I just talked to one of the folks who are getting recharged for the ISAG
protests (who is not on e-mail to post this themself), and the charges were
released November 20th (judge Hopper) due to lack of evidence, but with a
statement that said they could be recharged later. The recharge was filed on
November 29th (Judge Bransford), but was not mailed out until the postmark
of December 29th, and was received on December 30th. Court date is
January 10th, for the recharge.
So they ate up a full thirty days waiting to mail out the notice. Why? You know
it always helps with situations in which you must line up a lawyer so you can
defend your basic right to protest (hey, it's only in the Constitution-should
this even be in court?) and gee, isn't it nice that the court date happens to
land on the same date as the public hearing of Police Chief Olson's
performance. Helps to keep the most vocal folks busy away from those
hearings. Of course that is probably a coincidence, it was filed on the 29th.
I, having been stopped and told that I don't have the right to walk down the
street without the express permission of the Lieutenant, even though I took
no part in any protest, do find the police work to be over zealous. So I
suppose I could be a little bias....But not promptly mailing court summons,
that's just wrong.
This is more than issues with the police chief. It's lots of little things
adding up. We have laws about illegal assembly based on if you have more than
three people present. Then selectively enforce those laws at will. We need to
not only look at the command of the officers, but look at what exactly we ask
them to do as well. I think it's what the city asked and allowed the police to
do with the ISAG conference that played a large part in bringing in the
situation in the first place. Remember initially the Star Tribune article that
stated in part;
Minneapolis police, fearing that violent protests could erupt during an
animal genetics conference that begins Friday, plan to screen pedestrians
on a two-block stretch of Nicollet Mall to ensure that people have a
"legal reason" to pass, a police inspector said Tuesday.
Inspector Sharon Lubinski said the screening, which might involve
stopping, questioning and even searching people, will happen on the mall
between S. 12th and Grant Sts., near the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where the
six-day International Society of Animal Genetics conference will be held.
Or
The police briefing paper also refers to Minneapolis's recent May Day
protests, where 34 people were arrested. "These groups used advanced
counter-intelligence and tactics including the use of shields, their own radio
networks, human chains, and the placement of obstacles in the street," it
notes. "Many protestors wore masks and were armed with gas masks."
Remember shields are advanced, counter intelligence radio networks? try calling
them walkie talkies and cell phones, Human chains? oh the non violent
horrors...placement of obsticals in the streets?, it's those scary puppets
again. They arrested 34 people, it was just a MOB!
Yes they can stop it, but what's the cost? It's all of our freedoms. The
world would be a lot safer if they did house to house searches, but do we
really want that? I for one would rather see some protesters, that get stopped
for the crime of walking down the sidewalk by myself because some dickwad in a
squad car decides he dosn't like the way I look.
Now we are prosecuting people for the crime of speaking their minds and
witholding court summons for a month, seemingly just to mess up the protesters
preperations. Minneapolis needs to take a serious look at what it's doing.
Tom Holtzleiter
King Field
On 31 Dec 00, at 14:51, Rosalind Nelson wrote:
Date sent: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:51:16 -0600
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Rosalind Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of list
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re-charging of ISAG cases
According to the Independent Media website
(www.minneapolis.indymedia.org)
the city is re-charging ISAG protesters whose cases had been dismissed in
November (apparently the ones that were dropped by the judge because of
"no
probable cause"). So are they hoping for a different judge? Trying to
make extra work for the protester's lawyers?
It seems as though the City Attorney's office must have some
responsibilities other than conducting a war of attrition with protest
groups. So are they hiring extra staff, working lots of overtime, or
letting their other normal duties slide?
Rosalind Nelson
Bancroft
