In my opinion, the result of today’s hearing before Judge Frances McIntyre in Boston was a victory for due process and the rule of law. Judge McIntyre conducted a thorough, thoughtful hearing, and extended the Temporary Restraining Order that protects the Occupy Boston camp at Dewey Square until she issues a written decision on or before December 15, 2011. Howard Cooper, the lead attorney from Todd & Weld argued that “The Occupy Boston encampment in Dewey Square is a uniquely expressive response to the problems we face as a society today. At a time when many feel that our governmenbt is broken, the protesters have set up a small community to demonstrate how people can associate together in a more democratic, egalitarian and jkust way. In deciding to go to Court, the protesters have sought protection from interference with their efforts to communicate their message.” (This quote is from the ACLU’s Press Release)The Occupy Boston encampment was proactive, and and relied on the rule of law. Boston is the very birthplace of the American Revolution and the concept of separation of powers and government of, by, and for the people. Attorney Howard Cooper, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Lawyers Guild (Boston Chapter) did us all proud. Urszula Masny-Latos, Executive Direc tor of the NLG (National Lawyers Guild) in called upon the City of Boston, in the ACLU press release, to work with Occupy Boston to create a mutually acceptable and workable plan for addressing any health and safety concerns. It is my personal hope that this will facilite the communication of the Occupy Boston message of horizonal democracy albeit this is a work in progress, its free university, its vibrant art and music scene, and the many opportunities Occupy Boston has to serve and enrich the residents of Boston.Carol Rose, the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in the ACLU’s press release, stated her appreciation that Judge McIntyre has so “clearly recognized the civil liberties at stake and is being thoughtful and deliberative”. In addition, it is my hope that Boston will continue in its unique role as the cradle of liberty, Athens of America and beacon of justice by providing a model of a truely democratic response, in accordance with due process and the rule of law to Occupy Boston. Using 1200 police to arrest 200 nonviolent demonstraters, as reportedly occurred yesterday in Los Angeles makes a mockery of due process and the American commitment to government of, by, and for the people. Kudos to Occupy Boston, the ACLU, the NLG and Attorney Cooper for being proactive by filing this lawsuit and TRO request, and thereby supporting the rule of law, rather than the “might makes right” rule of brute force demonstrated by Mayor Bloomberg in New York City, and yesterday in Los Angeles.I was privileged to speak with Howard Cooper, still flushed from being a phenomenal litigator, or as some of the Occupy Boster observers who were in the courtroom stated, a “kick butt litigator”. Afterwards, Attorney Cooper was swarmed by the media giving interviews. He spoke to me after all the media with their cameras and microphones galloped off with their scoop. He told me that for him, this was “the case of a lifetime” and that he felt privileged to represent Occupy Boston and to be defending the right to free speech, and the Bill of Rights itself.The ACLU Press Release can be read here: http://aclum.org/news_12.1.11To support the NLG’s work on behalf of freedom of speech and Occupy Boston: http://www.nlgmass.org/For MSM coverage, here are a few of the many: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/mostpopular/29896389/detail.html
Please share widely!
It was a good morning. I was impressed with Cooper, and even more so with Eric, Occupy’s witness. He did a great job, especially during cross-examination, and both he and the crowd (all spruced up) made OB look downright grown up.
Cooper flipped the argument about legality and placed the onus on the city, pointing out that until Occupy saw the City’s affadavit on Tuesday, they had not been alerted to specific violations. His words (I’m transcribing from some scribbled notes, but I think this is accurate)-“A different kind of democracy may look strange, but is not exempt from the rule of law”–was, I thought, a strong point. When the city’s attorney insisted that, since this was a leaderless unincorporated movement, there was no one to whomto deliver complaint notices, Eric drily pointed out that there is a GA every night, that Occupy’s PO box is published, and that there are plenty of tents dedicated to giving and receiving information.
Worst argument was delivered by the Greenway’s dour attorney, who insisted that Occupy was depriving the good people of Boston from the chance to “sit down and enjoy the scenery” in Dewey Square. Yep, that’s always been a top destination of mine. Cooper pointed out that Occupy occupies roughly 4% of the Greenway. The Conservancy also insisted that this was not about the First Amendment, but about there being no precedent for “occupying to infinitude.” (There’s the next chant, and a step up from “all day, all week…”)
The attorney for the city used the attempted occupation (that promoted that nightime raid) of the Pearl St Park as the basis for trying to get Eric to admit that Occupy could settle most anywhere, including on some private space, but Eric stayed cool and made the point that camping “in the heart of the financial district” and “the juxtaposition of Occpy Boston with the Fed addresses issues of democray and equity and speaks directly to those issues.” The attorney also claimed that the plaintiffs lacked standing, since they not been formally deputized to speak for OB, since Eric doggedly insisted that no one can speak for OB; Cooper shot back citing Bakke.
I’m not ready to call it a win yet, and there are some definite problems within the camp, which, as you know, comprises a good deal more than committed activists. Since the court also apparently ruled that it reserved the right to lift the restraint order in advance of the decision on the 15th, any serious problems could, I presume, result in eviction. Had an interesting conversation this afternoon with a cop at the perimeter of the camp who noted some of the nighttime activity on the part of non-activists. (He was also largely sympathetic, and suggested that Occupy should really be in DC–“you could get thousands of people down there!” [Actually, Mass Uniting is provding free transportation, meals and “housing” for anyone who wanst to head down for a few days next week…])
But I agree with amberpaw regarding the way the case was handled by Judge McIntyre, amd appreciate her references to the [ongoing] American Revolution; there was something moving about sitting in a courtroom just a few blocks from where Crispus Attucks and friends conducted their own illegal gathering; I like to think that they’d be pleased to see that come 250 years later, democracy was having its day in a serious argument over the first amendment and the limits of state authority.
Oh, and a favorite moment; prior to court being called ito session, as Cooper was unveiling some blow-ups of the camp, hearing someone on the benches call out, “hey, there’s my tent!”
Here is the link to all you ever want to know about the arrest of that sink, and probably more: http://bostinno.com/2011/12/01/boston-police-occupy-boston-battle-over-a-kitchen-sink-yes-a-sink/
What is ironic is that Occupy Boston paid $200 for a greywater treatment sink so as to better wash dishes and have treated water for the plantings on the Greenway – and to its understanding was pre approved and doing this to comply with requests from the City of Boston – only to have the Boston Police Department “arrest” and impound the sink. Great photo shop of the sinks arrest at the above link.
Could the “arrest” of the sink be payback for Occupy Boston’s sturdy self defense, and reliance on the Rule of Law in a court?