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:
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://impeachforpeace.org
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.
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.
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.
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.”
impeach/evict fight on!
were winnings this fight,,,,,,impeach.