impeach bush for peace peach
(Go to our Main Page:ImpeachForPeace.org)

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

August 12, 2008

RNC Planners Sued By Impeachment Group

Filed under: IfP News,Impeachment Progress News,Minnesota — Jodin Morey @ 4:36 pm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

St. Paul, Minnesota — August 12, 2008 — Impeach for Peace (IfP), along with others looking to demonstrate at the Republican National Convention (RNC), filed a lawsuit Friday with the help of the ACLU of Minnesota in Ramsey County District Court demanding our right to free speech. Plaintiffs include: Jodin Morey and Mikael Rudolph of Impeach for Peace, Colleen and Ross Rowley, and Ron Deharporte.

Impeach for Peace is a grassroots, nonpartisan organization based in Minnesota with chapters in twelve states throughout the country working to achieve the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and holding them and future elected officials fully accountable under the Rule of Law.

The RNC is having their election year convention in St. Paul, Minnesota at the Xcel Energy Center. During this event, the St. Paul Police have decided to relegate most speech activities in what they call the “˜Primary Event Area’ to an inadequate “˜Designated Public Assembly Area’ or free speech zone. The “˜Primary Event Area’ remains to be fully defined by the police, making it impossible for people to know where in St. Paul they can exercise their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. At the convention, members of congress, mayors, governors, the President and Vice-President of the United States are expected to be in attendance. This provides IfP and other potential demonstrators with a unique opportunity to express their political messages to these governmental officials.

The lawsuit alleges that the St. Paul City Council and police have created guidelines for the RNC which restrict free speech to areas that are “inadequate and unacceptably small.”

The ACLU also alleges that the City Council/Police denied IfP their due process rights as stipulated in the Minnesota State Constitution by failing to give notice of their plans regarding free speech restrictions, which would have allowed for public comment and a public hearing.

The ACLU also contends that the City Council/Police has also reserved the right to modify the guidelines at any time in ways that the ACLU contends are in violation of the Minnesota State Constitution.

The lawsuit seeks to have the guidelines declared by the court to be in violation of IfP’s free speech rights, to have the Primary Event Area and the Designated Public Assembly Area clearly defined and officially released to the public, and to have the Designated Public Assembly Area include additional areas that are within sight and sound of the convention.

John Choi, the St. Paul city attorney has said “These two [lawsuits] represent an attempt by the plaintiffs to get another bite at the apple in state court.” He continued that the city has afforded “unprecedented access and accommodations for the protesters.”

Mr. Choi is incorrect regarding IfP’s “bite at the apple,” as the plaintiffs on this lawsuit have not previously been a plaintiff in a lawsuit regarding their free speech rights at the RNC. There was a previous lawsuit with different plaintiffs, but it dealt primarily with a march planned, not the specifics of the Designated Public Assembly Area.

Secondly, while Mr. Choi and Impeach for Peace may differ as to what is an acceptable amount of restriction on free speech, these differences could have been worked out if the city had engaged in its constitutional due process requirements.

Those interested in IfP’s plans for the RNC, are invited to attend a meeting at Joe’s Garage on the north side of Loring Park in Minneapolis on Sunday, August 17, at 4 p.m.

View the complaint ACLU RNC Complaint

For more information please contact Jodin Morey, Cofounder of Impeach for Peace.

# # #

Additional Contact Information:
organizer@impeachforpeace.org
minneapolis@impeachforpeace.org
http://impeachforpeace.org


8 Comments

  1. impeach/evict fight on!
    were winnings this fight,,,,,,impeach.

    Comment by Dennis M Mccullough — August 12, 2008 @ 5:22 pm

  2. RNC Planners Sued by Impeachment Group…

    Impeach for Peace (IfP), along with others looking to demonstrate at the Republican National Convention (RNC), filed a lawsuit Friday with the help of the ACLU of Minnesota in Ramsey County District Court demanding our right to free speech. Plaintiffs …

    Trackback by www.buzzflash.net — August 12, 2008 @ 5:41 pm

  3. [...] This interview was conducted in the wake of the filing of a lawsuit against the St. Paul City Council and the Police regarding their restrictions on free speech for the Republican National Convention. [...]

    Pingback by Impeach Bush For Peace » [Audio] KFPA: Impeachment Group Denied Free Speech Rights at RNC — August 14, 2008 @ 1:12 am

  4. Considering the result of a similar lawsuit by the “Recreate ’68″ folks in Denver, good luck with this suit.

    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/08/06/ap5297729.html?partner=moreover

    According to the Minnesota Monitor of 24 October 2007, the City did try to get input from potential interested parties:

    At the O’Shaughnessy Education Center, a panel of St. Paul police officers and peace workers spoke to a sparse crowd. Probably the most important audience, anti-RNC organizers, did not respond to invitations to be part of the panel. Michael Andregg, St. Thomas professor of justice and peace and panel moderator, said the invitations were made before considering others.
    “Please note that there are no anti-RNC organizers on this panel,” Andregg said. “I asked three [organizers] before I asked other people to come. At that time, they just really didn’t want to talk to the police, and that’s their thought. But I just want to let you know that I reached out to them first.”

    I was unable to find any concrete statement of when and where public rallies would be permitted–other than a parade route that runs to the corner of the block where the convention will be held–so at least part of the ACLU suit appears to have some merit. But it hardly seems that Convention security is being run by jackbooted thugs herding protestors into security cages (as they are in Denver). From the City of St Paul:

    “No person or group who wishes to conduct a public assembly in the Designated Public Assembly Area[s] during the Convention Period shall be issued, nor required to posses, a permit. The SPPD shall waive the payment of all other costs (e.g. administrative processing fees, costs for security, liability insurance, cleanup) otherwise allowed to be charged by the SPPD pursuant to Chapter 366A of the Code.”

    Comment by Mack Smith — August 14, 2008 @ 10:32 am

  5. Mack: The problem isn’t that they didn’t ‘reach out’ in some way. But they did so under the control of their ‘Guidlines.’ These guidlines let them change their minds at any time, and fail to define the areas in question. So they’ll talk with us, but about what? About something they refuse to define? About things they’ve already said they won’t abide by but can change at any moment with no due process? And who said there won’t be cages like in Denver? From what I hear they’ve purchased the equipment to create one. They’ve refused to rule it out or to let us know what the barrier will consist of. Also, we have to be careful of our framing in this argument. Freedom of speech s hould be the assumption. We shouldn’t have to beg at the state’s table for scraps (of our freedoms back). They should be begging us to allow them to infringe on it. And if the arguments reasonable, maybe we will. But this has been done in the opposite fashion. Despite permit requests way in advance, the Police/City Council refused to engage in a discussion until after they had already defined the situation in such a way as to infringe on our rights, and required us to have to beg to get them back. They took all other concerns (Business needs, traffic needs, republican needs) into account, settled them, and then let the public know what was left in the way of our constitutional freedoms.

    Comment by Jodin Morey — August 15, 2008 @ 12:01 am

  6. it is really lame they caved to GOP demands, america has made st. paul’s irish blood weak, and everyone involved should be tried on treason (for defiling the constitution), but screw protesting. organize into as many mobile units to “impeach for peace.” pepper the city with people getting signatures for kucinich’s petition. i think that is more effective then yelling at heartless, empire building, drunk, chicken hawk, zombies who are destroying our country. don’t get me wrong this is a necessary fight for free speech, but doing something they don’t expect is probably more effective.

    Comment by robert — August 19, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

  7. If the Saint Paul police had any spine at all they would be doing a prostitution sting operation the first week of September.

    There might not be anyone left to attend Day Four if they did.

    Comment by Mikael — August 20, 2008 @ 12:05 am

  8. [...] See the details about this lawsuit in our previous Press Release. [...]

    Pingback by Impeach Bush For Peace » RNC Free Speech Legal Battle set for August 25th — August 20, 2008 @ 4:16 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Do-It-Yourself
Impeachment
Blog Categories
Our Whole Site

As heard on
the radio...
Bush hears the voices logo
KFAI radio interview
"I Hear The Voices"
Oct 5th Ad
• Oct 5th Interview
Mike Malloy
Peter Werbe
Get Impeach For Peace Stuff!
(pins, bumper stickers, hats, etc.)
Impeach Bush for Peace Stuff logo
protest picture
Calendar

Picts/Vid
Why Should Bush Have Been Impeached?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


Videos

Bush's Defense
Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The first impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

No matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

  • We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
 
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get anything accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn't make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there's so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn't matter how many laws Congress passes if they don't serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, considering Bush's track-record of breaking laws, he can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he's broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush's actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I'm a Democrat/
Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.

So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).

• Impeachment will never happen. Congress members will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it's important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what's in their self-interest. Let's wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."

Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

(Read More)