Civil Disobedience Evolution Fund

[Russell Kanning]

i think it will be fun to watch

i also promise not to criticise your legal tactics when you do this Lloyd .... hopefully you will win lots of money from some government and can use it or donate it to the lsfund or this fund

[Lloyd Danforth]

If I get the opportunity, I will.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Not sure what you mean by "dealers"...

(any seller using a black market. PL)


In order to be a tax-deductible non-profit, you must qualify under the IRS 501(c)3 regulations. This is onerous at best, and they can come in and audit your books at any time without notice. They require tons of paperwork every quarter and can pull your status at any time they feel like it. And then, anything that you wrote off while you were a non-profit is considered taxable income. But that's not why we are not a 501(c)3.

The goal of the fund is to take care of people who say "no" to government. Seems that for us to beg for exemption from their taxes would be antithetical to our mission.

Good point

[Silent_Bob]

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-calls-government-settlement-anti-bush-t-shirt-case-victory-free-speech


CHARLESTON, WV - The American Civil Liberties Union today announced a successful resolution of the case of Jeffery and Nicole Rank, the young Texas couple arrested on the West Virginia capitol grounds on July 4, 2004 for peacefully expressing their opposition to President Bush. According to the settlement agreement, the United States government will pay the Ranks $80,000.

The Ranks, who wanted to attend the President's Fourth of July address without being mistaken for supporters of his policies, wore homemade t-shirts bearing the international "no" symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) superimposed over the word "Bush." One t-shirt said "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back and the other said "Regime Change Starts At Home." Event staff and law enforcement ordered them either to leave the event or remove or cover their shirts. The couple responded by insisting they had a First Amendment right to remain and express their views. The two were arrested for trespassing, handcuffed, and hauled away in a police van. The charges against them were later dismissed and the City of Charleston, not a defendant in the case, apologized for the incident.

"We couldn't believe what was happening to us," said Nicole Rank. "We tried to tell them we had a right to express our opinion in a peaceful way, but they wouldn't listen to us."

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of the Ranks, alleging that the defendants' actions violated their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution. With the emergence of a heavily redacted "Presidential Advance Manual" it became clear that the government had a policy of excluding dissenters from public presidential appearances. Among other things, the manual asserts that proper ticket distribution is vital to "deterring potential protesters from attending events" and outlines procedures for minimizing demonstrators and shielding them from the press. "As a last resort," the policy says, "security should remove the demonstrators from the event."

"Although I disagreed with President Bush, I was a Republican before this incident, so it's rather ironic that event organizers are advised to use college/young republican organizations as part of 'rally squads' to oppose messages like ours at presidential appearances," remarked Jeffery Rank, who has since changed his party affiliation.

"This settlement is a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment. The outcome of the case speaks for itself," said Andrew Schneider, Executive Director of the ACLU of West Virginia. "As a result of the Ranks' courageous stand, public officials will think twice before they eject peaceful protestors from public events for exercising their right to dissent."

[Silent_Bob]

http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/acluannouncessettlementwit.htm

ACLU Announces Settlement with Philadelphia Police Department over Arrest of Protestor
City Agrees to Provide Civil Affairs Division Officers with Additional Training on the Right to Demonstrate Peacefully

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 12, 2009

PHILADELPHIA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania today announced a settlement with the City of Philadelphia in a case involving a Lansdowne woman who was arrested for distributing literature on a public sidewalk in Fairmount Park. The settlement includes additional training for the Philadelphia Police Department's Civil Affairs Division on the right to protest.

"We are delighted that the city chose to work with us to strengthen the training for the officers who most often encounter free speech issues," said Mary Catherine Roper, staff attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

As part of the settlement, the Philadelphia Police Department's Civil Affairs Division, which has primary enforcement responsibilities at any public assembly, demonstration or labor dispute, will provide its officers with additional free speech and First Amendment training to ensure that:

    * Civil Affairs officers will not interfere with the right of a protester or group of protesters to stand anywhere the protester or protesters choose to stand on a public sidewalk or public right-of-way, regardless of who owns or has permission to use that right-of-way, so long as they do not cause danger or actual obstruction of vehicular or pedestrian travel.
    * Civil Affairs officers will not tell protesters that they must stop protesting when the Civil Affairs officer plans or wants to leave the location.
    * Civil Affairs officers do not react negatively toward activists who are not friendly or willing to engage in conversation and refrain from expressing either agreement or disagreement with the subject of the protest while on assignment.
    * Civil Affairs officers will seek legal guidance from a supervisor and, if appropriate, from Department legal counsel if there is a question about where protesters may stand.

On April 1, 2005, Marianne Bessey, an animal rights activist, was arrested while standing in a public sidewalk outside the Mann Music Center in Fairmount Park before a circus performance. Bessey was holding a sign and handing out literature about the circus's treatment of animals when two Philadelphia police officers demanded that she move to a nearby street, where fewer of the arriving circus patrons would see her.

When Bessey refused, asking why she could not protest on public property, she was handcuffed, placed in a police van, and taken to a police station. Bessey was held in a cell for nearly three hours before being released with a citation for disorderly conduct. She was later cleared of all charges.

Once her record was cleared, Bessey filed a complaint with the Internal Affairs Division of the Philadelphia Police Department, stating that she was illegally arrested because of her political views and activities and demanding an investigation. It was almost two years before the Internal Affairs Division responded, and it rejected all of Bessey's complaints.

In the complaint, filed in April 2007, Bessey and the ACLU alleged that the Philadelphia Police Department knowingly failed to train its police officers about the rights of people who engage in public protest and instead allowed its officers to interfere with and discourage peaceful protestors.

"In my experience, it's clear that most Philadelphia police officers do not understand free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. I am glad that we were able to get more training for the officers and a commitment from the city that some of the problems I have encountered will cease," stated Ms. Bessey. "That's the only reason I brought suit - to improve the way protesters are treated by the Philadelphia police."

More information about the case, including a copy of the complaint and the settlement agreement, can be found here: www.aclupa.org/bessey

[Silent_Bob]

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-resolves-case-behalf-student-arrested-jefferson-county-officials-peacefully-display

Today the ACLU of Colorado announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and the Jefferson County School District on behalf of Blake Benson, avoiding a potential lawsuit.  The dispute arose when Jefferson County officials arrested and suspended Mr. Benson for displaying a "Nobama" message on a t-shirt prior to an after-school speech by Michelle Obama at Dakota Ridge High School.

Mr. Benson was a junior at the high school on November 3, 2008, when Michelle Obama came to speak at the school.  As attendees lined up to enter the gymnasium, Mr. Benson stood near the school's main entrance wearing a t-shirt with a "Nobama" sticker taped across the front.  Dakota Ridge school officials ordered Mr. Benson to leave.  When he refused, officials had Mr. Benson handcuffed, searched, and arrested for "interference," a charge that carries up to six months in jail and a $750 fine.  Mr. Benson was also give a one-day suspension by Principal Jim Jelinek, who stated in a notice of suspension that, "Blake was directed to cease politically protesting on school grounds."

ACLU cooperating attorney Dan Recht represented Mr. Benson in the criminal case.  In May 2009 Jefferson County officials confirmed that they would not pursue the criminal charge.

"Jefferson County officials were wrong to censor the peaceful, purely political speech of a high school student just a day before a historic national election," stated Taylor Pendergrass, staff attorney for the ACLU of Colorado.  "We should be encouraging civic engagement and political discourse in our high schools. Unfortunately, Jefferson County officials sent exactly the opposite message last November by arresting Mr. Benson for his expressing his political views."

The Jefferson County School District and the Jefferson County Sheriff's office agreed to pay $2,000 each to settle claims that Jefferson County violated Mr. Benson's free speech rights under the First Amendment and Article II Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution.  Jefferson County officials do not admit to wrongdoing in the settlement agreement.

"What my teachers taught me about our constitutional rights wasn't respected outside the classroom," said Mr. Benson.  "If one thing comes from this case, I hope it is that other students will learn more about their free speech rights and not be afraid to use them."

A picture of Mr. Benson wearing his t-shirt on the day of his arrest is available at the ACLU's website at: www.aclu-co.org/docket/200907/200907_description.html

[Silent_Bob]

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-applauds-police-apology-protesters

ST. LOUIS -- In settlement of an ACLU of Eastern Missouri lawsuit, the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners has agreed to pay damages and send a letter of apology to four activists. St. Louis police officers violated their first and fourth amendment rights to prevent them from participating in protests at the World Agricultural Forum ("WAF") in St. Louis in May 2003.

Acting under a written plan to preemptively root out individuals fitting a loose profile the Police Department described as "anarchists," St Louis City Police Officers at one location made a warrantless entry into a house occupied by several activists, arrested and handcuffed each of them for the crime of "occupying a condemned building," and subjected one woman to an unlawful and humiliating strip search.  At a second location, the police made a warrantless entry and search under the guise of a previous building inspection revealing serious housing violations. The document that allegedly showed the results of the inspection was, by a later admission of the officer who signed it, false and no building violations were discovered. The Plaintiff who owned the building had property damaged during the search and was forced to miss the event he planned to lawfully protest. In addition, a group of activists riding their bicycles to the protest were arrested, handcuffed, booked and jailed for the crime of "riding a bicycle without a license." Knowing that it was not unlawful to ride a bicycle without a license, a Police Supervisor later changed the charge  to "obstructing the flow of traffic while riding a bicycle."  The charges were never prosecuted. The bicyclists were unable to attend the protest because of their unlawful arrests.

An important part of this settlement is a letter of apology from the Police Department to the young activists. In the letter, the Board writes that the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department "sincerely regrets the grievances of plaintiffs arising from the Department's response..." and acknowledges that the "infringement of civil liberties of the citizenry was not warranted..."

ACLU-EM Executive Director Brenda Jones said "We are appreciative of the  police department's letter and congratulate Chief Isom on his leadership in resolving this matter."

"This case supports an important and fundamental principle," said Gary Sarachan, of the Clayton firm Capes, Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan, PC, who served as an ACLU cooperating attorney on the case. "There is no justification, legal or otherwise, to arrest innocent persons simply because they fit some profile."

"It is a serious miscarriage of justice when those we rely on to enforce the law are the very ones who violate it," said ACLU-EM Legal Director Anthony Rothert.

Sheila Greenbaum, another Capes, Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan attorney who represented the activists said, "This is an ACLU victory for the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution as well as for our clients, young individuals who wanted to peacefully protest in the city of Saint Louis, Missouri. We believe this outcome will restore their faith in our system of justice."

The case is Appel, et al. v. City of St. Louis, et al.  Other attorneys representing the activists include Rory Ellinger, of the O'Fallon firm of Ellinger & Associates, P.C., William Quick, of the Law Offices of William T. Quick in St. Louis.

[Silent_Bob]

More?

[jaqeboy]

Good research and great cases, but they are all "free speech" cases, a constitutionally protected area, so very clear cut. Lots of past and proposed CD is in the area of "statutes we don't agree with because they're silly", so probably much tougher cases to win.

[highline]

It takes years and years and a whole pile of money to carry a lawsuit through. And often in the end the government covers it's on ass. Not that it might be worthwhile in some cases.

Once we have a monthly income of about $10,000 the state will know that the threat of arduous litigation is real and that CDEF will be able to "play the game" full-time.

I truly believe this will change behavior..............     The insurance company (NHLGC- New Hampshire Local Government Center) will not be very interested in defending civil rights violation cases, such as Mike Tiner's arrest.  What a crock of shit his arrest there was, quite worthy of a suit against MPD.   

[FTL_Ian]

Lloyd, perhaps that's not been happening because the CD people don't know the system and have never been encouraged and supported in that way.  CDEvolution can change that.

[highline]

Lloyd, perhaps that's not been happening because the CD people don't know the system and have never been encouraged and supported in that way.  CDEvolution can change that.

Will change that

[PattyLee loves dogs]

First CDEvolution test case to sue school district?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35366445#35232732

[TackleTheWorld]

Once we have a monthly income of about $10,000 the state will know that the threat of arduous litigation is real and that CDEF will be able to "play the game" full-time.

<Angry Rant>
No thanks.  I want no part of suits and lawyers and stinkin "on advise of council, I can't tell you anything about what really happened" and boot-licking obsequisity to judges, and "Hooray!  my case was delayed so many times, they forgot about it.  It's a victory for justice!"
Ack, it makes me want to strangle myself so I wont hear any of it.
</Angry Rant>

[PattyLee loves dogs]

LC, I suspect that you describe the current process very well; thanks for your perspective. Maybe are we too hopeful of defense  w this system? Above ACLU and IJ made progress?