Incidentally, I went to a fundraiser last night for the Jefferson 1, aka Brooke Oberwetter. [full disclosure: I play poker at her house pretty regularly]. As I blogged last week, Brooke was arrested for asking a Park Policeman why she was being told to stop her silent dancing and leave the Jefferson Memorial. Everyone pretty much expected that after they'd annoyed her by taking her to jail, the police would drop the charges.
Not only haven't they dropped the charges; they've added a new one, "demonstrating without a permit", even though the gathering clearly does not meet park guidelines for a "demonstration". Brooke is having to pay for a criminal attorney to shepherd her through a federal court case. This has gone from mild harassment to outrageous, not to say perfectly ridiculous, [expletive deleted].
The original charge, interfering with an agency function, is also perfectly ridiculous. Making it stick would require proving that Brooke had disobeyed a lawful order. Since the order does not appear to have been lawful, this will be difficult.
There are two theories of why this is going forward. It may be that the agency is simply reluctant to admit that it erred and back down, which would be embarassing, particularly since they are still recovering from their recent failures at crime control in the national monuments, which culminated in the rape of a young girl near the Smithsonian. (So much for the commenters who derided me for pointing out that the police might have something better to do than prevent mall dancing.
The other possibility is that they're trying to head off a civil suit; the only way they can be sure of this is to get a criminal conviction, so they're going for it, however unlikely this may be. There's a large downside to this strategy, of course. I can't speak for Brooke, but if the police forced me to spend large amounts of money defending a spurious criminal charge, there would be a civil suit, no matter what the personal inconvenience involved.
There certainly should be one. The purpose of the justice system is to protect the public, not to keep them in line.
I found the perfect video. Public Enemy's Fight the Power
This is why we need more libertarian lawyers to fight this kind of crap. If this was some leftist who had been arrested, Dershowitz or someone of his caliber would be there with a pro bono defense team and these cops would ultimately be picking up trash on the Mall.
It seems to me that this is something of a Good Cause. Is there by any chance a defense fund one might contribute to?
"There are two theories of why this is going forward. It may be that the agency is simply reluctant to admit that it erred and back down,"
This isn't surprising, this kind of thing was recently addressed on This American Life:
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1236
"The Audacity of Government
Stories of the Bush Administration, its unique style of asserting presidential authority, and its quest to redefine the limits of presidential power.
... Ira Glass talks with Yale law professor Jack Balkin about what he calls the Bush Administration's "lawyering style," a tendency to fight as hard as it can, on all fronts, to get what it wants..."
Indeed there is, at the Jefferson 1 link above.
Too bad the Republicans want to cap civil suit awards and limit liability; hopefully your friend is able to get one of those sleazy "trial lawyers" like John Edwards or someone from the ACLU to take her case and get it through the system before that happens.
If Libertarians want a lawyer, they can damn well raise the money to pay the market rates for one! All of sudden, libertarians want socialized Justice?
That being said, once a lawyer is retained, and the criminal charges are dismissed, the civil suit will almost certainly recover the attorney fees for the wrongful arrest. Too bad there weren't any damages reported, otherwise Ms. Oberwetter (and her esteemed counsel), could have been on the receiving end of a decent payday!
But libertarians would never take money away from the public coffers for their own personal enrichment, would they? Nah, that's something only leftists (defended by Dershowitz?) would do!
*Blushes* Oops. That will teach me not to click on the link before clicking on comment.
All of sudden, libertarians want socialized Justice?
No, private charity. Nobody suggested having the government hire her lawyer to sue the government.
I tend to feel sorrier for the parents and their 400 kids stolen at the point of machine gun...
But if you want to fight for your right to party, that's fine too.
This is very illustative of the value of punitive damages in lawsuits. If you look at the costs of real damages she has suffered - a few hours lost time and some legal costs - they are no deterrant to bad behavior by the police. It can be written off as just the cost of doing business. Considering that you won't always be sued, and you won't always lose when you should, it's a pretty good deal for oppressing. The possibility of punitive damages screw the whole deal.
I tend to feel sorrier for the parents and their 400 kids stolen at the point of machine gun...
by sam
You and David Koresh. It's so hard to find compliant teenage rape victims nowdays. No wonder you guys love Tom Jefferson so much.
I know this isn't precisely their bailiwick - actually, it isn't at all - but wouldnt' it be nice if the IJ got involved?
Or jeez, where's the ACLU?
"Or jeez, where's the ACLU?"
Just as the police should have had something better to do, the ACLU can surely find people being more oppressed with less capacity to defend themselves.
At a minimum, we need "loser pays."
I suspect a large expense for legal damages from frivolous arrests would get noticed. Incumbents would be motivated to stop it, if for no other reason than to deny their opponents some ammunition.
Can't these overzealous police be deployed to the Baghdad zoo?
Agreed and if this woman loses her civil suit, she should be required to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of defending against it.
At a minimum, we need "loser pays."
Although it wouldn't apply in this case, if the suit were against state police, then the foundation of her suit, sec. 1983, does indeed have an attorney's fee provision. It does not seem to have been a panacea for all that ails wrongfully arrested citizens.
Not sure about the state of the law in Bivens or FTCA actions; too lazy to look it up. Suffice to say that winning this sort of suit is very hard. Hell, keeping it from getting tossed right away is hard.
I can't think of a cause less worth contributing to than your poker player's legal defense fund. Whatever happened to your threat/boast that these dancing fools had lawyers in their circle of friends who liked to "sue the government for fun"? Why doesn't one of them donate his time to defend her.
And why don't you donate some of your money to a worthwhile cause like Spirit of America? They respond to requests from servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan for humanitarian supplies for Iraqis and Afghans.
Erm . . . because they're not criminal attorneys? In fact, if she sues, my understanding is that a number of libertarian attorneys have agreed to take the case pro bono. But the IJ doesn't specialize in criminal defense.
I wonder: Would it be legal for your friend to sell shared in the proceeds from any lawsuit in order to finance her criminal defense?
So there was a rape in the park;was it that night? Sometimes, the police are in an area for one reason, but wind up enforcing other violations and laws.
Megan, you have a good point, that the police and securtiy acted wrongly. I think you only hurt your case whining about a rape and getting the "real" criminals. She was released that night. She did not spend years in a Turkish prison.
I did not hear Brooke on the video tape. I did hear the cameraman. Even some of your strong supporters admit he was a bit of a jerk. A great actor though.
Now, was Brooke given a summons or was she arrested? I am surprised that if she was given her ID by her friends she would not have just been issued a summons. Of course this is federal and not local so, I am not sure myself.
I'm almost beginning to think that Jerry Pournelle is right. We've moved from Republic to Empire and were incompetent at being an Empire.
Certainly the police, in this case and other, are acting like we are subjects and not citizens.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight and don’t know the Defendant but I have had enough experience with friends and family members who come to me asking for free legal advice and frequently omit details and give a rather skewed version of what happened to make me rather skeptical of stories like this. It could have happened as she and her friends say it happened or it could be that she said or did something else that hasn’t been revealed that makes the cops’ actions more reasonable (and even if not reasonable, they might still be in the right as far as the law is concerned) than it at first appears. Or it could turn out that when the truth finally comes out (truth being a three-edged sword and all that) that both sides ultimately look worse than they do now and it’s just a question of “who was the worst.”
Either way I think the advice that a couple of other posters gave that you should always call before doing something like this to make sure there isn’t a permit required (and there may in fact have been one required as another poster who posted from the statute suggested) might have avoided the whole sordid mess. Unless of course you’re jonsing for a confrontation.
Ira Glass talks with Yale law professor Jack Balkin about what he calls the Bush Administration's "lawyering style," a tendency to fight as hard as it can, on all fronts, to get what it wants..."
Balkin thinks it's only been the Bush Administration that fights this kind of battle?
Golly, he must be some kind of prodigy; I would think a lawyer of his distinction would have to be more than seven years old.
More here.
It’s almost as silly as thinking that every time some lower functionary in the federal government does something objectionable, they’re acting at the behest of whoever is President at the time or even at the direction of someone appointed by the President. Much as some like to believe that “personnel is policy” (and to a certain extent it is), institutions have their own culture that survives Republican and Democrat administrations alike.
Sheesh. What a bunch of lopsided guff. Miss Oberwetter is freer than most of her fellow citizens. And it's not like any of her online supporters actually know any police or anything, so this is a great blog post for scapegoating the unknown fiend.
From the video it seems she preferred to close her eyes and ignore police instructions at the site -- a site where the police would otherwise bear responsibility for any other unlawful behavior that in any way harmed anyone else. That act is also non-compliance, especially since all the other iDancers had complied relatively quickly.
Then the video shows a bunch of pompous geeks using whining, obsequiousness, belligerence, and intellectual superiority to move the officers on behalf of Brooke. Anyone with juvenile run-ins with the law could have told your people that none of those were the end-all solution to a compatriot's delayed compliance. Bottom line: Don't get on the nerves of the local police -- they probably know the local rules that apply to their advantage better than you do.
And none of what Brooke has to face here even compares with the many inconveniences visited upon otherwise law-abiding citizens who face frivolous civil claims when they're wondering how to get by financially (Hint: You can't prove a frivolous claim, but that's what the law says you have to do). Never mind the agony of an IRS audit. And these are things that happen to people who've never "danced" out of line, ever!
Would you please put the whole thing into perspective -- or at the very least, tell us the claims of the other side so that the story is at least plausible?
Don't get on the nerves of the local police -- they probably know the local rules that apply to their advantage better than you do.
WTF? Why on Earth would that be true? Seems like every day you open up the paper and find police "enforcing" laws that don't actually apply to the behavior, or don't even exist in the first place.
or at the very least, tell us the claims of the other side so that the story is at least plausible?
Oh, I imagine it's the same claim as always - "we're the authorities, we know what we're doing, our assertion that you were breaking the law is all the proof you need that you were."
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5BxymuiAxQ between minutes 24 and 28.
1. So what exactly happened to the "constitutional lawyers that sue for fun"?
2. What exactly are the penalties related to these charges?
3. Are the money raisers being made aware that Brooke's Daddy is probably the ultimate insider, who was the former Ambassador to, of all places, Saudi Arabia, and before that press secretary for Bush I and is now a powerful lobbyist for Middle East interests and that he could probably end all this with a phone call?
In the case of a successful lawsuit against the US Park Service police, who pays the fine, the legal fees, the court costs, the increased rates for the insured, and the general increase in all insurance rates? In each of these cases, they are paid for by the taxpayers out of taxpayer pockets, either through theft via taxes or theft via monetary inflation. The bigger the award, the more money being thieved out of taxpayer pockets and passed to lawyers and to complainants who have come up with an attractive complaint.
Why, exactly, is encouraging this a good idea?
Would your friend, who has been sore abused and deserves a heartfelt apology and remuneration for her costs to date, accept that? Would not that be a superior result?
"And it's not like any of her online supporters actually know any police or anything, so this is a great blog post for scapegoating the unknown fiend."
I call BS. I'm one, and I know plenty of cops.