens. Viewed in this context, it is a treasonous act rather than merely a series of petty crimes by those who openly profess to be at war with the state, society, civilization itself while promising to ignore/reject all laws and denying the existence of all ‘rights’. Many of the more senior members of this men@ge are college professors, or other professionals holding privileged positions receiving handsome State salaries and possibly never worked a day’s hard labor in their lives. Their acolytes typically consist of lifestyle (A)narchists (spoiled rich kids) who in turn manipulate the homeless, the most desperately poor, and the mentally defective living on (or not) the street to do their dirty work. They post their exploits (‘reports’) on internet sites given to their ’cause’ in an effort to inspire others to follow suit. The more anger/fear they inspire in government officials and the population, the more satisfied they become. This is why innocent citizens may return to find the windows of their vehicles smashed, their tires slashed, their churches vandalized, their police officers threatened/harassed, and those Constitutional principles Americans have come to expect trashed.

A chevauchée (French pronunciation: ​[ʃəvoʃe], “promenade” or “horse charge”, depending on context) was a raiding method of medieval warfare for weakening the enemy, focusing mainly on wreaking havoc, burning and pillaging enemy territory, in order to reduce the productivity of a region; as opposed to siege warfare or wars of conquest.

The chevauchée could be used as a way of forcing an enemy to fight, or as a means of discrediting the enemy’s government and detaching his subjects from their loyalty. This usually caused a massive flight of refugees to fortified towns and castles, which would be untouched by the chevauchée. The use of the chevauchée declined at the end of the 14th century as the focus of warfare turned to sieges.

In the Iberian peninsula, this type of raid was usually called a cavalgada. The Ghazi razzia is also considered similar in purpose.

As an avowed (A)narchist, Drew Hendricks nevertheless Rogue Reflections appears to have a refined knowledge of Constitutional boundaries and the civil rights of citizens as shown here in the video clip he posted to Youtube while gauging the reactions of the Auburn, WA police.

by Drew Hendricks Rogue Reflections (2-11-14)

[Editor’s Note: The above retraction is issued due to the error of incorrectly attributing it to Drew Hendricks instead of ‘Rogue Reflections’ after some fact checking when Mr. Hendricks denied having anything to do with the above video. It’s something of a shame as it makes the photographer look almost heroic defending the 1st and 2nd Amendment at the same time in stark contrast to Mr. Hendrick’s usual predilection for ‘snitch’ hunts.]

Rogue Reflections

Rogue Reflections w/Seattle Police

AUBURN, WA — On 11 FEB 2014, I was filming various parts of Auburn, WA, when I noticed what appeared to be a Security Police Officer filming me from inside the Auburn Justice Center. Being naturally curious myself, I started filming him. Three Auburn police officers then approached,  eventually joined by a 4th.  I believe, overall, this was a relatively positive interaction. They were curious about what they perceived as “suspicious activity” and approached me. They did not DEMAND ID, nor was I arrested, and no use of force was initiated against me. They did not observe illegal activity and they did not manufacture probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I must say I appreciated the dialogue, as it made for a more interesting video. I expect a few verbal jabs, when I’m out shooting public photos and videos. I will jab back a little. It makes things a bit more dynamic. In the end, they honored the oaths they took. I will never fault an officer if he/she is staying true to their sworn oath to the Constitution.

[Note: The following video *DOES* show Andrew Hendricks in it.]

Today, Presidents (Bush) publicly cozy up to and defend torture. 38% of the people (according to newspaper polls) think torture is acceptable under some circumstances. Secret prisons, universal surveillance, extraordinary renditions, and the gutting of due process via indefinite detentions without probable cause make 1984 look like a vacation.

Jessie Outlaw asks a question once asked by Stanley Milgram in his notorious psychology experiment seeking to know just how far Americans would go in obeying perceived authority. Sadly, the answer raised another more disturbing question: What was the point of beating the Nazis only to become just like them?

The People Bite B@ck

by Carlos Miller

A Miami-Dade Metrorail security guard violently attacked a commuter Thursday night after handcuffing him for no valid reason, jamming a gun into his ribs, smashing his face into the platform and punching him in the face and head repeatedly – the third time since last year that armed 50 State security guards proved to be completely out of control and an endangerment to the general public.

Not that anybody from the county is making an issue about it.

In fact, Michael Valencia, 21, who ended up with three broken teeth, one black eye and a busted lip is grateful the Miami-Dade police officer who responded to the scene did not take him to jail, but instead dropped him off at a bus stop, ensuring him that the incident will be fully “investigated.”

But that also means he could face felony battery charges against the guard, he said.

And considering 50 State Senior Vice President and Project Manager Fred Taylorspent 35 years at the Miami-Dade Police Department, including more than ten years as its director, and is known to insiders as the key link between the private security company and its multimillion dollar contract with the county, it is unlikely anybody in the county is going to put the blame on the guards.

At least if history is any indicator.

I have a long history with 50 State ever since they “permanently banned” me for taking photos in 2010, which is completely legal, and have been assaulted and attacked several times after that for taking photos, including a savage attack last year where they dragged me down the escalator in a chokehold and almost killed me. I filed a lawsuit against them, which you can read here. We are scheduled to go to trial in May. Videos of my incidents are below.

Also, last May one of their guards was caught on video tossing out an 82-year-old woman because she was singing the gospel, which also resulted in a lawsuit.

Although they have proven to treat photographers like dangerous criminals, they have no problem posing with young females and posting the images on Facebook.

Unfortunately, Valencia’s friend, Cole Nichols, attempted to record the latest attack, but had no extra storage space on his phone.

Nevertheless, the guard, described as a stocky black man wearing glasses, kept trying to swipe at Nichols’ phone as he struggled with Valencia.

Other commuters attempted to record the aftermath as Valencia sat handcuffed and bloodied at the security kiosk but guards chased them away, ordering them to stop recording.

The incident most likely was captured on surveillance video, which we will be requesting Monday morning through a public records request.

At one point, after the guard began punching Valencia on the platform of the Vizcaya Station, Nichols pushed the guard off, allowing his friend to get free. The two men started running towards the stairs but the guard pulled out his gun.

“He said, ‘freeze or I’ll shoot you,’” Nichols said.

Valencia froze but Nichols continued running. When he reached downstairs, he tried to enlist the help of another guard but that guard tried to detain him, so Nichols ran out the station and did not stop running until he reached his home in downtown Miami.

The incident began around 8 p.m. Thursday after Valencia and Nichols had gotten off work from the Human Rights Campaign in Coconut Grove. They first joined a few co-workers for happy hour at the Cheesecake Factory in Cocowalk before buying a 12-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon bottles and walking to the Coconut Grove station where they had planned to ride the train to Nichols’ home in downtown to drink the beer.

Valencia attempted to pay for Nichols and himself with his monthly fare card that contained about $20 of credit but the turnstile locked when Valencia tried to use it a second time for himself after Nichols had already entered.

That was when the 50 State security guard confronted them in an angry tone.

“‘Hey fucker, we see what you’re doing, go get your ass another ticket,’” Valencia described the guard as saying.

Valencia walked to the outside ticket vending machine and bought a single ticket to get inside. As he went up to the second-floor platform, they discussed how rude the guard had been, which made the guard even angrier.

“He comes after us with a brisk face and says, ‘if you want to say shit, say it to my face,’” Valencia said.

“I was like, ‘I’m not really here to start problems.’

“He says, ‘take that fucking smirk off your face.’

“I’m like, ‘I’m not smirking, that’s just my face.’”

The guard then asked if they had been drinking, pulling out his flashlight and shining it at the unopened 12-pack of beer.

“Are you going to throw a bottle at me?’” Valencia quoted the guard as asking.

The guard then ordered them out of the station.

The two walked up US 1 to the Vizcaya Station about a couple of miles up the road, paying for their fare and making their way upstairs to the train platform.

To their dismay, the same security popped out of the shadows and confronted them.

“‘I told you guys to stay off the fucking rail,’” Valencia described the guard as saying.

The guard pulled out his handcuffs and began wrestling with Valencia.

“He slammed Mike’s head into a trashcan,” Nichols said. “He reached back and started punching him in the face.”

Nichols managed to shove the guard off Valencia and the two started running for the stairs, but the guard pulled out his gun, pointed it at them and ordered them to stop.

Valencia stopped, fearing he would be shot as Nichols continued running.

“I get to the bottom of the stairs and see another security guard,” Nichols said. “I told him the other guard just punched my friend and pulled a gun on us.”

But that security guard moved in to detain him, so Nichols took off running.

“I felt bad about leaving Mike but I was freaking out,” he said.

Meanwhile, Valencia was already in handcuffs, but the guard continued beating him, ordering him to “Stop resisting.”

The guard threw Valencia into the elevator, joined by another 50 State security guard, and continued beating him all the way down.

“He punched me in the face repeatedly and threw me against the wall and the other guard kept saying, “it’s because you’re a thug,’” Valencia said.

They marched him to the kiosk and ordered him to sit down with his knees up, continually pushing his face down into them.

“I was screaming hysterically, yelling that he beat me, asking someone to please help me,” Valencia said.

That was when a couple of commuters attempted to record the scene, but the guards ordered them away.

“I couldn’t see them, but I heard the guards say, ‘stop fucking recording,’” Valencia said.

Paramedics arrived, but refused to treat Valencia, just as they did to me after my Metrorail attack last year.

“I told them what happened and they said, ‘I don’t fucking care,’ and they went to treat the guard instead,” he said.

A Miami-Dade police officer named Gregory Carter seemed to empathize size with Valencia, informing him that the case will be investigated by a detective named Darling.

Carter drove him to a bus stop so he could go home, but the bus never came, so Valencia called his dad to pick him up.

His dad was sickened when he saw his son.

“He was very nervous, almost in shock,” said Rafael Valencia.

“This is what I saw in Cuba when I left in 1969. It’s not supposed to happen in this country.”

But it does happen in this country. More than most would like to admit. And it has happened way too often on the Miami-Dade Metrorail.

Miami filmmaker Billy Corben, who first notified me of this incident, is outraged and vows to demand some accountability from the county.

This is the third serious incident recently reported involving Metrorail guards from 50 State Security attacking passengers. Now, with a gun allegedly involved, it appears the violence is escalating. I’m frightened to think what they might do to somebody next time. Ultimately, I hold our public officials accountable. They’re supposed to represent our best interests, but it seems that once they grant these sweetheart multi-million dollar contracts, there is no oversight whatsoever by the County Commission. They just hand them a big check, a gun and a license to deprive people of their rights. I plan to attend an upcoming meeting to find out what they plan to do about this epidemic of physical and economic abuse against the citizens of Miami-Dade.

Florida statutes do not give licensed security guards any right to use force on a citizen unless they are either protecting themselves or somebody else.

However, that statute is frequently violated by 50 State security guards as we’ve seen in several of my run-ins with them as well as last year’s incident  with the gospel-singing grandmother, a company made up mostly of ex-cops and veterans.

I haven’t ridden the train since my attack because I know the cops, paramedics, politicians and prosecutors will not protect me from the guards, who have learned they can attack whomever they want, whenever they want, and remain employed.

Below are videos from my January 2013 attack as well as three incidents from 2010. Obviously, nothing has changed.

Here are some phone numbers and emails:

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez: 305-375-5071

Miami-Dade Transit complaints: 305-891-3131

Ysela Llort, Director of Miami-Dade Transit: Email

Eric Muntan, Director of Security at Miami-Dade Transit:  305-375-5251

Florida Department of Agriculture, which oversees the licensing of private security guards and companies:  (850) 245-5499

Employees of 50 State Security attack Carlos Miller for taking photos

Metrorail Harasses Photographers

On Jul 1, 2010 Stretch Ledford and Carlos Miller were harassed by security guards, city cops, county cops and a Homeland Security officer for taking pictures before they were ultimately banned for life from ever riding the Metrorail.

Miami Police Claim Building/Dept. Is ‘Private’ Business

Here’s 50 state’s contact info: 915 NE 125th Street, Ste. 106 North Miami, FL 33161; Tel: 305.891.7000; Fax: 305.981.0753; Email: info@50state.com

The following is an (A)narchist’s defense of civil disobedience, insurgency, and ‘direct action’ (breaking the law in a highly visible/public manner):

[DISCLAIMER: Neither this site, its editorial staff, nor Soul Snatcher Productions ™ & affiliates take any responsibility for views expressed by authors of the following articles nor advocate any of the contents therein.]

The issue includes an editorial (a defense of radicalism), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF: a social movement analysis), lessons learned from Occupy Hong Kong, Erin Marie Konsmo’s “Artwork Through A Birchbark Heart”, globalization and culture (an interview with Imre Szeman), Everyone’s a Terrorist Now (marginalizing protest in the US), book reviews & more…

Radical Criminology: An Insurgent Journal – issue 2 (fall 2013)

Click –>RadicalCriminology_2

[Editor’s Note: The following ‘Manifesto‘ from the same (A)narchist website in BC, CA is littered with articulate, but typical deeply disturbing flawed self serving logic/arguments. The reader is invited to ferret out these misapprehensions. Sadly, the ‘Manifesto’ here could as easily have been written by the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.]

M(A)NIFESTO

Radical Criminology: A Manifesto

In this period of state-sponsored austerity and suppression of resistance there is a great need for criminologists to speak out and act against state violence, state-corporate crime, and the growth of surveillance regimes and the prison-industrial complex. Criminologists also have a role to play in advancing alternatives to current regimes of regulation and punishment. In light of current social struggles against neo-liberal capitalism, and as an effort to contribute positively to those struggles, the Critical Criminology Working Group at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Vancouver has initiated the journal Radical Criminology. We hope you will enjoy our first issue and find it to be a useful resource.

The present period represents an era of state capitalist offensives against the working classes and oppressed globally. It is played out in specific local maneuvers but is global in character. The main thrusts are austerity policies mean to break the infrastructures and resources on which the working classes and oppressed rely and to weaken possibilities for resistance and make people desperate and despairing. Conditions of austerity are effected through social and economic policies that limit the rights of workers on the labor market and at work and which remove alternatives to waged labor (such as welfare or low cost education). Along with austerity is the creation of crises and manufactured fear in the political fantasies of contagion (by terrorism, radicalism, or the foreign outsider). This fear is used to legitimize the deployment of repressive policies and practices (aggressive laws and policing patterns).

This is also an era in which the previous models of social change and resistance—notably Marxism/Leninism and the vanguard party, national liberation, and social democracy—have been discredited and/or discarded. New generations of people, with no particular prejudices, biases, or commitments toward the radical political models of the past and their associated claims on rightness (and righteousness) have become politicized on new terms and from new beginnings. This poses both great possibilities and great perils. On the one hand, there is the danger of starting over from scratch—of needlessly making the same mistakes that experience might avoid, of reinventing the wheel (as a flat tire), of pursuing false leads and getting caught in dead ends (reformism and adventurism, statism and electoralism, guerrilla moralism and vanguardism).

On the other hand, and more hopefully, there is the real possibility that new and more effective approaches will be developed, refined, and pursued. Forgotten voices and lost wisdom will once again be engaged in meaningful ways. This is already being realized in the widespread, and growing, engagement with anarchism, indigenous thinking, radical unionism, syndicalism, and horizontalism and direct action.

This period poses new challenges for intellectual workers, particularly academic social scientists. The challenges for criminologists (and criminology more broadly as a discipline) are even more pressing given that this is a period marked largely by punitive advances of capital and its (neo)liberal democratic management regimes. Criminal justice systems, and their diverse institutions, have been key weapons in the capitalist offensive against the working classes and oppressed. Criminologists, perhaps more than other social scientists, have an obligation to take a stand against the assaults of states on populations made increasingly vulnerable by the actions of economic and political powerholders.

It is now absolutely essential, as a matter of struggles for justice and against repression and criminalization, that criminologists take a firm and open stand against criminal justice policies and practices that serve capital at the expense of the working classes and oppressed. A radical criminology must act in solidarity with those individuals and groups targeted by the institutions of the state.

Radical criminology must not flinch in the face of condemnation by corporate mass media and political institutions. It is not enough to be a public criminologist. Criminology must go further to be an active, indeed an interested, player in contemporary struggles. Criminology must choose sides. It must stand with the movements of the exploited and against the exploiters. It must stand with the oppressed and against the oppressors. It must stand with the marginalized and against those who would claim (or impose) the privileged center. It must stand with the criminalized and against those who would criminalize them.

This discussion offers merely a sketch of some of the possible contours of a radical criminology. It is not meant as a final answer, but rather as an opening question.

Outlines of a Radical Criminology

1. Radical criminology must be anti-statist and anti-capitalist. It must not succumb to the myth, as libertarians do, that there is an opposition between capitalism and the state. The emergence, development, and continuance of capitalism have been entirely facilitated by state practices. Indeed, capitalism is unimaginable without the state. The expropriation of land, enclosure of commons, defense of privatized property, and repression of peasant and working class opposition—the very foundations of capitalism—are all acts of the state. Without the repressive apparatuses of the state, capitalism would quickly collapse. The idea that the state and capitalist market are oppositional forces is falsity that serves only to distort history and confuse matters.

Capitalism is founded on the dual mechanisms of force and law. Criminal justice systems deploy legal means to sanction the forced theft of land and labor.

Legislative and material violence are the twin foundations of criminal justice systems. From the Enclosure Acts in England and the military violence used to impose them through the legislative foundations of slavery, colonialism, and genocide to the anti-panhandling and poor laws and social cleansing of today, these dual features are deployed against poor and working class communities (often on racialized terms).

2. A radical criminology must again recognize exploitation—the social exploitation of labor—as the central organizing feature of capitalist societies. The underlying motive force of the economy, exploitation provides the raison d’être of liberal democratic governance—that is ensuring and extending the conditions of exploitation of labor by capital. This too provides the impetus of criminal justice system policies and procedures since the earliest days of liberal democratic government. This has always been the foundation of criminal justice systems in liberal democracies. This is at the heart of these systems. Such practices have been central components of criminal justice practices from the start. Examples include the various poor laws and anti-vagrancy acts as well as state work camps and prison workhouses.

3. Criminal justice systems are themselves profit maximizing machines. The manner of their profit-making is the processing and punishment of the poor. Without the criminalization of the poor—as poor—criminal justice systems in Western liberal democracies would collapse or wither on the vine. In Canada, around 10% of the population live under the poverty line (even more are actually poor). Yet, the poor make up nearly 100% of incarcerated people.

Policing is primarily a racket for soft crime mining. They pan for crime in poor neighborhoods (typically after instigating or stoking moral panics to criminalize harmless activities like squeegeeing or panhandling from which they can then profit by pursuing) to keep arrest rates and crime stats higher and thus justify appeals for greater spending on their services.

And the cost of policing in times of austerity, which is no small expense, shows the hypocrisy of governments that claim tight budgets and limited funding for social services. In Vancouver, for example, the police account for around 21% of the City budget. This expense is rising and politically untouchable as far as possible cuts are concerned.

The single act of issuing one anti-panhandling ticket to a homeless person sets in motion a money-making assembly line of punishment and profit. Along the way various sectors of the system receive (unequal) payment which represents a transfer of wealth upwards (as the taxes of the working classes are transferred to the state agencies). First, there are the police officers who issue the tickets. Then there are the lawyers, bailiffs, judges, and jail or prison guards (to say nothing of the lower status court workers such as clerks and stenographers). At the end are the subsequent demands for more police and prisons to deal with “the problem.” Prison construction companies, corporate food services, prison industries (slave labor firms) all follow along. Without this profitable foundation in the punishment of the poor the system of state capitalist criminal justice could not persist. Police, court, and prison budgets would lose their prop. At the same time we should not assume as liberals often do that diverted funds would be put toward socially necessary ends such as schools or hospitals.

This point is reinforced by the fact that 21% of charges in Canada are administration of justice charges such as failure to appear or boundary violations. Warrants and jail result from what was initially a minor charge due to the piling on of administrative charges (processing charges).

4. The state is a protection racket. That is its basic function. As with smaller gangs, the state leans on the population with displays of violence in a way to extract finances and support for “services rendered.” More people have been killed by states than by all of the street gangs, thugs, Mafioso, hooligans, and terrorists in history combined.

5. Radical criminology must be anti-colonial. It must confront the historic and ongoing assaults on indigenous communities globally by settler capitalist states and their criminal justice systems. Radical criminology must be clear in stating that criminal justice systems in settler democracies are founded in practices of colonialism. Not only has legislation been utilized to dispossess indigenous communities of their land and resources and displace them from traditional territories. Laws have dismantled indigenous systems of governance and community self-determination. Practices like slavery, also have legal underpinnings. The programs of cultural genocide unleashed against indigenous communities were founded in legislation and legal institutions. They were never against the law.

Criminal justice processes are part of ongoing colonial strategies of containment and extinguishment directed toward indigenous communities. Native people account for 4% of the population in Canada but make up 20% of those incarcerated. Policing, surveillance, and incarceration serve as successors to more blatant programs of cultural genocide such as residential schools. Presently, 41% of native people who are incarcerated are under the age of 25.

Capitalist economies and liberal democratic governments are founded on expansionist practices (and policies) of enclosure. The history of colonial states is a history of displacement, land theft, murder, and genocide—all legally sanctioned and normalized. The impetus is the opening up of new areas of profitability and economic opportunities for capital. This is the real and integral character of state capitalist liberal democracies.

These are not anomalies or digressions or mistakes or unfortunate features of less enlightened times. These are the pillars of capitalist economies and liberal democratic justice systems. Without such practices—the forced acquisition of cheap land and labor and the breaking of communal bonds—capitalism could not have developed. State capitalism requires, from the start, the dislocation of local communities and their sustenance systems and governance practices.

Radical criminology must stand on the side of indigenous communities that fight back and reclaim their lands as in the case of Six Nations in Ontario and the Secwepemc struggles in British Columbia.

6. Radical criminology must challenge national sovereignty and border controls by statist institutions. It must reject the statist construction of migrants as legal versus “illegal.” No one is illegal must be a clarion call for a radical criminology.

7. Radical criminology must be deep green. It must draw attention to and oppose the integral relationships between capitalist exploitation, business practices, and the destruction of the planet’s various ecosystems. It must also highlight the complicity of states and capital in this destruction and call out the refusal of states to hold economic elites accountable for the harms they perpetrate against human communities and nature. Too often criminology has focused on the low level crimes of non-elites. Harms have been constructed as violations of laws or impacts on individuals or their property. Radical criminology must shift focus to the harmful activities of corporations and businesses (and the people who direct them) which are often not criminalized or “against the law.” Radical criminologists must confront the hegemonic construction of the harm done by capital as simply part of business as usual. This includes confronting economic and political elites on the damage done to ecosystems, non-human nature, and other species—impacts that states and capital excuse as being mere externalities, part of the cost of doing business.

At the same time radical environmentalists, animal rights activists, and advocates of dark green resistance have been heavily targeted by states for criminalization. The repression of green activists today echoes the repression of anarchists and socialists during the Red Scare of the 1910s. Green activists have been subjected to lengthy prison sentences and their groups subjected to intense surveillance. In cases such as the bombing of green syndicalist Judi Bari, in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was involved, liberal democratic states have attempted to assassinate green activists. In addition, states in countries like the US have, under the guise of anti-terror concerns, devised laws to protect corporations from criticism for their ecologically destructive practices. These laws have been used to target even informational groups like Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty which simply try to expose corporate practices. In Canada the Minister of the Environment has labeled opponents of pipelines carrying tar sands oil as extremists in an effort to discredit them. Radical criminology must oppose the criminalization of green activists and point to the state complicity with capital motivating repressive measures against environmentalists.

8. Radical criminology is abolitionist; it must call for the abolition of all statist criminal justice systems. Systems of domination and exploitation cannot be reformed; there is no legitimate basis for reform or revision of policies and practices that are at heart founded in and based upon exploitation. There is no reasonable level of oppression. It is not enough to criticize such systems. Radical criminology must oppose and confront all statist institutions of criminal justice with an eye toward ending them. Such too is the case for institutions and relationships of capitalist exploitation.

Practice

A. There is a pressing urgency that radical criminologists get out of the offices and into the streets and communities in which struggles are occurring. We must put ourselves on the line to stand in solidarity with people in the communities and workplaces in which our campuses and offices are located.

B. We should also recognize that campuses are also sites of exploitation and struggle. Radical criminologists should oppose the corporatization of our various intellectual labours, including teaching as well as research. Among our efforts radical criminologists need to fight neoliberal policies that turn universities and colleges into prep schools for corporate expansion and financial markets.

This means opposing recruitment efforts by police, border services, prisons, private security firms, as well as the military on our campuses. It also means opposing attempts by co-operative education offices to determine curriculum and turn programs into mere training grounds for institutions of repression.

C. A radical criminology needs to refuse the false dichotomies of legal/illegal protest, of violence/non-violence, of legitimate/illegitimate resistance. In state capitalist societies violence is a constant reality of everyday life. Typically it is experienced disproportionately in working class and poor communities whose members are subjected to economic violence at work (and on the labor market), social and cultural violence in schools and in media portrayals, and political violence in policing and criminal justice system practices that punish them overwhelmingly (indeed, almost exclusively). To preach non-violent resistance in such a context is to justify the continuance of state and corporate violence and deny working class and poor people the dignity of self-defense.

In the wake of the popular mobilizations against the economic and political elites of the G8 and G20 meetings in Ontario during the summer of 2010, even noted critical commentators firmly situated on the activist Left called for police repression of more militant activists, particularly anarchists and the so-called black blocs of people supporting and engaged in direct actions against corporate and government targets. Naomi Klein infamously called on police in Toronto to do their “goddamned jobs” and protect property or arrest people intent on damaging property.

Even commentators long influenced by Marxism joined the chorus calling for the arrests of anarchists and others engaged in (or threatening to engage in) direct action. Judy Rebick, Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice at Ryerson University and rabble.ca founder, suggested police should have preemptively arrested militant activists and angry residents involved in property destruction. Unfortunately, her plea was unnecessary as police had already done by arresting several prominent anarchist activists in the days prior to the G20 meetings in Toronto. Those committed organizers had their lives placed in turmoil for over a year and some received lengthy jail terms for having done nothing more than discuss the possibility of direct actions (in contexts in which police infiltrators were present). Thus the wish for preemptive arrests—which has no place among critical theorists or activists—had already been carried out.

Notions of legality and illegality reflect the priorities of states and capital and should not be the basis for assessing movements of resistance. In discussions of legalism/illegalism the state and its corporate backers set the terms of debate. Against statist definitions of ill/legality radical criminologists must assert the needs of people and their environments (including natural environments and their non-human occupants).

D. Property damage is not violence. Only a profoundly unjust society privileges property over the needs of people. Only a distorted system of justice allows property owners to sit on useable housing while arresting those who break into such property to meet their life and death needs for housing. These are the expression of specific decisions to protect property at the expense of human need.

On the other hand, abandoned workplaces do reflect acts of violence. Similarly, foreclosed homes.

E. Radical criminology must break down the barriers between inside and outside. Criminologists need to give explicit support to political prisoners criminalized for their engagement in social justice struggles, resistance, or revolutionary activities. This includes material support (such as prison visits, setting up books to prisoners programs, publishing prisoners’ works) as well as speaking publicly in defense of political prisoners and the state practices of repression deployed against them. Radical criminologists must work to show that economic prisoners are also political prisoners. Economic crimes of the poor and working classes result from political decisions and the preferences and choices of economic and political elites. Laws, policing, and prisons are political to the core. Those who are victimized by such political practices are by definition political prisoners.

Once again a radical criminology does not base support on legal judgments of the actions for which political prisoners have been criminalized. Again, we do not privilege some political prisoners over others on a statist basis of violence or non-violence. We do not withdraw support on the basis that a political prisoner has engaged in or advocated armed struggle, property destruction, or the violation of laws. We cannot allow ourselves to be sectarian in working with or supporting political prisoners. Political differences can be dealt with in direct discussion and debate. As the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) used to say: “They’re in there for us; we’re out here for them.”

F. Radical criminology must be proactive in pursuing workable alternatives to statist forms of criminal justice. Indeed the notion of “criminal justice” should probably be discarded altogether. Radical criminologists have already innovated and advocated for various real world alternatives. These include restorative justice outside of statist institutions as well as healing circles. There are many overlooked, silenced, ignored, and suppressed traditions and tendencies that radical criminology can draw from and build upon. Indigenous governance practices have contributed much toward alternative understandings of communal justice and practical alternative relations. Radical criminology needs a deep and close engagement with indigenous experiences of governance. More work must be done in developing and pursuing community and workplace self defense practices.

G. Radical criminology must be prepared to oppose authoritarian manifestations within our own movements and organizations. We do not need a vanguard party or wannabe states-in-formation within our own ranks. The vast experiences of the twentieth century show rather starkly what a dead end such approaches, seductive though they might be for some, actually are. In any event, participants in the contemporary movements emerging globally are developing, experimenting with, and putting into practice alternative approaches. Radical criminologists will gain by engaging with, learning from, and debating those approaches. Among the important development of contemporary movements is the emphasis on horizontalism and participatory decision making.

Onward

A radical criminology should, in short, be an insurgent criminology. It should be a criminology that provides a useful resource for movements of resistance and communities in struggle against exploitation and oppression.

In times of crisis and intense social struggles—certainly in times of insurrection or uprising—radical criminologists must keep their heads and not succumb to moral backlash or fear, even of the Left and political progressives. It can be too easy for otherwise critical voices to lose confidence under the spotlight of state reaction and media outrage. In such times especially one must advance and sharpen—not lose or abandon—their politics.

Radical criminology is not simply a project of critique, but is geared toward a praxis of struggle, insurgence, and practical resistance. It is a criminology of direct action.

by Jeff Shantz, Surrey, Summer 2012

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

And the beat goes on. Some of the worst police are now treating cameras as weapons and crippling even young children. It doesn’t get much worse than this, short of death, which is also all too common at the hands of those charged to ‘serve & protect’.

Lawsuit: NYC Cop Sexually Assaults Mother, Breaks 10-year-old Son’s Leg for Videoing

Cops break a 10-year-old boy’s leg with a kick then sexually assault mother by flicking pierced nipple, a shocking new lawsuit claims.

Krystle Silvera & 10 year old Courtney Silvera

by John Marzulli

Brooklyn, NY (2-5-14) — A Brooklyn cop kicked a 10-year-old boy in the shin, breaking his leg, as the child was recording him with his cell phone, according to court papers.

Cops were responding to Krystle Silvera’s Flatbush home looking for her ex-boyfriend in connection to violating an order of protection, according to Silvera’s lawsuit, which also contains disturbing allegations that she was sexually abused by a cop.

Krystle’s son Courtney Silvera was eating his breakfast cereal when the cops began knocking on the door.

The visit soon spiraled out of control shortly after cops began pounding on the front door at 7 a.m. on Jan. 30, 2013, according to the complaint filed in Brooklyn Federal Court.

Silvera’s 61-year-old mother, who is suffering from brain and lung cancer, answered the door, but had difficulty understanding the cops’ reason for being there, the suit said.

The curious child went to see what was going on, grabbed his mother’s cell phone and began recording the commotion.

RELATED: COPS RAID EXOTIC FRENCH FOOD SHOP, FIND PORCUPINE, ‘BUSH MEAT’ — ‘UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION’

“The police had come to our house before (due to the domestic violence complaint) and he’s [the boy] fascinated by the police; he looks up to them,” Silvera, 30, a nursing student at Long Island University, told the Daily News.

But the cop apparently didn’t like being recorded and began assaulting the child, the suit said.

Officer Friendly

“I heard my son screaming, ‘You can’t do that! You’re hurting me! Don’t hit me!’ ” she said.

RELATED: HOMELAND SECURITY RAIDS MASS. STRIP CLUB FOR RED SOX AND PATRIOTS GEAR

“My neighbors saw me naked. It was degrading. I can deal with the embarrassment of what (the police) did to me in front of my neighbors, but the hardest thing is explaining to my kids that not all police are bad,” she added.

Silvera was charged with assaulting the cops and released two days later on $1,500 bail.

When she returned home, Courtney’s leg was black-and-blue and swollen, she said. The boy was taken to Kings County Medical Center, where an X-ray showed his leg was fractured.

But Courtney’s dream of becoming a detective someday hasn’t been shattered.

NYC LEO Patch

The cop apparently didn’t like being recorded and began assaulting the child, the suit said.

“I told my mom being a detective would be cool,” the youngster said.

“I want to be a better detective than the one who did this.”

RELATED: SPANISH GOVERNMENT ACCIDENTALLY TWEETS ABOUT RAID

An NYPD spokeswoman said the Internal Affairs Bureau has opened an investigation based on the allegations in the suit.

Three of the officers were treated and released at Maimonides Hospital for minor injuries following the incident, the department said.

“I’ve seen a lot of police brutality cases, but nothing as low as this, kicking a 10-year-old boy,” said the family’s lawyer, Anthony Ofodile.

Silvera, who later pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, is seeking unspecified monetary damages for the alleged civil rights violations.

The cell phone captured sounds and voices during the confrontations but the video image is herky-jerky from the struggle.

Silvera said her son was briefly handcuffed, but when cops learned he was only 10-years-old, they removed the restraints.

Both of her children have been traumatized by the incident, she said.

The cops were from the Warrants Division and the 63rd Precinct in Flatlands.

The Stranger Investigates Police Abuse

There are many very professional competent LEO’s, even in Seattle. This reporter has met some. Yet a few hang onto scripted, but dated, monologues of bullying, intimidation, threats, and false arrests. Time have changed. Today, WE are the media and the press by virtue of cameras having become the new pencil, is literally everywhere. The police can run, they can arrest, they can pull BS out of their @ss, but they can’t hide! Not anymore.

by Carlos Miller

King County Sheriff’s Officer Patrick “K.C.” Saulet was the untouchable.

A veteran law enforcement officer who spent almost three decades racking up more than 100 complaints of abuse and misconduct against him with only a single demotion to show for it. A burly cop who was the epitome of the modern-day police officer, secure in the fact that he could get away with anything, even allegations from fellow deputies.

That is, until he came across Dominic Holden, a hipster-looking, bicycle-riding journalist with a smartphone and a pair of glasses to boot. Nothing Saulet couldn’t handle. Nothing he hadn’t seen before.

Or so he thought.

Holden, editor of the alternative weekly, The Stranger, followed through on his promise last year to ensure Saulet was disciplined for violating his right to take photos in public.

It may have taken six months, but Saulet was stripped of his badge Monday, terminating a 27-year career where he was renowned for being one of the worst cops in the department, if not the worst.

Former King County Sheriff’s Officer Patrick “K.C.” Saulet (photo by Dominic Holden)

But, history tells us fired cops have a tendency to get their jobs back once the media hoopla dies down. We recently saw this with the Omaha case that resulted in two cops criminally charged for destroying evidence after confiscating a man’s camera and destroying footage from it.However, it might not be the case here because the King County Police Officers Guild tried its best to save Saulet’s job during the six-month investigation, only for Sheriff John Urquhart to fire him anyway.

Urquhart’s termination letter details just how hard it is to fire a cop, even one who has demonstrated numerous times over the years he has no business being a one.

Suffice it to say, in my judgement, the evidence shows that (i) you abused your authority in your dealings with Mr. Holden on July 30, and (ii) thereafter, rather than be accountable, you attempted to recast events in a light more favorable to you. Stated broadly, for example, you claim you interacted with Mr. Holden in a civil, professional manner that was nothing more than ‘social contact’; you did little more than tell him for his benefit that he couldn’t ride on Metro property because doing so is a $66 infraction; [you claim that two other deputies] Shook and Mikulcik told him the same thing; and you once calmly pointed him in a direction you were suggesting he leave. But the evidence is that you approached Mr. Holden because you took exception with him lawfully exercising his right to take photographs of you and your colleagues while lawfully standing on public property; you were agitated and confrontational; you essentially ‘squared off’ with him; you expressly and/or implicitly threatened to arrest him if he did not leave immediately in the specific direction you pointed, not once but five times (misidentifying public property as private property in the process); Shook and Mikulcik deny the statement you attribute to them.

In other words, he acted like thousands of other cops have acted throughout the United States over the years also feel secure in the knowledge they will never get disciplined, despite the video evidence against them.

In fact, Seattle police officer John Marion, who also tried to bully Holden from taking photos that day, ended up receiving a one-day unpaid suspension for his intimidation tactics, a day’s wages he can easily make-up with a few hours of overtime.

In itself, this was a rarity, even though the video above, taken from a police dash cam, demonstrated he is another Saulet in the making. With luck, maybe he’ll end up losing his job in a couple of decades.

Seattle police officer John Marion (photo by Dominic Holden)

But, the Saulet termination is a victory nonetheless, even though he will probably still collect his pension. But with no badge and plenty of attitude, it might not be long before we hear of him again.

After all, this is a man who probably still believes he is untouchable.

As for Holden, he proved that the power of the media, including the use of public records requests and relentless pressure on the heads of the two agencies as well as pressure from the National Press Photographers Association, can sometimes overcome the institutionalized protections afforded to police throughout the country.

Let’s not forget the power lies in all our hands these days. We ARE the Media!

Dominic Holden

Batmobile

by Andrew Meyer

Holy Wireless Recording Devices Batman!

Richard Rynearson has gone all out in his effort to protect himself from police abuse. Rynearson’s black bulletproof Mitsubishi Eclipse comes equipped with SpectraShield fabric inside, bulletproof glass, and a RadioShack worth of recording devices. The car has a wide-angle camera in the front, back, and under both side view mirrors with separate microphones which feed into a hard drive in the back of the car. And that’s just the start of the recording devices in Rynearson’s batmobile. The car’s hard drive not only streams everything it records to an online server, it records how fast the car drives, it’s GPS position, and whether the turn signals are on, the doors are open or the car is braking.

All told, Rynearson spent $50,000 prepping his ride. So what drives a man to spend $50K gearing up against law enforcement?

Richard Rynearson, like many Americans living near the southern U.S. border, was detained for an “immigration checkpoint.” In 1976, the Supreme Court chipped away at the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment, making it legal for the government to stop people without suspicion at a highway up to 100 miles from the border. The Supreme Court ruling mandated the checkpoints be brief, and “minimally intrusive.”

Rynearson is one of many in the U.S. now feeling the effects of what happens when government agents are allowed “minimal” intrusions. After Rynearson refused to roll down his window while providing identification, U.S. Homeland Security Border Patrol agents detained Rynearson for 34 minutes. While an immigration checkpoint stop without reasonable suspicion of a crime is legally allowed for only a couple of minutes, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled in Rynearson’s case that refusing to roll down his window and calling his lawyer caused the delay and helped create reasonable suspicion of a crime. The video of Rynearson’s detention, and the complete details of the District Court ruling are below.

“The plaintiff, Richard Rynearson, argued that a thirty-four minute detention for a suspicionless immigration inspection sixty-seven miles from the Mexican border violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures.  Rynearson provided video of the encounter that shows he offered a driver’s license, a military ID, an official passport, and a personal passport  andanswered all eighteen question the agents asked him, with the exception of a single question concerning the identity of his supervisor at his place of employment (a question the agent told Rynearson he did not have to answer).

Still, the district court ruled a thirty-four minute immigration detention was reasonable, and gave two separate arguments for its decision.”

During his detention, Rynearson gave border patrol agents his military ID, a driver’s license, two passports, and answered around 18 questions.  Under the Fifth Circuit, a stop of a “couple of minutes” is permissible at these checkpoints without reasonable suspicion. In one popular YouTube video, a man who refused to show ID or drive into a “secondary” checkpoint area was twice released to go free on his way. However, the judge in Rynearson’s case created an exception to the Fifth Circuit decision based in large part on Rynearson’s refusing to roll down his window during the stop.

Homeland Security Officers have extra-judicially spent their time working to punish people who challenge their authority. According to Rynearson, border patrol agents called his commanding officer in the military during the 34 minute detention “and then a few weeks later wrote a letter to my commanding officer suggesting I be punished under the UCMJ.”  Terry Bressi, a professor at the University of Arizona who has also recorded police checkpoints and asserted his right to travel freely, also reported the Border Patrol Union wrote letters of complaint to the University of Arizona President and Arizona legislature trying to get Bressi fired, as well as letters to local law enforcement to try and have Bressi arrested for filming border patrol officers. [!]

Rynearson’s case and Bressi’s story both demonstrate the importance of recording police [or any government official] interactions. Almost daily, yet another example of unlawful police behavior emerges. Police awareness of being recorded naturally helps to keep officers on their best behavior. Of course, making groundless traffic stops unconstitutional once again and electing city/state government officials who will only employ responsible police officers is a more lasting solution.

To learn more about the technology in Rick’s ride, check out this page on his site (http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabuse.org/ProtectYourself.aspx), which includes links to many of the devices housed in his car.

Rick also notes his excitement about an app he’s involved with developing called iCitizen (http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabuse.org/iCitizenHQcom.aspx), which “will 1) secure vital evidence and 2) activate a community network to help ensure law enforcement interaction with an individual is lawful, and to help provide accountability if it is not, and 3) collect and present analytical data on the nature of law enforcement interaction.”

It was awesome to have crossed-paths with Rick at the Police Accountability Summit in Austin (http://www.copblock.org/17983/join-police-accountability-summit-saturday-austin­-tx/) and to learn of his proactivity. I’m really glad too that he took the time to give CopBlock.org an overview of his set-up as it’ll undoubtedly encourage some to take steps to better-protect themselves against those unscrupulous road pirates.