Gerry - Thanks for your note. We will have to agree to disagree on the benefit of the lawsuits against Fletcher and other public officals who violate civil rights. Let me explain why I get so worked up on this issue.
I lived briefly in Philadelphia in 1972, when Nixon was running for re-election and Frank Rizzo was Mayor. I dared to protest against the war in Vietnam in front of Independence Hall, when Nixon came to town to speak. For my "crime" I literally "disappeared" into the bowels of the Phildelphia Police Department for seven hours. I was not allowed a phone call and never spoke to an attorney, even thou there was a Federal Court Order pending at the moment I was detained not to arrest or detain protestors, because some 50 odd Quakers had been taken into custody the night before. In addition, I was also roughed up by "Philly's Finest", on two other occassions outside CREEP, Committee to Re-Elect the President and outside the Bellview Stratford Hotel, when protesting the war and campaigning for McGovern. Eventually a Federal Court ruled that our civil rights were violated and awarded us damages. Unfortunately, in most of these cases the taxpayers pay for the officals wrongdoing, when it should come out of their salaries or pensions. Now I am not saying that Ramsey County in 2003 is Philadelphia in 1972, but I lived briefly in a Police State here in America. My partner worked at the Emergency Committee for Civil Liberties and came home almost nightly with tales of police violence that were nothing short of shocking. I have seen that it can happen here in America. Later this "police state mentality" in Philadelphia lead to the burning out of a whole block of row houses in West Philly and the deaths of over a dozen people in a peaceful stand-off with police, when the police resorted to shooting tear-gas into the homes. The point is, if elected officials like Fletcher, who are out of control now, are not reined in, where will this lead to? As I said above, St. Paul is not Philadelphia and Sheriff Fletcher is not Frank Rizzo. But how did things get so out of control in Philly, that public officials like Rizzo felt comfortable detaining and locking up peaceful, legal protesters for hours? How did things get so out of control that Philly Police felt they could shoot teargas into homes, leading to the deaths of a dozen people and the burning of innocent peoples homes? I submit this occurred, because elected and law enforcement officials were not held legally accountable for their actions, long before they reached this state. I have seen a police state mentality here in America, albeit, very briefly. How many of you want to be held in a jail cell for 7 hours and not allowed a phone call or allowed to talk to a lawyer, when all you were doing was complaining about government actions? This is why it is critical that Fletcher be called to account now. Not before he detains protesters for 7 hours without allowing them to make phone calls or talk to a lawyer or he has officers shooting tear gas into peaceful protesters. That is the real issue here. Daniel Dobson Summit Hill - Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks Dan, for the quick follow-up. It will be > interesting to watch how all the proposed lawsuits > play out. It's unfortunate how all of this has > transpired over "The Question". We talk on this > forum about the right to free speech and other > rights guaranteed by the constitution, but we have > not discussed that with those rights comes > responsibilities. The right to disagree but the > responsibility to keep the discussion civil, the > right to free speech but the responsibility to keep > the speech to ideals and not personalities, the > right to free association but the responsibility to > be inclusive, the right to engage in political > discussion but the responsibility to stay away from > the politics of personal destruction. > > While I believe in free speech, "the question" > abridged the lines of normal decency and of > responsibility. So did Fletchers' response. Which > came first, the chicken or the egg? I don't know in > this instance and I don't care, but I believe that > all the discussion of lawsuits on both sides will > end up nowhere except to waste the courts time with > no side the winner (in legal terms). I also believe > that the electorate is an informed electorate and > will make the right decision, even if it concludes > that the Sheriff shall stay. That's the beauty of > of the right to vote, it also comes with > responsibility. > > > Gerry McInerney > Battle Creek > > > > > > In a message dated 11/19/2003 9:54:35 AM Eastern > Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Gerry - > > > > The basis of our lawsuit will be that Sheriff > Fletcher > > violated the First Amendment Rights of Freedom of > > Speech, Association and Right of Privacy of > everyone > > at the Ward 5 forum who submitted a written > question. > > > > The expectation is that when you go to a forum or > > debate, such as this, and submit an unsigned card, > > that your right to privacy and right of free > speech, > > and the right to ask a question of an elected > > official, will be protected. > > > > It is assumed that law enforcement officers and > > elected officials will protect and defend our > > Constitutional rights, especially those of Free > Speech > > and not attack them. By seizing the question cards > and > > threatening members of the audience Fletcher > violated > > both his oath of office "To Preserve, Protect and > > Defend the Constitution of the United States" as > well > > as taking property that did not belong to him, the > > cards, that belonged to the League of Women Voters > > and/or the North End News. > > > > Sheriff Fletcher's actions has cast a pall over > the > > First Amendment and Right of Free Speech in Saint > Paul > > and Ramsey County. People are now afraid that if > they > > attend a debate or forum in Saint Paul in the > future > > and ask a question a law enforcement officer or > > elected official is offended by or dislikes, they > may > > seize that card and threaten, or actually bring > legal > > action. > > > > It is our intention to seek punitive damages, at > the > > appropriate time, in an amount sufficient to > attempt > > to deter any act like this, from occurring in the > > future. > > > > Dan Dobson > > 801 Goodrich Avenue > > Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 > > 651-227-4376 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Regards, > > Gerry McInerney > 651-470-7458 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Stpaul mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
