Cool. NYC gets to avoid the costs of real justice (lengthy trials and holding people in jail/processing bonds) and protestors get questionable convictions (i.e. the 'mask' law) on their records. Sounds fair to me. (!)

We need to set one up!
It would coordinate legal resourses for any of the topics in the IMC. If we could work with Amnesty, Greenpeace Earthfirst and others in group actions, perminent legal protester protection.

You don't know THAT yet. These people weren't arrested for anything questionable like the "mask law". Guilty pleas ARE "in order" for peaceful but clearly illegal CD direct actions like a "banner drop". Unless you want to try a "necessity" defense -- and it's kind of hard to argue only a banner dropped illegally would do (there's no "immediacy" which is almost always needed for a claim of "necessity").

Let's see where this goes. Somehow accepting a couple HOURS in jail does not seem to me a signal from the judge that they intend to be tough on reasonable protests. They may be signalling intent to attempt to distinguish (and treat differently) non-violent "direct action" from the more violent kind.

never,ever,ever plead guilty

Pleading innocent does absolutely nothing to prove your point. True, you must acknowledge that you are doing nothing wrong by dropping a banner, BUT, under law it is a crime, therefor, YES, you are guilty. Trying to say you are innocent of crime under the law of the states or country when you know damn well that you are guilty does little more than to make you look like a fool. If you want to tell the world that you don't think it's a crime, then tell it to cnn, imc, disney-news, et al.
You can be of much greater service on the streets and in plenary meetings than in jail...

what the hell is going on? what were they arrested for? dropping a banner? the reality is that the state has lost its mind, corporate media - alibis to the slaughters. i am scared of nyc, scared of the cops but how do people keep quiet? what precedent does the DAs argument create?

Hey, there are a lot of precedents for all kinds of decisions by judges, and lots of reasons to plead different ways. One may plead guilty because they feel that it helps the statement they're making, or because they feel it' simplest and can't/don't want to spend too much time on it, or many other things. Similarly, one may plead innocent to make a statment, or to avoid a charge, or because the charges seem inappropriate or incorrect, or to reject the authority of the prosecution, or whatever. There have indeed been cases where judges have found peope not guilty on free speech grounds for acts of civil disobedience--in Philly last winter, Judge Seamus McCaffrey, known for being wildly pro-cop, dismissed charges against folks accused of blocking an intersection, ruling that their free speech was more important than the maybe 15 minutes that motorists had to spend going around their blockade. That wouldn't have happened if they'd pled guilty. And others (also in Philly) have gotten intense charges for similar actions. It all varies, and there isn't a general rule about how one should plead.