publish.nyc.indymedia.org | Judge lifts contempt order against city but orders new hearing

September 10, 2004 02:56PM EDT [general.addtranslation] Download Article (PDF) [ insert language bar ]

Judge lifts contempt order against city but orders new hearing

By reader

Judge lifts contempt order against city but orders new hearing

Newsday.com Judge lifts contempt order against city but orders new hearing By SAMUEL MAULL Associated Press Writer September 9, 2004, 2:03 PM EDT NEW YORK -- A judge who cited the city for contempt last week for disobeying his order to free hundreds of jailed Republican National Convention protesters lifted the charge Thursday but scheduled another hearing on whether to reinstate it. State Supreme Court Justice John Cataldo said although he issued "an unequivocal mandate to release those people," he should have been clearer about the contempt finding. "That was a preliminary order," he said. "That finding is vacated." But lawyers for the protesters demanded and got a Monday hearing on whether Cataldo should still hold the city in contempt and levy fines. Last week Cataldo had threatened to fine the city $1,000 for each person held in violation of his order. Lawyers from the Legal Aid Society and the National Lawyers' Guild, representing the protesters, complained that some detainees were in custody for 24 to 66 hours. On Sept. 2, Cataldo ordered the city to release 560 by 5 p.m. The city failed to do so. In a copy of the order granting the Monday hearing, Cataldo, though lifting the "preliminary" contempt finding, said he had found a "prima facie" _ legally obvious _ case of contempt of court in the city's "intentional" disobedience. City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo asked the judge to dismiss the contempt case because city officials did their best. He said 1,200 people were arrested in four hours on Aug. 31 and delays in carrying out the judge's order resulted from having to identify and release hundreds of people in a matter of hours. Cardozo also complained that the Manhattan judge had issued the contempt finding without giving him a chance to argue or call witnesses to explain the city's problems. In any case, Cardozo said, the issue is moot because the protesters were freed. "The people have been released, and these proceedings are not timely," Cardozo said. "There is nothing to be served by this proceeding. Why are we doing this?" Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the protesters, said the answer to Cardozo's question is, "The rule of law." Siegel said the contempt finding should be sustained because city officials deliberately disobeyed the court's order. "Disobeying a court order shall not be tolerated even if it's by the city of New York," Siegel said. "Just because the detainees have been released does not nullify the contempt. The court had it right when it said the city should have started Tuesday." Siegel repeated the charge _ and Cardozo denied it as "scurrilous" _ that police purposely detained anti-GOP demonstrators long enough to prevent them from rejoining protest activities before President Bush left the city. Meanwhile, Cardozo said he will appeal the judge's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus and free the detainees. If that appeal is successful, then the city could not be held in contempt and fined. "With all due respect, I think your honor was wrong to grant the habeas petition," Cardozo said. Cataldo ordered Cardozo to give the protesters' lawyers lists of people arrested along with details such as location and duration of detention and the time of release. The judge said he wanted it by 5:30 p.m. Friday and told Cardozo to come to court before the end of the day and explain why if he cannot provide the information on time. Lawyers for the protesters have said they plan to file civil lawsuits. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--conventiondetaine0909sep09,0,884472.story Copyright Â© 2004, The Associated Press

By reader no@hotmail.com

Download Article (PDF) Add to PDF Compilation Download PDF Compilation Email Article

Add your comments

To: Norman Seigel, Chris Dunn & Other movement lawyers

Sep 10, 2004 03:00PM EDT

Pablo

i think it is clear that lawyers concerned with civil liberties (not only in name but in actuality) MUST take on three elements of the "successful" deployment of police state tactics .

a) the police use of pens and overdeployment of police at demonstrations which have the effect of creating dangerous conditions in which demonstrators are easily HARMED and citizens who would otherwise become interested in the MESSAGE of the demonstrations are frightened and don't join the demonstrations;

b) the use of press strategies that give an impression that demonstrators are a danger to the public instead of being members of it entitled to 1st Amendment meaningful assembly and speech (e.g. Ted Koppel's Nightline show on dangerous anarchists coming to NYC to sow havoc);

and c) the media itself providing skewed, adulatory, and hysterical reporting on police tactics and ostensible threats posed by demonstrators in the mainstream media, which exacerbates dangerous conditions and sets the stage for police abuses and public tolerance of restrictions on civil liberties.

I hope that civil liberties lawyers begin to get serious about challenging these unconstitutional practices of the government and police forces leading up to and during major demonstrations (IMF/World Bank/WEF/Biotech Conferences/etc.).

I wonder if these lawyers are up to it: what was Chris Dunn of the NYCLU, who interposed himself between the police and a demonstrator the other night at the demonstration in front of MSG, asking the demonstrator "what are you doing?" when the guy was merely (and non-violently) attempting to pull a police pen apart to allow the demonstrators freedom of movement? We need aggressive civil libertarians thinking creatively about how to protect the public forum for the free exchange of ideas and not facilitating a slow painful retreat into complete social control by police psyops, corporate media, and police on the ground.

pablo

Re: Judge lifts contempt order against city but orders new hearing

Sep 10, 2004 03:50PM EDT

IANAL

"set aside" does not equal "lift" - it is that the descision stands otherwise, with a rehearing pending. It's all in the spin.

"State Judge REFUSES to Dismiss Contempt Charges"

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/120352/index.php

Re: Judge lifts contempt order against city but orders new hearing

Sep 10, 2004 06:06PM EDT

Anthony Tsang Yee

"Disobeying a court order shall not be tolerated even if it's by the city of New York," Siegel said. "Just because the detainees have been released does not nullify the contempt. The court had it right when it said the city should have started Tuesday."

The courts are our only protection against The City of New York, New York State and the present Presidential administration of the United States
leading from forcing us into lawless police state.

All the different civil suits should be allowed to go forward so that the city will have to renumerate all the wrongly over detained citezins and rightful protesters that were in this fair city at that time.

Re: Judge lifts contempt order against city but orders new hearing

Sep 10, 2004 08:00PM EDT

dontwannabefoolish

What a bunch of nonsense. The city funds the court. So the court fines the city? What does that really accomplish? It just moves money around in the budget.