<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog</id><link rel="self" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/feed.xml" /><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/index.html" /><author><name>I-Witness Video</name></author><title type="text">I-Witness Video Blog</title><subtitle>The Policing of Protest</subtitle><updated>2009-10-05T14:00:30-07:00</updated><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/21</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/21.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I-Witness Video reveals NYPD's "big secret"</div></title><published>2007-06-23T16:32:00-04:00</published><updated>2007-06-23T16:32:00-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">



<div class="lead_float">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/Unpermitted1.jpg" />
  <p class="caption">
    Dyke March marshal, June 2007, New York City<br />
    Photo: Annulla of <a href="http://blatherfrombrooklyn.wordpress.com/">Blather From Brooklyn</a>
  </p>
</div>

<p>Through the spring and summer months, the New York City Police Department has continued its campaign to shut down, suppress and contain political demonstrations, often in a completely unreasonable, ill-informed and even insulting manner.  Recently, the Police Department has outright refused or stalled permits for events organized by the <a href="http://www.onnyturf.com/articles/read.php?article_id=580">African Diaspora Education Society</a>, <a href="http://www.newyorkblade.com/2007/622/news/localnews/bushwick.cfm">Gays and Lesbians of Bushwick Empowered</a>, the <a href="http://www.hopinc.org/events/pridefest.html">PrideFest</a> and the <a href="http://www.onnyturf.com/articles/read.php?article_id=583">Audre Lorde Project's Trans Day of Action</a>.</p>

<p>Yet, even as many groups scramble to assemble pro-bono teams of attorneys to fight for permission to hold events, the NYPD has secretly issued a parade permit to the largest annual unauthorized political gathering on a Manhattan street, the <a href="http://www.nycdykemarch.org">15th annual New York City Dyke March</a>.  Later today, tens of thousands of lesbians and their supporters will sally forth onto Fifth Avenue in a parade of lesbian visibility without knowing that their display has received the seal of government approval.</p>

<p>That's right, <strong>unrequested</strong> by and <strong>unbeknownst</strong> to the organizers, the NYPD has granted legally permitted status to the Dyke March and has done so for <strong>years</strong>. </p>

<p>How do we know this?  Because Assistant Chief Thomas Graham, the commander of the <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/chfdept/disorder.html">Disorder Control Unit</a> and the NYPD's expert on managing political demonstrations, says so in sworn testimony.</p>

<p>In a statement given under oath on March 23, 2005, then Inspector Thomas Graham, describes what he calls the "big secret." Here is an excerpt from the <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-DykeMarchChiefGraham">court transcript</a> in which he is questioned by attorney James Meyerson:</p>



<blockquote>
  <p>Q: You issue permits at the scene?</p>
  
  <p>A: We actually have issued permits on the street.  And I'll give you the event.  We used to have - it's the Dikes [sic] on Bikes.  It used to be motorcycles and it's a gay women's march.</p>
  
  <p>Q: Lesbians, yes.</p>
  
  <p>A: I like gay women.  If you like lesbians, we'll do lesbians.</p>
  
  <p>Q: Anyway.</p>
  
  <p>A: Back on the ranch.  They normally march down from Fifth Avenue, down Fifth Avenue from 62nd Street.  They have believed for years that they have not had a permit.</p>
  
  <p>Q: I'm sorry, they believed for years?</p>
  
  <p>A: Most of them believe - 99 percent of them believe there's no permit for that event.  But we always co-oped [sic] some of the leadership to cooperate with us.  Sign a permit, have your march, leave one traffic lane open. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Legally speaking, it seems that since the Dyke March has been around so long, the right for the marchers to walk down Fifth Avenue has been "grandfathered," or exempted from the usual requirement for a permit.</p>

<p>But what is the interest of the police in tricking the Dyke March organizers into thinking they do not have a permit when they have been granted one administratively?</p>

<p>Chief Graham touches upon this in the transcript:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A: They even tell us where they're going to take their clothes off, when they expose themselves. [ed: with the safety of large numbers, some women choose to go topless, which is legal in New York State] So I know we've actually issued the paper permit in the street.</p>
  
  <p>Q: The day of the incident?</p>
  
  <p>A: This was the day of the incident.  That, I know has gone on.</p>
  
  <p>Q: Do you guys tell anybody about this?</p>
  
  <p>A: No, that was a big secret.  That was a big secret because we didn't even tell the marches [sic] they had a permit.  Because they believed they didn't because that was one of the reasons for marching.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ok, so the NYPD decided not to tell the Dyke March organizers they had been granted a permit so they would not be disappointed that they were involved in a political action which was legal?  Because it would not seem militantly radical enough? </p>

<p>That explanation seems somewhat bizarre.</p>

<p>Could it be that the police do not want to encourage other groups to think that they too might be able to organize large events in midtown Manhattan without approval from the Police Department?</p>

<p>That's possible. Because in the not-so-distance past, many demonstrations were organized just that way - without ever formally seeking permission from the authorities.   </p>

<p>In 1993, when the first Dyke March took place, it was common for protest organizers to negotiate the logistics of demonstrations with the police as the events took place on the street. There were a lot of positive aspects to that system, both for the organizers and for the police. In most instances, the model which the police used to handle demonstrators was a fluid one based on negotiation and accommodation. There was an unwritten understanding that if 1,000 or more demonstrators showed up, the NYPD would open up one traffic lane in the street to ease their passage, if only to move the group along more quickly. Groups which were smaller than that would make their way along the sidewalk while the police followed nearby to monitor the proceedings. It may seem hard to believe in today's era of over-policing and pre-emptive arrests, but at that time New York City police officers took pride in their cool-headed, unflappable manner during protests.  If no unplanned arrests took place, both protesters and organizers went home thinking that they had a pretty good day.</p>

<p>It is terribly ironic that as NYPD fights tooth and nail to stop others from assembling and marching, they have forced a permit onto the Dyke March organizers who have never sought one and likely never will.  </p>

<p>I look forward to the day when demonstrators can talk about lesbian rights, justice for transgender people, the cultures of the African continent, or whatever they please without having their political message subsumed in some needless fight with the police over the right to take up public space. </p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/20</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/20.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYC Councilmember was threatened last year too</div></title><published>2007-06-08T12:00:00-04:00</published><updated>2007-06-08T12:00:00-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">



<p>The group <a href="http://100blacksinlawenforcement.org">100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care</a> is protesting death
threats made against <a href="http://www.nyccouncil.info/constituent/member_details.cfm?con_id=69">New York City Councilmember Charles Barron</a> on the
<a href="http://p066.ezboard.com/fnypdrant64609frm1">NYPD Rant</a> website earlier this week. They want to find out if NYPD
officers were responsible for the threats and to have the officers fired if
that's true. The NYPD says they are <a href="http://www.amsterdamnews.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=79453&amp;sID=4">looking into the threat</a>.  But this is
not the first time that an NYPD Rant'er has threatened Barron. In December of
last year someone posting on NYPD Rant under the screen name "EA1025" urged
that Barron be "shot on site" [sic]. </p>



<p>EA1025, whose avatar or graphical identity on the website is a picture of TV's
terrorist fighter Jack Bauer, wrote the following:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>WHEN HE ARRIVES AT 1PP he should be shot on site. the man's actions should be
   considered terrorism. Threatening the rest of the city with his "POWDER KEG"
   community ready to blow up, that he continues to incite ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Soon after, he elaborated in another post:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>people like Barron keep pushing the wrong buttons and you might see fiction become reality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I-Witness Video archived the page headlined "Barron to Storm the Palace" when
it appeared on the website on December 4, 2006. A PDF is available <a href="/files/barron-to-storm-the-palace.pdf">here</a>.
Note: although the PDF software was unable to capture the background color of
the page accurately, it is otherwise identical to its original appearance on
the website.</p>

<p>The NYPD Rant website, which claims 120,000 daily viewers, functions as a
stronghold of unconcealed racism and occasional, but vicious anti-Semitism.
"Savage" is the word overwhelmingly favored to describe blacks.
The term "African-American" is almost never used except derisively.  The <em>New York
Observer</em> has highlighted some of the Rant's most hate-filled
<a href="http://www.observer.com/node/29310">remarks mocking Jews, particularly Hasidim</a>.</p>

<p>EA1025's threatening comment appeared on the website after several days of
increasingly agitated posts about the dangers which police officers could
face from demonstrators at a protest against the shooting of Sean Bell, an
unarmed Black man, by NYPD officers. People claiming to be police officers
wrote messages on the website warning their colleagues that they could not
count on police supervisors to allow them to defend themselves if they
were attacked. The demonstration had originally been planned to take place
at NYPD police headquarters at One Police Plaza, colloquially known as 1PP
or the "Puzzle Palace," although it was relocated to Foley Square because
of the size of the crowd.</p>

<p>Since NYPD Rant posters do not use their real names, it is usually impossible
to determine whether the posters are actually police officers without a
full-fledged investigation.  </p>

<p>However, EA1025 left many clues about his identity on the Internet.</p>

<p>Last year EA1025, with <a href="http://p066.ezboard.com/bnypdrant64609.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ea1025">2467 rants</a> to his name, wrote that he was related
to Joseph Piagentini, an NYPD officer who was shot by the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army">Black Liberation Army</a> in 1971, in a thread which has since been removed
from the website. He also wrote that he lived in <a href="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Fvn0lSGiGAoJ:p066.ezboard.com/fnypdrant64609frm1.showNextMessage%3FtopicID%3D60059.topic+ea1025+westbury&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=1&amp;gl=us">Westbury</a> on Long Island.</p>

<p>A few days ago EA1025 reported that he is in
<a href="/files/hello-nypd.pdf">training to be a police officer</a> at the <a href="http://www.joinlapd.com/academy.html">Los Angeles Police Academy</a> in a
class of 70 recruits. </p>

<p>If it turns out that EA1025 is actually an LAPD recruit, he will have begun an
eight-month program which includes 100 hours of what is described as "Human
Relations": cultural sensitivity training, media relations, stress management
and community relations, all of which he might find beneficial.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/19</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/19.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">German police will use dogs to track activists at G8 summit</div></title><published>2007-05-22T23:34:00-04:00</published><updated>2007-05-22T23:34:00-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">



<p>Federal authorities in Germany intend to use police dogs to track activists at
the upcoming G8 summit, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3200158">according to the Associated Press</a>.  A spokesman
for the federal prosecutor's office has confirmed that the police have already
taken scent samples from "several" activists.</p>

<p>Scent tracking was a tool of the Stasi, the notorious East German secret
police. The AP story quotes Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble saying
that "potentially violent" activists may be placed in "preventative
detention" for up to two weeks.  The summit will be taking place in
Heiligendamm, a Baltic Sea resort town in the former East Germany, from June
6-8.  If you think this kind of thing could not happen here in the U.S.,
take a look at <a href="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/2273_human_scen.html">this recent item</a> on the "Danger Room" blog.  A U.S. government
research agency is hoping to develop a device to "collect human scent for
future use to track a specific target."</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/18</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/18.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">How to Search the RNC Intelligence documents</div></title><published>2007-05-20T08:00:00-05:00</published><updated>2007-05-20T08:00:00-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="Fight to Unseal RNC Records" label="Fight to Unseal RNC Records" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">



<p>So many choices.  The NYPD RNC Intelligence documents are available on
four websites which each offer different possibilities for searching
the files.</p>

<p>Since none of the available navigation tools will answer every need, the
serious researcher should consult more than one navigation aid.  While
the indexes provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union and <em>The
New York Times</em> are helpful guides which enable the reader to grasp
the broad features of the surveillance program, they do not capture
every instance in which a group or individual appears in the
documents.  For example, the <em>Times</em> index does not include any
citations for I-Witness Video, which is written about on five pages of
the intelligence documents.  Nor does the <em>Times</em> list "Stonewalk," an
event organized by family members of September 11th victims, which is
cited on four pages of the documents.  The NYCLU's index appears to be
more complete, but even so, activist Lisa Fithian, whose name appears
on eighteen pages of the documents, is cited as appearing on only
thirteen pages by the civil liberties union.  The I-Witness Video
search capability is the most successful in ferreting out each
citation; it uses optical character recognition (OCR) software to make
the scanned documents searchable as text, but is occasionally
inaccurate because that conversion is imperfect.</p>



<h3><a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-rnc-intel">I-Witness Video</a></h3>

<p><strong>Navigation aids:</strong>
Simple text search: Type a word or words into a little box on the
page to pull up the links to matching documents.  Clicking on an
orange link will show the relevant page as an image in your web
browser.</p>

<p><strong>Downloadable files:</strong>
A giant (47-megabyte) PDF contains the entire run of 603 pages of
documents to read at your leisure.</p>

<h3><a href="http://www.nyclu.org/rncdocs">New York Civil Liberties Union</a></h3>

<p><strong>Navigation aids:</strong>
Alphabetical index to the groups and individuals mentioned in the
documents.  The index shows the Bates numbers, a legal numbering
system which is stamped on each page. </p>

<p><strong>Downloadable files:</strong>
The documents have been grouped into five PDFs containing more than
100 pages each, batched by Bates numbers.</p>

<h3><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/nyregion/RNC_intel_digests.html">The New York Times</a></h3>

<p><strong>Navigation aids:</strong>
Arranged chronologically, the organizations and people cited in the
documents are listed under each document date and title.</p>

<p><strong>Downloadable files:</strong>
Each document is available in bite-size PDF form, generally 3 to 5
pages, separately dated and titled.</p>

<h3><a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/dcpi/nypd_rnc.html">New York City Police Department</a></h3>

<p><strong>Navigation aids:</strong>
There are none.</p>

<p><strong>Downloadable files:</strong>
A 39-megabyte <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/dcpi/rnc_docs.zip">ZIP file</a> containing the 603 pages as TIFF images
whose filenames are their Bates numbers.</p>

<p><strong>Bonus feature:</strong>
An 8,724 word
<a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/dcpi/nypd_rnc_overview.html">essay</a>
on why the NYPD was right to undertake its program of surveillance of
activists.</p>

<p><strong>Warning:</strong>
It seems odd that the NYPD which fought so bitterly against the
release of the RNC Intelligence files should provide them to the
public on its official website.  Considering the context, before you
use a police department server to transfer data to your PC, it might
be prudent to consider the possibility that the ZIP file could contain
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware">spyware</a>, which Wikipedia defines as "computer software that collects
personal information about users without their informed consent."</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/17</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/17.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Not "Top Secret," Just "Cop Secret"</div></title><published>2007-05-16T03:28:15-04:00</published><updated>2007-05-16T03:28:15-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="Fight to Unseal RNC Records" label="Fight to Unseal RNC Records" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_float"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/nypd-secret.png" /></div><p><a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-rnc-intel">Here are the NYPD Intelligence documents</a> from the Republican National
Convention spy campaign that lawyers for New York City fought desperately
to keep from public view.</p><p>City lawyers argued that "The documents were not written for consumption
by the general public," and "The documents contain information filtered
and distilled for analysis by intelligence officers accustomed to reading
intelligence information." Additionally, the news media would "fixate and
sensationalize" on the intelligence documents.</p><p>Now you can see for yourself.</p><p>We have begun the process of posting all 600 pages of documents to the
website. We will get them up just as soon as we can.  We'll also be adding
new indexing and searching capabilities to help you navigate through the
documents.</p><p>After a quick scan of the content of the files, many of which are stamped
"N.Y.P.D. Secret," I have to admit that I see plenty of sensationalism on
display.  Like the "intelligence analyst" who concluded that "First-aid"
advice posted on the Internet for people who were attacked by police meant
"that participants of direct action protests may be willing to physically
resist and confront disorder control personnel." <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102668.png">000102668</a>]</span></p><p>Perhaps we should all offer some help to NYPD by reviewing some of the
groups listed in the N.Y.P.D. Secret files and explaining precisely what
they do.  Film festivals: <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102685.png">000102685</a>]</span> they show movies where people sit in
the dark and stare quietly at screens.  The Brooklyn Center for
Anti-Violence Education: <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102706.png">000102706</a>]</span> dedicated for over 30 years to
teaching anti-violence. The New York City AIDS Housing Network: <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102978.png">000102978</a>]</span> just like its name, it places people living with AIDS in
decent housing.</p><p>What kind of training are these "analysts" receiving when they go out to
collect "intelligence" information about a "mass leafletting" campaign
conducted by a peace group, United for Peace and Justice? Information
which is then placed in a file marked "Limited dissemination to law
enforcement personnel and designated local, state, federal and military
officials with a need to know"? <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102809.png">000102809</a>]</span></p><p>It's sad, really, that the NYPD, for all its talk of <a href="http://www.nypdshield.org/public/initiatives.nypd">"counter-terrorism initiatives" and "information-sharing"</a>, cannot seem to tell
the difference between these folks voicing their opinion on the streets of
the city and al Qaeda.</p><p>Even if the muckety-mucks at the top would like to imagine the NYPD as a
sort of hybrid CIA-FBI, someone needs to break it to Police Commissioner
Ray Kelly and Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence David Cohen: your
surveillance program is not "Top Secret," it's just "Cop Secret."</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/16</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/16.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Neo-Nazis and the FBI</div></title><published>2007-03-06T20:26:55-05:00</published><updated>2007-03-06T20:26:55-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/white-salute-560.jpg" /><p class="caption">Members of the National Socialist Movement pose in Orlando.  Ohio NSM leader Mark Martin stands in back row, far left; FBI informant David Gletty kneels in front row, third from left.</p></div><p>David Gletty, the lead organizer of a neo-Nazi march through a historically black neighborhood in Orlando, Florida has been named as an FBI informant by the <em>Orlando Sentinel</em>. Shocked Orlando community leaders have demanded an investigation.  Alzo Reddick, a former Florida state legislator, asked, "Was the FBI informant an activist or participant? Was he an agent provocateur from the get-go?"</p><p>A <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-nazipdf021507,0,7680463.acrobat?coll=orl-home-headlines">parade permit</a> issued for the march names the National Socialist Movement (NSM) as the permittee and lists David Gletty as the "on scene event manager." Gletty has also bragged on the internet that the idea for the march was his own.</p><p>The NSM is called "the nation's leading neo-Nazi group" <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=630">by the hate-group experts</a> at the Southern Poverty Law Center. NSM members wear mock Nazi uniforms with swastika armbands.</p><p>Three hundred law enforcement officers policed the February 2005 march in Orlando where 500 counter-demonstrators faced off with several dozen neo-Nazis.  There were 17 arrests.</p><p><b>FBI denies sponsoring neo-Nazi rally</b></p><p>Despite paying Gletty at least $20,000 over two years, the FBI Orlando office declined to take responsibility for the actions of its informant, saying in an official statement, "In no way did the FBI initiate, organize, or sponsor the NSM rally."  Apparently not satisfied with the FBI's demurral, an <em>Orlando Sentinel</em> <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed16307feb16,0,4995552.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines">editorial</a> questioned "whether the rally was Mr. Gletty's idea or if his FBI handlers put him up to it, perhaps to burnish his racist credentials.  Beyond the $300,000 security costs [to police the march], the FBI owes residents an explanation, like how terrorizing a neighborhood helps the fight against terrorism."</p><p>The Orlando event was so heavily policed, in part, because several months earlier the NSM triggered a riot in Toledo when it attempted to march through a predominantly African-American neighborhood there.</p><p><b>Ohio NSM members joined in Orlando neo-Nazi march</b></p><p>The Ohio-based NSM members who organized the October 2005 march that resulted in a riot also traveled to Orlando for the NSM march through the African-American neighborhood of Parramore.</p><p>A <a href="http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=9174">photograph</a> of Ohio NSM leader Mark Martin in Orlando shows him with the informant David Gletty and other racists raising their arms in a "Sieg Heil" salute.</p><p>Mark Martin did not merely participate; <a href="http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=10190">according to a website</a> run by Bill White, a former NSM spokesperson, he played a leading role in the Orlando rally.</p><p>Confirming Martin's special role, the FBI's informant Gletty gives kudos to Ohio's "SS Mann Martin" for "supervising the overall mission" during the Orlando rally.  Gletty wrote that he, Martin and another NSM'er, Sgt. Drake, took a consensus decision to end the rally at a certain point because "If we had stayed things would have went bad for the police and that would have hurt the good name we are building with police forces around the country."</p><p><b>FBI informant participated in Toledo neo-Nazi rally</b></p><p>During the period in which the FBI was paying him, Gletty traveled to a neo-Nazi rally in downtown Toledo which took place on the heels of the October riot.  In <a href="http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-march.html">his own account</a> of these events, Gletty says that after he drove 1200 miles to take part in the December 2005 rally in Toledo, Ohio NSM members traveled to Orlando to join the NSM march there in a spirit of reciprocity. </p><p>Intriguingly, Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre acknowledged to the Cleveland <em>Plain Dealer</em> on the day after the rally that the FBI had "assisted with intelligence gathering" for the rally.</p><p>Before Gletty's role in providing information to the FBI was revealed publicly, Mark Martin described the companionable time he spent on the day of the Toledo rally with the FBI informant and other Florida NSM'ers.  On a now-defunct NSM website, Martin <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20051215085632/www.nsm88.com/rally/return-to-toledo.html">wrote</a>, "Tampa Florida Unit Leader, Derek [Reis], and two of his members" all "[got] to know each other better over getting tattooed," and remarked how "Dave" (Gletty) had never seen snow.</p><p>One other prominent NSM member who was a major player in the Toledo march and rally and the Orlando march, Bill White, has been "widely accused by fellow neo-Nazis of being an informant" <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=630">according to the Southern Poverty Law Center</a>. White has since been expelled from the NSM and has set up a new Nazi group.</p><p><b>Heavy-handed policing and intelligence collection</b></p><p>Claims of heavy-handed policing and over-the-top surveillance by law enforcement agencies followed the NSM events in Toledo and Orlando.  Counter-protesters and news media representatives who attended the December 2005 NSM rally in Toledo were forced to go through metal detectors and were  videotaped in what police described as "intelligence-gathering for future investigations."</p><p>Why would the police bother to collect so much detailed information about people who oppose Nazis?  That information would almost certainly be turned over to the FBI.  The FBI is particularly interested in tracking the activities of anarchists.  Since some of the most dedicated anti-racist groups are in that camp, the neo-Nazi events offer an excellent opportunity for federal authorities to do surveillance on anarchists.</p><p>Many questions remain.  Before 2005, NSM public gatherings were typically stationary rallies which took place on government property like state capitols.  Did the FBI influence Gletty's decision to stage an NSM march through an African-American neighborhood in Orlando?  Did the FBI influence, through Gletty or through any other NSM member it might control, the NSM's decision to march through a predominantly African-American neighborhood in north Toledo?</p><p>Community residents in Toledo and Orlando have accused the police of protecting the neo-Nazis at the expense of the rights of neighborhood residents, counter-protesters and the general public. In turn, politicians and police officials say that these tactics are necessary and that their willingness to protect even the most controversial public gatherings shows the strength of their commitment to protecting freedom of speech.</p><p>However, if it should turn out that a neo-Nazi demonstration was, in effect, a staged, government-sponsored event organized by a professional agent provocateur, the justification for the forceful policing and extraordinary surveillance measures would fall apart.</p><p>It seems like the citizens of both Orlando and Toledo are owed more answers from the FBI on that account.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/15</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/15.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYPD Video Spying Techniques</div></title><published>2007-02-20T00:48:53-05:00</published><updated>2007-02-20T00:48:53-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><table class="clip_thumbs"><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDSpyingWithFujiBlimpCam409.mov" class="image_link"><img height="116" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/blimp-thumb.jpg" width="174" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch blimp-cam</div></a></td><td><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDHiddenCamera520.mov" class="image_link"><img height="116" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/body-thumb.jpg" width="174" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch body-cam</div></a></td><td><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDSpyingWithHelicopter477.mov" class="image_link"><img height="116" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/helicopter-thumb.jpg" width="174" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch helicopter-cam</div></a></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Even though the NYPD's written policy of blanket surveillance of demonstrations has been <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/14.html">enjoined by a federal judge</a>, the scope of the police spying is not widely known.  The official police rationale for videotaping public events&#8212;that it helps to "prevent and detect terrorist activity"&#8212;hints at the vast potential applications of the policy in a time of public anxiety over the possibility of terrorist acts.</p><p>The NYPD has employed what amounts to 360 degrees of surveillance at demonstrations since the Handschu rules were modified in February 2003.  In particular, there was a massive mobilization of video surveillance at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The police department used high-tech equipment and techniques to spy on members of the public, including a high-powered camera carried on a blimp; a military-style, infrared, thermal-imaging camera on board a $9.8 million helicopter; and a concealed video camera worn by an undercover officer who mingled with crowds at a public gathering. Generally, these live images were beamed back to One Police Plaza over the NYPD's microwave network.  After the RNC, the spying continued at anti-war events, racial justice protests, rallies to fight Global AIDS and many others.</p><p>Using military jargon, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly bragged about the NYPD's formidable arsenal of surveillance equipment:</p><blockquote><p>We also employed new technology that enhanced our command and control.   This included ongoing, real-time images of conditions throughout the City.</p><p>In addition to strategically placed television cameras in and around Madison Square Garden and at other key locations in the City, our new police helicopters were equipped with advanced video equipment as well.  The newest innovation in this connection was the use of a blimp to establish an advanced observation platform. It fed real-time images in startling clarity to our planners on the ground.</p><p>[source: <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/repconv04/nypd090304pr.html">NYPD Press Conference</a>, 3 September 2004]</p></blockquote><p>Let's look at some of what the NYPD's sophisticated technology has garnered.  You can make up your own mind if the collection of video seen below is useful to "prevent and detect terrorist activity," or if it might serve other purposes.</p><p>The three video clips below were shot by NYPD officers on August 27, 2004 during the Republican National Convention.  The footage has been edited into short segments for web viewing.</p><p>What is perhaps most remarkable is that all of the cameras converge on Union Square Park at exactly the same time.  Along with the ubiquitous <a href="http://scaryny.com/archives/2004/09/nypd_taru.php">TARU police officers using handheld camcorders</a>, the blimp cam, the helicopter cam and the covert body cam were deployed at the same moment in time and space.</p><p><b>Blimp cam</b></p><div class="cam_float"><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDSpyingWithFujiBlimpCam409.mov" class="image_link"><img height="174" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/blimp-medium.jpg" width="261" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch blimp-cam</div></a></div><p>The Fujifilm corporation loaned its blimp to the NYPD for a week during the RNC.  The letters "NYPD" and a police shield logo were emblazoned on the blimp, along with the Fuji logo, branding the blimp with a <a href="http://www.airshipman.com/NewsArticles/News30aug04.htm">double logo</a>.</p><p>The first scene on the clip shows people from the antiwar group <a href="http://www.notinourname.net/rnc">Not in Our Name</a> lying on the grass in Central Park, spelling out a giant "NO" with their bodies. Every so often the camera operator focuses on some young women lounging nearby who do not seem to be part of the antiwar event. The hovering blimp cam seems almost to float above this tranquil scene.  It might even be a pretty picture if it were not for the fact that we are viewing this all through what appears to be a military targeting scope superimposed on the frame.</p><p>When the camera zooms out, what seems like half of the island of Manhattan comes quickly into focus.  The blimp cam has a truly awesome <a href="http://poynteronline.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5657&amp;sid=29">depth of field</a> and range.</p><p>The NYPD Fuji blimp continues downtown to Union Square Park where it floats above the assemblage of  parkgoers and bicyclists gathering for the Critical Mass ride.  Once again the camera appears to shadow a young woman around the park just long enough to give the impression that some girl-watching might be going on.  A man stares directly up at the blimp, giving rise to the insight that staring directly at an aerial observation platform allows a perfect view of your face.  Occasionally the blimp cam turns on its infrared capability for reasons that are unclear.</p><p><b>Body Cam</b></p><div class="cam_float"><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDHiddenCamera520.mov" class="image_link"><img height="174" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/body-medium.jpg" width="261" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch body-cam</div></a></div><p>An undercover police officer wears a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_camera">lipstick camera</a>" with audio capability concealed on his body.</p><p>The undercover officer rides his bicycle (while making several illegal maneuvers in traffic) to a rendezvous point in Union Square Park.  In the park he meets up with other undercover police officers, one of whom sports a camcorder over his shoulder.   The three undercover police officers mingle with the bicyclists who are gathering to take part in the <a href="http://www.critical-mass.org">Critical Mass</a> bicycle ride.</p><p>We cannot know for certain, but it is very possible that the video from the body cam was transmitted live over a special wireless system that was put into place specifically for the Republican Convention.  There were at least two such systems that were tested during the RNC.  World Air Waves <a href="http://www.pr9.net/business/telecom/1164september.html">had an RNC contract</a> to provide a system including wearable video cameras to the NYPD. The Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security funded "Smartnets," a pilot project to transmit a live, two-way video signal by piggybacking on the local public television station's digital signal.</p><p><b>Helicopter Cam</b></p><div class="cam_float"><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDSpyingWithHelicopter477.mov" class="image_link"><img height="174" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/helicopter-medium.jpg" width="261" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch helicopter-cam</div></a></div><p>The NYPD used several of its high-tech helicopters equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance cameras to monitor demonstrations during the RNC.  At least one of those helicopters was purchased by the police department using a <a href="http://ovc.gov/newsroom/2002/ojp02107.html">$9.8 million counterterrorism grant</a> from the U.S. Department of Justice.  The Bell 412 helicopter is equipped with military-style infrared imaging, a "Nightsun" searchlight whose strength is measured in tens of millions of candlepower, and the capability of transmitting a live television signal over microwaves to commanders located in One Police Plaza or anywhere else in town with the appropriate receiver.</p><p>This brief clip begins with the helicopter using only its infrared camera, while flying over the "W" hotel in the northeastern part of the Union Square neighborhood.   Hundreds of bicyclists take off on their group ride, appearing as ghostly black-and-white skeletons in the footage.  After this short clip ends, the helicopter follows the Critical Mass around Manhattan.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/14</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/14.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Judge tells NYPD to stop willy-nilly videotaping of demonstrations</div></title><published>2007-02-20T00:02:39-05:00</published><updated>2007-02-20T00:02:39-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="TARU" label="TARU" /><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><category term="Surveillance" label="Surveillance" /><category term="Handschu" label="Handschu" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Judge Charles Haight delivered a withering blow to NYPD's blanket surveillance of public gatherings in a carefully rendered, 47-page <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-handschu-feb-15">decision</a>.</p><p>Haight's decision clarified the Handschu guidelines, the rules which the NYPD must follow when videotaping or photographing political activity.  He ordered that the current NYPD policy of wholesale surveillance of demonstrations stop immediately.</p><p>The police department argued that its officers should be able to attend (and record) public gatherings of all types "on the same terms and conditions of members of the public generally."</p><p>Haight demurred, writing, "There is a quantum difference between a police officer and the little old lady (or other tourist or private citizen) videotaping or photographing a public event."</p><p>In the words of Jethro Eisenstein, one of the lawyers challenging NYPD policies, the "effect [of the current NYPD written policy] is to treat every demonstration as criminal activity."</p><p>But even treating all political demonstrations as criminal is insufficiently Draconian for the NYPD.  Chief John Colgan, the commanding officer of the Counter-Terrorism Bureau, included "Large public events such as the New Year's Eve celebration" in the category of activities that a wise police department must surveil. Colgan's justification is that "the videotaping of public events serves to help <em>prevent and detect terrorist activity</em>." [my emphasis]</p><p>Haight disagreed with the NYPD's characterization of even small, benign protests as potential lightning rods for terror. After reviewing evidence that individuals participating in a legally permitted sidewalk demonstration in front of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's townhouse had been comprehensively videotaped by <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/chfdept/chfdept-taru.html">TARU</a> officers, Haight wrote, "Here there was no reason to suspect or anticipate that unlawful or terrorist activity might occur."</p><p>The bottom line for Haight is, "there must <em>always</em> be a legitimate law enforcement purpose&#8212;having a purpose of investigating political activity exclusively for its own sake is never allowed."</p><p>During the past few years in New York City we have seen a full flowering of video surveillance by NYPD at demonstrations and other First Amendment events.  It is very likely that Haight's decision has opened up the door to more litigation challenging police department surveillance tactics.</p><p>It is crucial that we track the NYPD's compliance with the new federal court order. The folks associated with I-Witness Video will be keeping our eyes peeled for NYPD surveillance activity. If you see NYPD spy cameras in action, we want to hear about it.  Please send your observations about police spying to <a href="mailto:iwitness@iwitnessvideo.info">iwitness@iwitnessvideo.info</a>.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/13</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/13.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Smolka video cited in Newsday</div></title><published>2007-02-06T16:02:03-05:00</published><updated>2007-02-06T16:02:03-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Newsday picked up the <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/10.html" title="Has Chief Bruce Smolka been muzzled?">I-Witness Video story</a> about the <a href="http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Iwitness-NYPDChiefSmolkaKicksWoman442.mov">Chief Smolka video</a>.  This is the first time video from this website has been cited in the mainstream news media.  In true "old media" style, Newsday doesn't credit I-Witness Video or the videographer by name or even link to the video as a service to its readers; but the article says the video "is making waves on the Internet and in the department."</p><p><a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyrocc065082229feb06,0,6518060.story?coll=ny-nycnews-headlines">The Newsday article</a> brings some new information to light. Cynthia Greenberg speaks about what is not visible in the video.  She says Chief Smolka kicked her repeatedly in the head and body, resulting in a concussion. She also says that, as he assaulted her, he called her a "fucking cunt" and accused her of "resisting" him. (Newsday censors the expletives.)</p><p>The article also describes a deposition of Chief Smolka, where he offers a convoluted explanation of how his knee perhaps happened to come in contact with Cynthia Greenberg's head.</p><p>Newsday reporter Rocco Parascandola summarizes the scene caught on tape like this: "Although only seconds long, it looks bad."</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/12</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/12.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau and CCRB investigate theft of Flux's camera</div></title><published>2007-01-31T18:21:37-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-31T18:21:37-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="CCRB" label="CCRB" /><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>FluxRostrum, whose videocamera <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/4.html">was stolen</a> by NYPD officers on October 30, 2006, is still fighting for possession of his camera and tape.  Sources tell us that the Civilian Complaint Review Board has opened an investigation into the matter. The blogger Aldon Hynes sent a <a href="http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2098">complaint</a> to the NYPD via e-mail and received a follow-up phone call from a Sgt. Hanlon of Internal Affairs. Hynes <a href="http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2129">reports</a>,</p><blockquote><p>This morning, I received a phone call from Sergeant Hanlon of Group 12, the internal affairs bureau of the New York City Police Department. My wife was a little concerned about why a Sergeant from the New York City Police was calling me, but when she understood the details, she handed the phone over to me. He was calling in regards to the email I had sent about "The War on Journalism".</p><p>Sergeant Hanlon said that the Police Department and received several emails about the event at the Mexican Consulate and that many videos had emerged online. The Police Department's Video Unit is reviewing the online videos and will be providing information to Sergeant Hanlon. He will be handling the investigation from there.</p><p>If any people have additional information they should contact Sergeant Hanlon at 212 694 3115. Sergeant Hanlon was very helpful in providing information and hopefully will conduct a thorough investigation into what happened.</p></blockquote></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/11</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/11.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Revlon and Chief Smolka</div></title><published>2007-01-31T18:21:38-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-31T18:21:38-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="CCRB" label="CCRB" /><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/revlon-floor.jpg" /></p><p>Readers of an <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/10.html">earlier post</a> may have been puzzled about why NYPD Chief Bruce Smolka's unique talents would be in demand at a leading purveyor of beauty products for women.</p><p>I-Witness Video received this note <a href="http://freelancewrite.about.com/od/glossary/g/Overthetransom.htm">over the transom</a> from a <a href="http://www.rantcollective.net/article.php?id=35">legal observer</a> who did not wish to be identified.  It provides some insight into the history of the relationship between Revlon and the NYPD.</p><blockquote><p>Revlon is owned by highly controversial billionaire Ronald Perelman  (who rose to prominence, with his partner Michael Milken, through "corporate raiding" in the 1980s). Revlon does business with NYPD (and Revlon/Perelman was the central cause of the [former Police Commissioner Howard] Safir ethics violation charges).<span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-1" name="footnote-ref-1" id="footnote-ref-1">[1]</a></span></p><p>Perelman and Revlon have long made it a practice to hire politically connected figures as part of their own corporate strategies.  Press reports have also pointed to Perelman's desire to hire NYPD "tough guys."  And it would appear that Smolka is replacing 73-year old Tosano ("Tough Tony") Simonetti, a former NYPD senior official (who was also close to Safir/Giuliani and as a CCRB appointee <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/html/simonetti.html">[see bio]</a> oversaw complaints involving Smolka).  Perelman is also now the owner of the largest  US-owned private security company (combining Allied, Barton and SpectaGuard).</p><p>These lucrative contracts for senior NYPD officials are increasingly common (and other key parts of law enforcement, a police variant of the so-called "revolving door").   While New York City has clear rules to avoid undermining the public interest through classic corruption, it has only weak guidelines to face this more subtle challenge.</p><p>The sad part is that, in a big way, Smolka will not be "getting out."  Many senior NYPD brass will now be requesting his recommendation, which may decide the second part of their career (and the most lucrative part).  Perelman's huge security firm alone is an enormous source of patronage.  In the future, Smolka's view of their ongoing performance may be more important to some police brass than the Mayor's.  That will weigh on their minds during many demonstrations to come.</p><p>More and more, police policy decisions are subject to private sector influence&#8212;even if it is an indirect and long-run type of influence.</p></blockquote><div class="footnotes"><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-1" name="footnote-1" id="footnote-1">[1]</a> The New York City Conflict of Interest Board "rebuked former NYC Police Commissioner Howard Safir for accepting a free trip to the 1999 Academy Awards festivities in Los Angeles. Revlon was the donor of the trip, valued at over $7,000." <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/conflicts/downloads/pdf2/enf_summary_11_9_04.pdf">[See summary.]</a> Safir's trip took place at the height of protests about the Diallo killing.</p></div></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/10</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/10.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Has Chief Bruce Smolka been muzzled?</div></title><published>2007-01-23T23:43:27-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-23T23:43:27-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="Police Misconduct" label="Police Misconduct" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><a href="http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Iwitness-NYPDChiefSmolkaKicksWoman442.mov" class="bare_link"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/Greenberg.jpg" /></a></div><div><a href="http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Iwitness-NYPDChiefSmolkaKicksWoman442.mov">&gt;&gt; PLAY VIDEO</a></div><p>After 26 years on the police force, two-star NYPD Chief Bruce Smolka is retiring and leaving for a security job at Revlon.  The timing of his departure is both striking and curious.  Since the Street Crimes Unit which he commanded was forced to close after the killing of Amadou Diallo, Chief Smolka has had a meteoric rise within the NYPD.  He is currently the borough commander of Manhattan south of 59th Street, which is the plum patrol assignment at his level within the department.</p><p>Why would Chief Smolka choose to leave now, at the height of his career, holding one of the most prestigious assignments the department has to offer?</p><p>Is it possible that Chief Smolka's impending retirement has something to do with civil rights lawsuits that have been brought against him by activists?  

He has been named or will be named in two separate lawsuits by
women who have claimed that he used excessive and unnecessary force on
them during demonstrations. National Lawyer's Guild legal observer
Adrienne Wheeler intends to bring one of suits.

You can see Ms. Wheeler tell her story about being manhandled by Chief Smolka <a href="http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_066002543.html">here</a>.</p><p>Does the timing of Chief Smolka's exit from NYPD have anything to do with his upcoming civil trial for using excessive force against another woman activist?  A deeply disturbing video that will be introduced as evidence in the trial shows Chief Smolka kneeing Cynthia Greenberg in the head while she is engaged in passive civil disobedience.</p><p>I-Witness Video has obtained the videotape of Chief Smolka personally taking Ms. Greenberg into custody during an anti-war demonstration at the Federal Building in Manhattan on May 5, 2003.  The circumstances of the civil disobedience that day were negotiated in advance with the 
police department, including an understanding that arrested demonstrators would receive "desk appearance tickets" (summonses) rather than being locked up overnight.</p><p>View the short clip of Chief Smolka's actions <a href="http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Iwitness-NYPDChiefSmolkaKicksWoman442.mov">here</a>. The sequence plays once at normal speed and then again enhanced, zoomed in closer to the action and in slow motion.</p><p>The video, shot by independent videographer Ana Nogueira, shows Ms. Greenberg seated on the ground next to other demonstrators. Ms. Greenberg is wearing an orange t-shirt in a sea of blue uniforms.  Chief Smolka, wearing a navy sweater over a white shirt and a cap with distinctive gold braid on the bill, tries to pull her away from the group.  He yanks at her but fails to dislodge her at first.  Two other officers are also grabbing onto Ms. Greenberg.  Chief Smolka grips the back of her clothing with both hands, and suddenly his knee shoots up, striking the right side of her head.  Ms. Greenberg's head snaps back sharply with the impact.  Her face is contorted in pain.  Her right hand comes up to the part of her head where she has just been hit.</p><p>Ms. Greenberg is handcuffed off camera.  The video cuts to a pair of female police officers walking with Ms. Greenberg in custody.   As she passes the camera, Ms. Greenberg pauses and then blurts out, "One of the officers just called me a cunt and kicked me in the face."</p><div class="floater"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/smolka-189-01.jpg" /><p class="caption">Chief Smolka arrests woman at April 2005 Critical Mass</p><p class="credit">Photo &#169; <a href="http://web.mac.com/antrim16">Antrim Caskey</a>, 2005</p></div><p>Chief Smolka's actions on the videotape seem consistent with his reputation for having an explosive temper.  For more on the Chief's standing among activists, many of whom consider him to be a sort of "Darth Vader" figure, see Aaron Naparstek's piece naming him one of the <i>New York Press</i> "<a href="http://www.naparstek.com/2005/03/really-bad-lieutenant.php">50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers</a>."</p><p>It is not clear why Chief Smolka has chosen to leave the police department that has been the focus of his adult life.  Perhaps he just got a better offer.  Or maybe the Chief's ascent to the highest levels of the police department has been compromised by his hands-on aggression on the street.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Are you allowed to take pictures of the police?</div></title><published>2007-01-23T23:43:26-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-23T23:43:26-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="The War on Cameras" label="The War on Cameras" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><blockquote><p>By law we cannot arrest someone just because he may call a cop a pig.  We cannot arrest someone because he asks for a name or a badge or takes a picture.</p><p>-- Lorenzo Casanova, Deputy Police Commissioner, NYPD. <span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-1" name="footnote-ref-1" id="footnote-ref-1">[1]</a></span></p></blockquote><p>We know that NYPD officers harass photographers for taking pictures of stuff that the police decide is "sensitive."  But what if police officers decide that they themselves are the "sensitive" stuff?</p><p>To see an example of what can happen when the police take umbrage at being videotaped, see <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/news/index.html#news-41">this WCBS story</a> showing an NYPD official striking a man who was videotaping the police. </p><p>Can the police simply decide that it is illegal for you to to videotape them?  Do you have the right to take pictures of police officers at work in public places?  Do you have even the limited right to stand around and gawk at the police when they stop someone?</p><p>It turns out that the rights of "onlookers" at police incidents, including photographers, in New York City have already been recognized in federal court in a ruling that is still in effect today.</p><p>In the 1970s a class action lawsuit, <i>Black v. Codd</i>, was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of reporters, photographers and onlookers who had been harassed, assaulted and/or arrested in the vicinity of police officers at work. The five plaintiffs were a diverse group: a WINS radio journalist; an <i>Amsterdam News</i> reporter; two members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a far Right <a href="http://www.public.org/larouche/synthesis.html">LaRoucheite group</a>; and a person identified by <i>The New York Times</i> only as a "bookkeeper."</p><p>NYCLU attorney Paul Chevigny stated in court papers that between 1970 and 1973, 259 people had been "subjected to some sanction, such as arrest, threats or physical abuse, because of criticism (or implied criticism, as by taking a photograph or writing down a shield number) of a police officer, including going to the precinct to make a complaint." <span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-2" name="footnote-ref-2" id="footnote-ref-2">[2]</a></span></p><p>In 1977 the NYPD was forced to agree that onlookers at incidents where the police are stopping people or making arrests are permitted to stay nearby without being subject to harassment or arrest.  The federal court ordered that this understanding be incorporated into the NYPD Patrol Guide, the internal rulebook about how to be a street cop. (It appears in section 208-03.)</p><p>The <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-black-v-codd">federal consent decree in <i>Black v. Codd</i></a> reads in part:</p><blockquote><p>... when a person (or persons) is detained, stopped or arrested in public areas, a person or persons not involved in the conduct for which the person is stopped or arrested may remain in the vicinity of the stop or arrest as an onlooker or onlookers ...</p><p>None of the following constitutes probable cause for arrest or detention of an onlooker unless the safety of officers or other persons is directly endangered or the officer reasonably believes they are endangered or the law is otherwise violated:</p><p>(a) Speech alone, even though crude and vulgar;<br />(b) Requesting and making notes of shield numbers or names of officers;<br />(c) Taking photographs;<br />(d) Remaining in the vicinity of the stop or arrest.<br /></p></blockquote><p>What does this mean out on the street?  Explained in the forthright language of Lorenzo Casanova, the Deputy Police Commissioner in 1977, "By law we cannot arrest someone just because he may call a cop a pig.  We cannot arrest someone because he asks for a name or a badge or takes a picture." <span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-3" name="footnote-ref-3" id="footnote-ref-3">[3]</a></span></p><p>Apart from <i>Black v. Codd</i>, the Patrol Guide warns against interfering with photographers:</p><blockquote><p>Members of the service will not interfere with the video taping or photographing of incidents in public places. Intentional interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or harassing the photographer constitutes censorship.</p><p>-- NYPD Patrol Guide, section 116-53 <span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-4" name="footnote-ref-4" id="footnote-ref-4">[4]</a></span></p></blockquote><p>In other words, a police officer's fear of criticism, without evidence of a crime, is simply not a sufficient basis to harass or arrest someone. And NYPD's own rules for police officers recognize that interfering with cameras is censorship.</p><p>The upshot is: taking photographs or shooting video on the streets in the United States of America is a constitutionally protected activity.  That includes taking pictures of New York's Finest.</p><div class="footnotes"><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-1" name="footnote-1" id="footnote-1">[1]</a> Peter Kihss, "Police Agree on Rights of Onlookers at Arrests," <i>The New York Times</i>, June 7, 1977.</p><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-2" name="footnote-2" id="footnote-2">[2]</a> Kihss, ibid.</p><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-3" name="footnote-3" id="footnote-3">[3]</a> Kihss, ibid.</p><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-4" name="footnote-4" id="footnote-4">[4]</a> Todd Maisel, "<a href="http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2004/08/answers_from_nypd_meeting_for_rnc.html">150 photographers seek answers at NYPD meeting for RNC,</a>" National Press Photographers Association</p></div></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/e8</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/e8.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYPD makes its own rules; keeps secret files on photographers</div></title><published>2007-01-10T09:51:29-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-10T09:51:29-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In my previous post, we found that taking photographs in public places is
        firmly protected under the Constitution.</p><p> Yet, in the cold light of post-September 11th New York City, the NYPD
        seems to think that it should be able to decide who is allowed to take
        pictures of anything that the police deem "sensitive."  This kind of
        thinking is justified under the rubric of fighting terrorism.</p><p>In May 2005, documentary filmmaker Rakesh Sharma was videotaping traffic
        near the Met Life building when he was accosted by NYPD Detective James
        Alamia.  Mr. Sharma was told that he was videotaping a "sensitive
        building."  His passport was taken from him and he was threatened and
        roughed up.  Mr. Sharma alleges in <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-sharma-complaint">court papers</a> that Detective Alamia
        "said words to the effect of 'we know how to deal with you guys, asshole'
        and told Mr. Sharma that he was authorized to punch him if necessary."
        After being harassed for a couple of hours on a midtown street corner Mr.
        Sharma was taken back to the 17th Precinct for more questioning and
        threats.  At the end of an ordeal lasting several hours, the police gave
        the filmmaker's passport to him, returned his now-broken videocamera and
        released him without charge.</p><p><b>NYPD's Intelligence Division keeps database of photographers</b></p><p>The <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-sharma-complaint">federal lawsuit</a> filed on Mr. Sharma's behalf by the New York Civil
        Liberties Union includes shocking new information.  According to the
        NYCLU,  "the Intelligence Division of the NYPD is maintaining a database
        that includes the identities of everyone investigated for photography by
        the Division, regardless of the outcome of the investigation."
        The NYCLU says that a "substantial
        number of investigations of photographers and filmmakers" have been
        conducted by the Intelligence Division.  In many cases these
        "investigations" involved threatening filmmakers and photographers in
        order to get them to destroy their images, or at least to show them to the
        police.</p><p>
        So there you have it.  While the U.S. Constitution gives broad rights to
        photographers and videographers shooting in public places, if you actually
        try to exercise your right to take pictures, you may be subject to
        questioning, search, threats, assault, or arrest by the police.  Your
        personal details may even be included in a special NYPD Intelligence
        Division database.  With all the recent enthusiasm for "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501517.html">information-sharing</a>" among local and federal law enforcement and "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000238.html">intelligence fusion centers</a>", what is the chance that the information NYPD is collecting about
        photographers will stay in a lockbox down at One Police Plaza?  My guess
        is zero.</p><p>Do you feel the chill in the air yet?</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/e7</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/e7.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Is it legal to take pictures on the street?</div></title><published>2007-01-09T20:07:41-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-09T20:07:41-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="First Amendment" label="First Amendment" /><category term="The War on Cameras" label="The War on Cameras" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>There seems to be a lot of confusion about whether or not people can be
          prevented from taking pictures or shooting video in public.  Just what is the
          law around taking pictures in public places?</p><p>The rights of photographers under the Constitution are expressed in sparklingly clear language in <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-public-streets">a legal memorandum on the "Rights of Journalists on Public Streets"</a> which is available on the website of the National Press Photographers Association. I will now quote liberally from this very helpful document.</p><p>In general, the
          right to take photographs on the street is the same for members of the public
          as it is for journalists.  So, if you're a member of the public, rather than a
          journalist, most of this applies to you too.</p><blockquote>Although not unlimited, the media [and the public] enjoys a broad right of
          access under the First Amendment to photograph in public places such as streets
          and sidewalks.  These rights are rooted in the First Amendment's strong
          protection of speech within "public forums."  A "public forum" refers to a
          public place historically associated with free expression.  The most commonly
          recognized examples include <b>streets, sidewalks and parks.  Within these areas,
          the government's ability to limit the public's speech is extremely limited.</b><br /> [my emphasis]</blockquote><p>Great.  So taking
        photographs on the street is a constitutionally-protected activity.  This means
        that the government is not supposed to restrict your right to photograph or
        videotape in public places, with very few exceptions.</p><p>But surely, the laws
        must have been changed after September 11th to reflect the new reality of the
        Global War on Terror (GWOT)?  According to the legal memo, from the Washington,
        D.C.-based firm Covington &amp; Burling:</p><blockquote>[T]he case law does not reflect any
          narrowing of media rights within public forums in the name of national
          security. Moreover, <b>no specific post-September 11 federal law grants the
          government any additional rights to restrict visual newsgathering,
          photojournalism or photography generally.</b><br />[my emphasis]</blockquote><p>The memo does
        point out that a "public safety" exception exists for certain First Amendment
        activity.  For example, a photographer may be ordered off a public sidewalk to
        maintain traffic flow and the like.  But, "[C]ourts have found that the
        government cannot restrict protected First Amendment activity by merely
        invoking 'public safety' without any supporting evidence."  That means the
        police must have a solid, factual basis for telling you to move on.</p><p>In a future post I'll look at what can happen when you actually exercise
        your First Amendment right to take pictures on the street in New York City.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/5</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/5.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">18,000 people watch video of NYPD attacking FluxRostrum</div></title><published>2006-12-22T17:30:43-05:00</published><updated>2006-12-22T17:30:43-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="17th Precinct" label="17th Precinct" /><category term="FluxRostrum" label="FluxRostrum" /><category term="The War on Cameras" label="The War on Cameras" /><category term="Police Misconduct" label="Police Misconduct" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Over 18,000 people have viewed FluxRostrum's video <a href="http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html">Get That Camera!</a> since it was <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/4.html">posted on this website</a> and others last week.  The
              videotaped assault on Flux and the theft of his camera by NYPD officers 
              has been re-posted to scores of blogs including Amanda Congdon's
              high-profile ABC News video blog.
              </p><p>
              If you haven't seen it, take a minute now.  The
              baldness of the actions of the police is astonishing.  There is an   
              undeniable Keystone Kops element as the hapless police officers attempt to
              hide the evidence of their bad acts while standing on a midtown Manhattan
              sidewalk in front of many other people who are videotaping and
              photographing their actions.
              </p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/4</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/4.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYPD assaults videographer, steals camera</div></title><published>2006-12-12T00:00:00-05:00</published><updated>2006-12-12T00:00:00-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="17th Precinct" label="17th Precinct" /><category term="Brad Will" label="Brad Will" /><category term="Mexican Consulate" label="Mexican Consulate" /><category term="FluxRostrum" label="FluxRostrum" /><category term="Manhattan District Attorney" label="Manhattan District Attorney" /><category term="The War on Cameras" label="The War on Cameras" /><category term="Police Misconduct" label="Police Misconduct" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><a href="http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html" class="bare_link"><img alt="Get That Camera!" height="222" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/FluxRostrum-GetThatCamera578.jpg" width="420" /></a></div><div><a href="http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html">&gt;&gt; PLAY VIDEO</a></div><p>On October 30, 2006 at a demonstration protesting the murder of journalist
          Brad Will in Mexico, members of the NYPD assaulted an independent
          videographer and stole his videocamera.</p><p>That's right, stole.  The filmmaker, FluxRostrum, was not arrested. He
          did not receive a receipt for seized property. He was not even directly
          asked for his camera. Instead, without any warning, he was jumped by two
          police officers, one of whom is an NYPD captain, and knocked down onto the
          asphalt of 39th Street.  One police officer was succcesful in wrenching
          the camera out of Flux's hands.  As Flux crawled around on the ground
          looking for the eyeglasses which had been knocked off his face during the
          attack, the cop with the camera quickly conferred with another officer.
          Then he ran off to hide the camera.</p><p>When Flux attempted to get his camera back after the demonstration, he was
          threatened with arrest by a Lieutenant at the 17th Precinct.  His lawyer
          was told that camera was found "abandoned" at the scene and that it had
          been turned over to the Manhattan District Attorney's office to be used as
          evidence against people arrested at the Mexican Consulate demonstration
          that day.</p><p>Someone at the 17th Precinct told the D.A. that the camera was found
          "abandoned" on the sidewalk. Now the D.A. is insisting on keeping a copy
          of the stolen videotape to use as evidence.</p><p>Is this the new normal? Is it legal just because the police say so?</p><p>If police do not have their own videocameras at events will they simply
          bonk one of us over the head and steal our gear and videotapes?  What if
          they decide that they do not like what the videotape shows?  Will they
          then destroy it as has happened to so many cameras seized by the NYPD over
          the past couple of years?</p><p>This story is a little hard to believe, isn't it? Fortunately, you do not
          have to take my word for it. Not to be denied his voice, Flux made a <a href="http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html">videotape</a> about his experience at the hands of NYPD.</p><p>This is the first blog installment in an ongoing I-Witness Video
          investigation, The War on Cameras.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/3</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/3.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I-Witness Video Blogging Begins</div></title><published>2006-12-01T00:00:00-05:00</published><updated>2006-12-01T00:00:00-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="Background" label="Background" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>I-Witness Video was born in the wake of the crackdown on freedom of
          speech and assembly which followed the embattled Seattle World Trade
          Organization (WTO) meetings in 1999. Since 2000, we have used
          video as the foundation for our investigations into police and
          government misconduct in and around political demonstrations.</p><p>The I-Witness Video blog will explore a plethora of police wrongdoing
          including surveillance, police perjury, prosecutorial misconduct and
          preemptive arrests. We will also try to shed light on the
          mechanisms of government repression through the use of obscure federal
          agencies, little-known Presidential directives, disinformation and the
          hyperbolic conflation of social activism with terrorism.</p><p>Living in the era of what a friend ironically calls the post 9-11
          Constitution, we will try to offer some perspective on the history of
          resistance and repression in the U.S.</p><p>To do all this we will use a variety of tools: video, still
          photographs, news articles, lawsuits, government and NGO reports and
          whatever open source intelligence we can get our hands on.</p><p>The story of the current wave of political repression is so complex
          that we may have to tell it in small pieces over a long period of
          time. We hope that you will join us in this unfolding,
          adding your own thoughts, analysis and observations to the mix.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/101</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/101.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I-Witness Video Moves to Quash Two Subpoenas</div></title><published>2008-06-20T12:55:28-07:00</published><updated>2008-06-20T12:55:28-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/archive.jpg" />
  <p class="caption">
This is a photo of completely unrelated video archivists.  But
they look about as comfortable in this picture as we feel.
(Photo by Chris Bouldin for The Pine Log.)
  </p>
</div>

<p>In April, I-Witness Video received the first of two subpoenas from the
New York City Law Department in connection with the civil lawsuits
filed by people arrested at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
We received a second subpoena, seeking additional material, in early
June.</p>

<p>The subpoenas demand videotapes, photographs, documents and other
"potential evidence" related to "protests, demonstrations, and
arrests" during the RNC.</p>

<p>Yesterday, our attorneys filed a Motion to Quash the City's subpoenas.</p>
<p>In the event that the judge orders us to turn over any portion of the
archive, we have asked the court to prohibit the City from making the
videotapes available to police, federal agencies, foreign governments,
or other entities, and to allow us to withhold the names of the
videographers.</p>

<p>The City is engaged in a very cynical exercise: it already possesses
about 270 videotapes of the demonstrations shot by police officers,
as well as about 70 other videotapes from other sources.  And yet,
they are asking to copy every last videotape in our RNC collection --
including videotapes they already have, and including a large number
of tapes shot by the NYPD itself.</p>

<p>The City knows what we know -- that the NYPD was out of control during
the Convention protests. The videotapes in their possession already
show that. So we can't help but wonder why they are demanding access
to our archive.  Could it be that they are using this opportunity to
gather intelligence about activists? We are deeply concerned about
this, and about the possibility that the City's request, if granted,
could transform I-Witness Video from a network of video activists into
a de-facto arm of the government.</p>

<p>We are continuing to engage in the larger struggle to expose police
abuses, but right now we are also under the gun.  And we need your
help.  Join us this summer at the presidential conventions in
Minneapolis and Denver where we will be documenting the policing of
demonstrations.  Or <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/contribute/">contribute money</a>
to I-Witness Video.  We have a
lot of exciting projects underway in addition to the convention work.
If you want to talk to us, we'd love to <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/about/">hear from you</a>.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/102</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/102.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Oops, they did it again</div></title><published>2008-07-29T22:00:00-07:00</published><updated>2008-07-29T22:00:00-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy and Zul</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_float">
<img alt="NYPD Arrests Dennis Kyne at 2004 Republican National Convention" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/Iwitness-NYPDArrestsDennisKyneAt2004RepublicanNationalConvention579-357.jpg" style="width: 320px; height: 240px;" />
</div>

<p>New Yorkers and people across the U.S. were stunned to see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ">the YouTube video</a> of a police officer tackling a bicyclist in Times Square, unprovoked and without warning.  Even more surprising, in a sworn statement, the police officer alleged that he ordered the cyclist to stop, and that instead the cyclist "steered into" the officer and drove the bicycle over him, knocking him down and injuring him. The video clearly shows the cyclist veering away from the officer and getting tackled, football-style, landing on the sidewalk.  It appears that he was never ordered to stop.</p>
<p>This is not an isolated episode.  NYPD officers arresting innocent civilians for no reason and then fabricating charges has become commonplace since the 2004 Republican National Convention.</p>

<p>Here are two examples of this behavior from the past:</p>

<p>Dennis Kyne was arrested on the steps of the New York Public Library on August 31, 2004. The District Attorney was forced to dismiss all charges against Kyne when <a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDArrestsDennisKyneAt2004RepublicanNationalConvention579.mov">this videotape</a> which utterly contradicted police testimony was shown at his trial.</p>

<p>In a second example, Alexander Dunlop was walking his bicycle up Second Avenue near the spot where the police stopped the Critical Mass ride.  He walked over to a line of helmeted police officers to ask some questions.  He was later arrested.  Two sections of videotape were removed from the police evidence tape by the Manhattan District Attorney's office.</p>

<p><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-AlexanderDunlopAppearsWalksHisBikeOverToThePoliceOn2n100.mov">This is the first section</a> which was removed.  <a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-AlexanderDunlopIsArrestedAtThe2004RepublicanNationalCon810.mov">The second piece of video</a> shows Alexander Dunlop being calmly taken into custody by an NYPD officer who places his hand on Dunlop's arm.  Dunlop was initially charged with Resisting Arrest.</p>

<p>When I-Witness Video exposed the editing of the police tape, Dunlop's charges were dropped.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/103</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/103.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> i-witness video emergency press statement from the RNC</div></title><published>2008-08-30T00:00:00-05:00</published><updated>2008-08-30T00:00:00-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" label="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>This is Eileen Clancy, one of the founders of I-Witness Video, a NYC-based video collective that's in St. Paul to document the policing of the protests around this week's Republican National Convention.</p>

<p>The house where I-Witness Video is staying in St. Paul has been surrounded by police. We have locked all the doors. We have been told that if we leave we will be detained. One of our people who was caught outside is being detained in handcuffs in front of the house. The police say that they are waiting to get a search warrant. More than a dozen police are wielding firearms, including one St. Paul officer with a long gun, which someone told me is an M-16.</p>

<p>We are suffering a preemptive video arrest. For those that don't know, I-Witness Video was remarkably successful in exposing police misconduct and outright perjury by police during the 2004 RNC. Out of 1800 arrests, at least 400 were overturned based solely on video evidence which contradicted sworn statements which were fabricated by police officers. It seems that the house arrest we are now under and the possible threat of the seizure of our computers and video cameras is a result of the 2004 success.</p>

<p>We are asking the public to contact the office of St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman at 651-266-8510 to stop this house arrest, this gross intimidation by police officers, and the detention of media activists and reporters.</p>
<p>We are suffering a preemptive video arrest. For those that don't know, I-Witness Video was remarkably successful in exposing police misconduct and outright perjury by police during the 2004 RNC. Out of 1800 arrests, at least 400 were overturned based solely on video evidence which contradicted sworn statements which were fabricated by police officers. It seems that the house arrest we are now under and the possible threat of the seizure of our computers and video cameras is a result of the 2004 success.</p>

<p>We are asking the public to contact the office of St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman at 651-266-8510 to stop this house arrest, this gross intimidation by police officers, and the detention of media activists and reporters.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/104</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/104.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Some Released, Some Detained</div></title><published>2008-08-30T00:00:01-05:00</published><updated>2008-08-30T00:00:01-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" label="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>This is Eileen. The house raid is over. We have been released from our cuffs and the police have left our house. Our belongings were searched. But we have not inventoried them so we do not yet know yet if something is missing.</p>

<p>5 other I-Witness Video folks were detained, both on bicycles and in a rental car. Moments ago, I heard that 3 were released. We do not know the status of the other 2.</p>

<p>Please keep phoning the St. Paul Mayor's office. Many thanks for your calls and ongoing support.</p>

<p>I will write later.</p>

<p>-- Eileen</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/106</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/106.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">All are released from detention</div></title><published>2008-08-30T20:00:00-04:00</published><updated>2008-08-30T20:00:00-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" label="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Hello folks,</p>

<p>All of our people have been released.  As you know from our earlier
messages, several of us experienced a house raid earlier today.  Two
others who were in a car were picked up and held for four hours.  Three
people were also detained for a couple of hours.</p>

<p>There was a significant media presence documenting our detention--several local television stations, the NY Times, NPR station WNYC,
Democracy Now and others.</p>

<p>Now we need to take some time to document what has happened to us and
re-group with our people.</p>

<p>We all received many e-mails and phone calls. Thanks again for calling the
St. Paul Mayor's office.</p>

<p>We will write again soon.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/107</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/107.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Northern Irish Activist Sends Letter to Irish American Mayor of St. Paul, MN</div></title><published>2008-09-01T00:00:00-05:00</published><updated>2008-09-01T00:00:00-05:00</updated><category term="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" label="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Here is the text of the letter:</p>
<blockquote>
  <p>Sara Grewing <br />
  Chief of Staff <br />
  Mayor’s Office <br />
  390 City Hall <br />
  15 W. Kellogg Blvd. <br />
  Saint Paul, MN 55102 <br />
  September 1st 2008  </p>
  
  <p>Dear Sara,  </p>
  
  <p>I am contacting you from Ireland on behalf of the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition, based in Portadown, County Armagh, to protest against the recent treatment and harassment which Ms Eileen Clancy and other members of I-Witness Video have been subjected to by members of the St Paul’s Police Department.</p>
  
  <p>The Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition and many members of our community have known Ms Clancy for many years, through her work in Ireland, when she helped record and publicise cases of unprovoked brutality and assault by the members of the British Army and police force in the North of Ireland against the civilian population. This work included recording death threats and assaults made by members of those same forces against the internationally renowned human rights lawyer, Mrs Rosemary Nelson.</p>
  
  <p>Mrs Nelson, who was the legal representative for the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition, was murdered just yards way from her family home in Lurgan, County Armagh, March 15th, 1999. Her murder is presently being investigated by an ongoing public inquiry established through agreement by both British and Irish Governments. Part of the official terms of reference for that inquiry is to determine “whether any wrongful act or omission by or within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Northern Ireland Office, Army or other state agency facilitated her death or obstructed the investigation of it.” Video interviews which Ms Clancy conducted with the late Mrs Nelson, in which Mrs Nelson spoke about direct death threats being made against her by members of the North of Ireland police force prior to her assassination, forms an important part of the evidence to that inquiry.</p>
  
  <p>As a result of the work which Ms Eileen Clancy and her colleagues were involved in Ireland since the mid-1990’s, many prominent US politicians and public figures, including senior USA policing figures, became directly involved in assisting communities, such as our own in Portadown, County Armagh, as international observers who themselves were to witness at first hand the excesses of the British state in Ireland and who were very instrumental in pushing for a political settlement.</p>
  
  <p>Without these international observers, particularly those from the USA, the Garvaghy Road community in Portadown and communities in other parts of the North of Ireland would have been alone in trying to state the case for justice and equality. Through the ongoing documentation by various international groups, the community's struggle was seen and communicated throughout the world by independent sources.</p>
  
  <p>The Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition is extremely perturbed that Ms Clancy is now being subjected to unnecessary and potentially illegal and unconstitutional harassment by members of a police department within her own country as she and her colleagues in I-Witness attempt to document and monitor police actions at First Amendment events.</p>
  
  <p>The Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition is formally requesting that Mayor Chris Coleman immediately intervenes in this situation and that, as Mayor, he formally meets with Ms Clancy and her colleagues to assist in the lodging of any formal complaint against this police action.</p>
  
  <p>We understand that Mayor Coleman is, quite justly, proud of his family’s own Irish roots. The Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition is therefore requesting his formal and immediate intervention in this case in order to assist Ms Clancy who has played a small, but extremely important small part in directly assisting the ongoing efforts to achieve justice and equality in Ireland.</p>
  
  <p>Ms Clancy can be contacted via the following e-mail address: iwitness@iwitnessvideo.info</p>
  
  <p>Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition will be circulating copies of this letter to other individuals, political representatives, human rights organisations, etc, in both Ireland and the US.</p>
  
  <p>We look forward to your prompt response on this matter.</p>
  
  <p>Yours sincerely,  </p>
  
  <p>Breandán Mac Cionnaith</p>
</blockquote>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/108</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/108.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I-Witness Video Members Detained En Masse by St.Paul, Minnesota Police in Advance of the 2008 Republican National Convention</div></title><published>2008-09-01T00:00:01-05:00</published><updated>2008-09-01T00:00:01-05:00</updated><author><name>Rachel Mattson</name></author><category term="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" label="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/raid-circus.jpg" style="width: 512px; height: 349px;" /><p class="caption">
I-Witness Video members and friends in handcuffs during a police raid on
their house in St. Paul, August 30, 2008. (AP: Matt Rourke)
</p></div>

<p>The work of the I-Witness Video collective was interrupted this past Saturday, August 30, 2008, when St. Paul police detained 7 members of the group (along with an assortment of other individuals) for several
hours. The NYC-based video collective is in St. Paul to document the
policing of the protests at the Republican National Convention.</p>
<p>The incident began in the late morning when an FBI agent and a
Wisconsin Deputy Sheriff showed up on the doorstep of the house in
which members were staying (on Igelhart St.), interrupting a
collective planning meeting. The officers left after a short
conversation with members through a locked front door. Two hours
later, around 30 police surrounded the house. Two
people who left the house were detained in handcuffs; several others,
who were inside, were told that if they left, they would be also be
detained. Around the same time, three other I-Witness Video
members who had left the house on bikes and two others who were riding
in a car across town were also detained by police.</p>

<p>Two hours later, after the search warrant arrived, police at the
Igelhart Street house stormed in, pointing an automatic handgun at the
people inside. They handcuffed all the individuals inside, collected
their personal information, and corralled them in the back garden.
While police held the media activists and their friends there, members
of the media, who had gathered in an adjoining backyard, interviewed
I-Witness Video member Eileen Clancy from behind a fence. After
completing their search, the police finally uncuffed everyone and
departed. Within about two hours, the other I-Witness Video groups--who
had been detained on bikes and in a car, all of whom also had their
identifications verified and had undergone searches of various
kinds--were also released.</p>

<p>During the raids, members of I-Witness Video managed to send out
several email and text messages to supporters, legal support, and
press. In response, hundreds of people called the office of the St.
Paul Mayor Chris Coleman.</p>

<p>Among those individuals detained was <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/">Democracy Now!</a> producer Elizabeth
Press, who had her camera with her throughout the incident. This
morning, Democracy Now! ran a news segment on the many preemptive
raids that police have launched against activists in St. Paul this
month, including the raid that I-Witness Video suffered on Saturday.</p>

<p>This was a clear effort to intimidate and undermine the work of
I-Witness Video--a group that was remarkably successful in exposing
police misconduct and outright perjury by police during the 2004 RNC.
Out of 1800 arrests made that week, at least 400 were overturned based
solely on video evidence which contradicted sworn statements by police
officers.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/109</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/109.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">St. Paul Police use bogus "hostage" claim to seek entry to I-Witness Video office</div></title><published>2008-09-04T00:49:28-05:00</published><updated>2008-09-04T00:49:28-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" label="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>At about 2:45 this past afternoon (Sept. 3), police wielding batons and a battering ram
entered the professional office building on Selby Avenue in St. Paul where
I-Witness Video is renting work space.</p>
<p>Geneva Finn, an attorney with the National Lawyer's Guild went to head off
the police. After the police left, she made this statement at an impromptu
press conference on the street:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A few minutes ago, one of our legal observers called me to
  the door.  I saw the St. Paul police unloading a bunch of equipment from
  their cars and they saw me at the door.  They saw me at the door, they
  motioned me forward.  I came forward to their cars.  They told me that
  they had reports that somebody was holding somebody hostage in the
  building, that there had been a kidnapping.  They told me that somebody,
  an undercover had told them, that the anarchists were holding people
  hostage in our building.</p>
  
  <p>I work for the NLG [National Lawyers Guild]
  here, we have, we're working at one of our lawyer's offices, I said, "Is
  it in our law office?"  They said "No, it's upstairs."  They then came into
  the building with me, I showed them what was going on upstairs.  They did
  a pull-up on the frame of I-Witness' door, looked in, saw that there was
  people in there, nobody was being held hostage. I then asked the police to
  leave, since no one was obviously being held hostage here, and they
  refused.  Eventually their head sergeant came here, and decided that they
  could leave the building.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Anarchists taking hostages? Kidnapping?</p>

<p>This is extraordinary, folks.  The St. Paul police came after us with
unfounded allegations that we were engaged in criminal behavior.  This
harassment has interfered with our ability to do the work of
documenting the policing of protests that we have come to St. Paul to do.
They were able to put pressure on the landlord to do something that they
could not force under the law.  We were informed that, as a result of all
of the commotion, our landlord wanted us to leave the premises
immediately.</p>

<p>We packed up our belongings as quickly as possible and were welcomed at
the offices of Free Speech TV in St. Paul, for which we are deeply
grateful.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/110</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/110.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">2008 Republican National Convention Round-Up</div></title><published>2008-09-07T00:00:00-07:00</published><updated>2008-09-07T00:00:00-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" label="2008 DNC &amp; RNC" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><em>Police Violence in the Streets</em></p>

<p>The members of I-Witness Video have been appalled to see a high level of
violence directed against peaceful demonstrators, medics, legal observers
and journalists at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul,
Minnesota.</p>

<p>Concussion grenades, smoke bombs, CS gas (tear gas), rubber bullets and
pepper spray were used to attack and herd demonstrators.</p>

<p>In particular, pepper spray was used excessively and indiscriminately to
torment and punish demonstrators in a manner that violates widely accepted
law enforcement standards.  In one instance a man was pepper-sprayed while
handcuffed and then punched in the kidneys.  Peaceful demonstrators have
been restrained and forced to kneel on pavement for hours after being
pepper sprayed without being given medical attention.  In another instance
where pepper spray was used to preemptively punish a person who was
perceived by police to be a protester, a lone street medic was entering
her car when police drove up, sprayed a small fire extinguisher sized
canister of pepper spray into her car, completely soaking her head to toe
before driving away, leaving her gasping for air and collapsing.  The
medic was neither arrested nor charged.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/05/protester.roughed.up.cnn?iref=videosearch">Here is a clip showing police use of pepper spray.</a></p>
<p><em>Abuses in the Jails</em></p>

<p>The treatment of arrestees in the jails has been shockingly bad, even
grisly. Medical care has been withheld from many arrestees. In one
instance a hemophiliac was offered gauze as treatment for a wound.  Elliot
Hughes, a 19-year old arrested while bicycling, was forced to wear a bag
over his head while being gagged and beaten.  Hughes <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_h0ACIblaQ">tells his story</a> at a
press conference.
The <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWy-rCM_SQ">full clip</a> is also available.</p>

<p>The punishment of arrestees did not end at the jailhouse door.  In almost
every instance, the Sheriff’s Department did not return any personal
belongings to arrestees upon their release.  Many, including under-age
women and girls, were put out in the cold in the middle of the night
wearing thin prison-grade shorts and a white t-shirt.  Some were dropped
off as far as five miles away from the jail without their house keys, car
keys, cell phones, identification, or money.  In some instances this meant
that they were not able to access critically needed medication.</p>

<p><em>Targeting of Journalists</em></p>

<p>Many journalists working during the period of the RNC experienced
obstruction, harassment and arrests. Thirty journalists were arrested
including reporters from ABC News, Fox News, and Indymedia.  On September
1, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, two producers from <em>Democracy
Now!</em>, were slammed on the pavement and against the wall, arrested and
charged with a felony riot. <em>Democracy Now!</em> host Amy Goodman was also
arrested and charged with interfering with a police officer. On September
4 Kouddous was arrested again, along with <em>Democracy Now!</em> producer Rick
Rowley.</p>

<p><em>Harassment of I-Witness Video</em></p>

<p>Members of I-Witness Video were visited by the FBI and a Wisconsin
sheriff, were falsely arrested without charges being filed, underwent a
search under an invalid warrant, were threatened on the street by police
officers, extensively surveiled by police officers with video cameras and
followed by undercover officers.</p>

<p>Two days before the convention opened, St. Paul police surrounded the
house we were staying in, effectively placing us under arrest for two
hours.  When a search warrant was finally produced, it was for the wrong
house.</p>

<p>When we declined to allow them to search our house under an invalid
warrant, they broke in and held us at gunpoint.  We were handcuffed behind
our backs and held in the backyard while the house and our belongings were
searched.</p>

<p>During the same period three other member of the collective were detained
while leaving the area on bicycles and two others in a car were pulled
over and detained for four hours.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5zPnUswIww">An excerpt of a video by the Glass Bead Collective</a> shows the St. Paul police breaking into our house and pointing guns at us.</p>

<p>In a sinister progression of events, police officers arrived at our office
building four days later with batons at the ready, carrying a battering
ram and alleging that we were holding people hostage in the I-Witness
Video office.  A prompt response by National Lawyer’s Guild attorneys
thwarted further police action.  The unfounded and absurd allegation by
police that hostages were barricaded in our office could have allowed them
to enter our office without a warrant and possibly even shoot us.</p>

<p>Please check our website for updates--we will continue to let you know
more about the 2008 RNC and DNC as we investigate further.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/111</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/111.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Iraq Vet Crushed By Police Horse at Presidential Debate</div></title><published>2008-10-22T19:07:33-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-22T19:07:33-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy and Emily Forman</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/trample.jpg" />
  <p class="caption">Nick Morgan of Iraq Veterans Against the War is trampled by a police horse outside the last presidential debate. (Photo copyright Emily Forman, I-Witness Video)</p>
</div>

<p><strong>Watch video</strong>:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlI7tQCqwbU">YouTube</a> |
<a href="http://blip.tv/file/1387248">blip.tv</a> |
<a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-IraqVetCrushedByPoliceHorseAtPresidentialDebate538.mov">QuickTime</a> |
<a href="http://flickr.com/photos/multiplefronts">still images</a></p>

<p>Last Wednesday, while presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain debated domestic policy issues in front of a live television audience at the Long Island campus of Hofstra University, Nassau county police faced off with a few hundred spirited but peaceful demonstrators. And using excessive force, police -- on horses and in full riot gear -- trampled several people including Iraq vet Nick Morgan. I-Witness Video member Emily Forman captured the ensuing bedlam, police violence, and injuries on tape.</p>
<p>Earlier that night, a group of protesters from <a href="http://ivaw.org/">Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW)</a> had, in accordance with a pre-announced plan, assembled on the streets outside the Hofstra University venue where the debate was being held. IVAW had informed the police in advance that several of their members would be participating in a symbolic, non-violent, civil-disobedience action: attempting to deliver two questions for the candidates.  The group has engaged in similar actions before, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver and the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.  Last week, at the presidential debate, the veterans hoped to ask Barack Obama if he would support soldiers who do not want to be deployed to an illegally occupied Iraq, and to ask McCain why he has voted against funding for the Veterans Administration since the beginning of the war in Iraq.</p>

<p>But the veterans' efforts to stage a peaceful protest last week were countered by violent police actions. After a small group of veterans was calmly taken into custody in a choreographed arrest, the police became very aggressive. The police commander on the scene ordered the horses and lines of riot police to push the crowd from the street onto the sidewalk.  Mounted police officers charged into the assembled vets and other protesters, pushing the frightened people backwards and up onto the sidewalk.  Riot police then forced some demonstrators to the ground, where police horses rode over them.</p>

<p>Former Army Reserve Sergeant Nick Morgan was caught under the hooves of a horse ridden by Nassau County police officer Quagliano.  The horse stepped on Morgan's face, breaking his lower orbital (cheekbone) in three places. Bleeding heavily from his face, Morgan drifted in and out of consciousness until another police officer appeared and dragged him away from the scene. After a delay in which Nassau County police refused to take Morgan to the hospital, he was finally taken to Nassau County Medical Center, handcuffed to a gurney, given Motrin and a prescription for antibiotics, and sent on to jail.</p>

<p>Besides Morgan, several others were injured in the crush of horses and police, including Nadine Lubka, whose nose was broken.  Fifteen people in total were arrested; they all received disorderly conduct charges.</p>

<p>Except for a brief <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-protesters16-2008oct16,0,3826572.story">Associated Press story</a> and some <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/ireports/2008/10/16/irpt.hofstra.protest.cnn">video</a> and photos uploaded to CNN's <a href="http://www.ireport.com/">iReport</a> website by citizen journalists, there has been almost no corporate media coverage of this story.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/112</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/112.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Indicted! NYPD officer who tackled bicyclist</div></title><published>2008-12-15T21:59:28-08:00</published><updated>2008-12-15T21:59:28-08:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Do you remember seeing a YouTube video this summer of an NYPD officer brutally tackling a bicyclist in Times Square? The bicyclist was charged
with assaulting a police officer, among other things. But the video showed
the opposite: Officer Patrick Pogan singling out bicyclist Chris Long for a sickeningly hard tackle that threw Long into the air and onto a
crowded sidewalk.</p>
<p>In the days following this incident, teams of video activists -- including the Glass Bead Collective and the TIMES UP Video Collective, with assistance from I-Witness Video -- worked to publicize the YouTube video of this event. People have viewed the video on YouTube over 1.6 million times.</p>

<p>Today, in a stunning turn of events, rookie police officer Patrick Pogan was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury. The charges have not yet been made public, but are said to include the crime of filing a false report and assault.</p>

<p>This indictment is a signal event for video activists. Despite the abundance of video showing that police officers have fabricated charges against people arrested at demonstrations, in New York City at least, we have never before achieved an indictment of a police officer for lying in a sworn statement.</p>

<p>Look for the indictment to be handed down on Tuesday, December 16.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/113</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/113.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Did NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne Lie?</div></title><published>2009-04-01T23:39:12-07:00</published><updated>2009-04-01T23:39:12-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/BrowneArrow.jpg" />
  <p class="caption" />
</div>

<p><strong>Watch video:</strong> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzTTxHbJdas">YouTube</a></p>

<p>I-Witness Video was alarmed to discover this week that Paul J. Browne, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Public Information, appears to have lied under oath. The revelations came in the wake of a deposition during the proceedings of a civil lawsuit brought against the City of New York by members of the <a href="http://www.5bbc.org/">Five Borough Bicycle Club</a> (5BBC). In the course of answering questions put to him by the bike club's pro bono attorneys from the law firm of Debovoise, Plimpton, Browne attempted to stonewall.  Even though he was generally asked only basic information about how he does his job, Browne denied being able to remember specific details, such as who told him a fact, or where he read something. Browne said, "I don't recall" on 40 occasions and he answered, "I don't know" 62 times.</p>
<p>But, most alarmingly, it looks like Browne may have out-and-out lied about his
presence at Critical Mass bike rides.  When asked directly how many times he had been present at Critical Mass rides in Manhattan, he stated that he had only been present at a single ride, and that it was purely coincidental.</p>

<p>The following quotes are from the <a href="http://www.5bbc.org/parade/casefiles/BrowneTranscript.pdf">deposition transcript</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>5BBC attorney:</strong> Did you observe any police proceeding along with the ride at that time?</p>
  
  <p><strong>Deputy Commissioner of Public Information (DCPI) Browne:</strong> No. </p>
  
  <p><strong>5BBC attorney:</strong> Were you there present with other individuals from the police department?</p>
  
  <p><strong>DCPI Browne:</strong> No.</p>
  
  <p><strong>5BBC attorney:</strong> Were you there pursuant to -- pursuant to your job or was it incidental that you happened to be there?</p>
  
  <p><strong>DCPI Browne:</strong> Incidental.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So far, so good. Perhaps Browne did just happen to come across this particular Critical Mass ride without any police around. He says he was not working at the time. He cannot remember the date but states elsewhere in the transcript that the event happened in the past three to four years and included scores or possibly hundreds of riders. But although his testimony about a chance encounter with Critical Mass seems specific and possible, his answers to subsequent questions were not as truthful:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>5BBC attorney:</strong> Okay. Where did you observe the event?  [a Critical Mass bike ride in Manhattan]</p>
  
  <p><strong>DCPI Browne:</strong> South of Columbus Circle.</p>
  
  <p><strong>5BBC attorney:</strong> And have you observed other events or just that one time?</p>
  
  <p><strong>NYC Lawyer:</strong> Other --</p>
  
  <p><strong>5BBC attorney:</strong> Critical Mass events.</p>
  
  <p><strong>DCPI Browne:</strong> Just that one time as I recall.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Really? We thought to ourselves when we read that. That's funny. Because video evidence exists showing that in fact Browne has been present at another Critical Mass ride -- he was at the scene of a very different Critical Mass ride on August 27, 2004. That's the ride where the NYPD arrested 264 people on the night before the Republic National Convention.   </p>

<p>Since Paul Browne seems to have a hard time remembering almost anything about his job in the past few years, we have decided to help jog his memory about some key events.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzTTxHbJdas">PLAY VIDEO</a></p>

<p>The video evidence shows a pretty remarkable scene that night. Shot in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church in the East Village, it records events surrounding the arrest of 88 people.  One clip which comes from the NYPD's own TARU unit, shows a man being violently knocked down a few feet from Browne. On that hot summer night, there were hundreds of onlookers gathered on the sidewalks. The police completely occupied Second Avenue for several blocks with riot cops, motorcycles and bikes. Several NYPD chiefs were on hand, including the top uniformed man himself, Joseph Esposito, the four-star Chief of Department. There were also a number of DCPI staff in attendance including Chief Michael Collins. In the linked video, Browne can be seen talking on his cell phone in the middle of the fray while holding a police radio in his other hand with badge and ID visible. Two police helicopters and the blimp NYPD borrowed from Fuji film hovered overhead. Based on the video footage from the NYPD, Indymedia and a legal observer, it appears that Browne was at the scene for a minimum of a half hour. This event, its location, and Browne's role on site are all so dissimilar to the other Manhattan event he describes that it does not appear to be possible that he is confusing the two.</p>

<p>Because of the amount of time he spent at this event, because of the extreme nature of what was taking place around him, and because Browne went on to become the chief propagandist for the NYPD's war on Critical Mass, it is quite hard to believe this was an entirely innocent omission.</p>

<p>Of course, Browne's mere presence at this scene is not a problem. It is only his failure to disclose that information under oath that raises questions. So, why didn't Browne just say he was there?  </p>

<p>To understand why Browne neglected to mention these events when asked directly under oath, we may need to understand more about who Paul Browne is. Browne is far more than just the in-house PR guy. One newspaper reporter told me that Browne was Police Commissioner Ray Kelly's aide-de-camp, in the sense of a military confidential advisor or right-hand man. Ray Kelly <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/28/nyregion/public-lives-police-teamwork-a-perennial-right-hand-man.html">has called</a> Browne, "My wartime consiglieri." By many accounts, Browne seems to believe that his role is protect and serve Commissioner Ray Kelly. Perhaps if the depth of Browne's involvement with Ray Kelly's campaign against Critical Mass were closely examined, it would raise uncomfortable questions for the Police Commissioner. </p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/114</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/114.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Abduction at the G-20</div></title><published>2009-09-25T13:05:18-07:00</published><updated>2009-09-25T13:05:18-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/4StillAbduction.YouTube.jpg" />
</div>

<p><strong>Watch Video:</strong> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8CNa_viKg0">YouTube</a></p>

<p>(See updates below.)</p>

<p>I-Witness Video is not present at the G-20 meetings taking place in
Pittsburgh this week, but we can see from voluminous web postings and
video that some very strange things seem to be going on&#8212;including
what appears to be a kidnapping in broad daylight.</p>
<p>A bystander caught the abduction on video.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8CNa_viKg0">The video</a>
shows several
large, muscular men in camouflage uniforms grabbing a man, stuffing him
into an unmarked car, and burning rubber to haul him away.  As the car
drives off, the camera pulls out and we can see a helmeted man who
appears to be a police officer aiming a rifle or shotgun at people at
the scene. (Note the fellow in the foreground holding the classic
hands-up pose.)</p>

<p>While this video has already generated a lot of speculation online over
whether either the event or the video were faked, reliable sources
tell us that this event really took place. Unknown men (U.S. Army?
police officers?) wearing camouflage uniforms kidnapped a G-20 protester
around 5:30 P.M. on Thursday, September 24. The man who was grabbed was
taken to the Allegheny County Jail where those arrested at the G-20
protests are being held.  As of 4:30 P.M. on Friday, September 25, the
abducted man had been arraigned but not yet released.</p>

<p>The Pitt News student paper <a href="http://www.pittnews.com/node/20069">has a photo</a>
of the armored riot police next to
<a href="http://www.infowars.com/mindless-neo-cons-claim-g20-abduction-video-is-fake">what appears to be</a>
the same camouflaged men, gold Crown Victoria and abducted man in handcuffs at
some point later on in the day:</p>

<p><img alt="arrest" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/PittNews.OhadCadji.cut.jpg" title="" /></p>

<p>What terrible crime had this fellow done to merit such treatment by the
authorities? Apparently, nothing out of the ordinary: at his
arraignment, he was charged with only the typical minor offenses that
all protesters seem to be getting, nothing noteworthy. So why did this
occur? What the hell is going on in Pittsburgh in the name of safety and
security?  Why are the police/Army/Homeland Security/Secret Service
wearing military attire and snatching ordinary people off the
street while menacing the public with firearms, when they could easily
have made a straightforward arrest?  The answer can only be that they
are seeking to terrify dissenters as much as possible.</p>

<p>We'll let you know when (and if) we manage to learn more information
about this event.</p>

<p><strong>UPDATE:</strong></p>

<p>The government has admitted that it was "law enforcement" and not the
military or National Guard which arrested the abducted man. We still do
not know if these law enforcement officers are federal agents, local
cops or some mix.</p>

<p>The authorities have
<a href="http://thecollegepolitico.com/the-truth-about-the-military-kidnapping-video-from-the-g-20/#more-1785">issued a statement to the right-wing College Politico website</a>
saying the abducted man was arrested for vandalism by "law enforcement
officers from a multi-agency tactical response team assigned to the
security operations for the G20." They attempt to explain the necessity
of using kidnapping as a tactic by saying: "Due to the hostile nature of
the crowd, officer safety and the safety of the person under arrest, the
subject was immediately removed from the area."</p>

<p>There are numerous problems and questions raised by the official
explanation of the video. As of 8:30 P.M. Friday, the abducted man is
still in custody; he has been charged with some minor offenses, but so
far vandalism is not one of them. The scene on the video, while
admittedly not a complete view of the area, appears to be relatively
calm, and it is not apparent what danger heavily-armed riot police and
other law enforcement might believe themselves to be in. The use of
military-style camouflage uniforms with no visible markings identifying
either the agency or individual officers has caused a great deal of
confusion in the mind of the public. This can be seen in the thousands
of comments on YouTube arguing over whether the men in camouflage are
real soldiers or if the video has been faked by lefty activists who will
do anything to make the police look bad.</p>

<p>Personally, I would like to see the police stop using tactics that they
seem to have learned by watching "The X-Files."</p>

<p><strong>UPDATE II:</strong></p>

<p>Although relatively few people arrested during the G-20 remain in jail
<a href="http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/21131772/detail.html">tonight</a>,
as of 8:30 P.M. on Sunday, September 27, sources tell us that the abductee
is still in police custody.</p>

<p>The blogger Sassy Republican has added a little
<a href="http://thesassyrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/09/pittsburgh-g20-kinapped-person-revealed.html">more information</a>
about what happened immediately after the man was grabbed and the gold Crown Victoria
pulled away:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>They drove about 50 feet away from the tear gas and the
  crowd to Center Avenue. There, they got him out of the car, searched him
  and arrested him. I was there. I saw it happen. And would you guess what
  I did? That's right. I took a picture.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>On Sunday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned by extreme right-winger
Richard Mellon Scaife,
<a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_645208.html">reported</a>
that the camouflaged men in the video
were actually Pennsylvania State Police:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>An Internet video appearing to show soldiers abducting a protester
  sparked outrage, though it turned out to be state police snatching the
  protester police accused of being the week's most destructive.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But the Tribune-Review's identification of the abducted man conflicts
with <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09269/1001005-486.stm">this Post-Gazette piece</a>
about the California man who Pittsburgh
police are saying was single-handedly responsible for $50,000 worth of
damage to businesses.  That man, David
Japenga, was arrested late on Thursday night. The abductee on the YouTube
video was grabbed in broad daylight.</p>

<p>So, while we now have more images, one eyewitness statement and a few
more scraps of information, we are still largely in the dark about why
the police grabbed the man and what he is being charged with.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/115</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/115.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">G-20 riot police take trophy photo with prisoner</div></title><published>2009-09-27T17:37:47-07:00</published><updated>2009-09-27T17:37:47-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/TrophyPicture.jpg" />
</div>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyKMTeP7s-E">&gt;&gt; Watch Video</a></p>

<p><strong>See update below:</strong> <em>Police chief refuses to investigate</em></p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyKMTeP7s-E">Video</a>
has emerged which shows a platoon of riot police on the campus of
the University of Pittsburgh taking a group portrait with a prisoner who
is handcuffed behind his back. The prisoner is walked into the center of
the group of officers and posed by the police so that he is down in
front on both knees. The officer who is taking the photograph is wearing
a white shirt.  In New York City this would mean that he is a
supervisor, but we do not know the police agency involved in this incident.</p>
<p>I have certainly seen police officers in riot gear taking souvenir
photographs at mass demonstrations before, especially if they have
traveled from other jurisdictions. But I have never seen police officers
pose as a group in front of a handcuffed prisoner on the street.  It is
almost unfathomable that these law enforcement officers are doing so.</p>

<p>We are attempting to find out more details about this scene, in
particular which agency these officers belong to and what other images
may exist of this scene. If you have any more information about this
scene or this video, you may write to us <a href="/about/">via email</a>.
But you should know that our email is not secure, so please send only
information that you would not mind being shared publicly.</p>

<p id="115Update" name="115Update"><strong>Update:</strong></p>

<p>WDUQ, Pittsburgh's National Public Radio station,
<a href="http://wduqnews.blogspot.com/2009/09/police-respond-to-some-complaints.html">reports</a>
that the Pittsburgh police are refusing to look
into the circumstances of a trophy photograph taken by police
during a G20 arrest, featuring a handcuffed, kneeling prisoner:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper [...] said he was aware of the video but did not know who took
  the picture or why and he is not investigating the incident because there are more important things to
  investigate such as homicides.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a pretty outrageous statement by the chief of police: that he is not concerned enough about
what appears to be the abuse and humiliation of a prisoner to even consider whether the officers involved
broke any rules. And raising the idea that homicide detectives might be taken away from their duties for
a misconduct investigation is absurd. With over 900 sworn personnel, the Pittsburgh police department is
not exactly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayberry_R.F.D.">Mayberry R.F.D.</a>, with only a
single sheriff and a bumbling Deputy Barney Fife on staff.</p>

<p>Instead, Chief Harper may wish to diminish the
importance of looking into police misconduct because he is about to be up to his eyeballs in
investigations. Three Pittsburgh city agencies
<a href="http://www.pittnews.com/node/20138">have already announced separate investigations</a>
into the actions of police during the G20.
It seems likely that someone outside of the
<a href="http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police">Pittsburgh Bureau of Police</a>
may think the taking of souvenir
photographs with posed arrestees also cries out for an explanation.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/116</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/116.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Agents provocateurs appear at anti-police-brutality march</div></title><published>2009-09-28T17:03:22-07:00</published><updated>2009-09-28T17:03:22-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/3MaskedMen.26Sept2009.560x.jpg" />
</div>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJ7aU-n1L8"><strong>&gt;&gt; Watch the video from Glass Bead Collective and Pittsburgh Indymedia</strong></a></p>

<p>After days of abuse by police officers during last week's Pittsburgh G-20 demonstrations, activists
marched to protest police brutality on Saturday night. As the group walked along Pittsburgh sidewalks,
three large men, dressed in black with their faces covered, showed up in their midst. The appearance of the
men seemed to mimic the stereotypical style of anarchists participating in a black bloc action. Yet these
guys were not in sync with the crowd of demonstrators. Their body language and demeanor were threatening.
Soon, one of them actually attacked a camera person, breaking the flash off of his camera.</p>
<p>If these provocateurs hoped to provoke further violence with their actions, they did not succeed.</p>

<p>As people became aware of their presence, instead of violence, the demonstrators stuck together and used
the First Amendment to counter the clear malevolence of the three men. The group chanted: "Hey hey; ho
ho; undercovers in the crowd have got to go," and camera people took photos and
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJ7aU-n1L8">video</a>
of the trio.  The
provocateurs were rendered ineffective, or as in the title of the video, "Epic Undercover Police Fail."</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/117</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/117.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Anti-Tweeting, Anti-Terror agents raid Tweeter's NYC home</div></title><published>2009-10-05T14:00:30-07:00</published><updated>2009-10-05T14:00:30-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/G20Voice-cops.jpg" />
  <p class="caption">Photo by flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/g20voice/">G20Voice</a></p>
</div>

<p>For the second time in a week, federal anti-terrorism agents
<a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/queens_terror_raid_hits_anarchist_ZF8dAa71wIlmwyUXf9S5EO">raided</a>
the location of New York activist Elliot Madison, saying that he
and another man had been using Twitter to direct the movements of G20
protesters and update them about movements of police in Pittsburgh.</p>

<p>Madison was arrested mid-Tweet last week in a Pittsburgh motel room. This past Thursday his Queens home
was raided and searched for 16-hours while helicopters circled overhead.</p>

<p>Madison's attorney Martin Stolar says the search by FBI agents was illegal. Stolar <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/nyregion/05txt.html">has obtained a
temporary order</a> from federal Judge Dora Irizarry prohibiting the government from searching the seized <br />
material, which included books and a picture of Vladimir Lenin.</p>

<p>Madison is known for his work with the People's Law Collective, which has provided legal support to
thousands of people arrested during demonstrations in New York and other cities.</p>
<p><strong>How Can the Government Say it's a Crime to Tweet?</strong></p>

<p>2009 is the year when Twitter and other social networking tools have emerged to have a major impact in
social movements in Burma, Moldova and Iran. It is difficult to understand the justification for the
raids in Pittsburgh and Queens considering the applause in the press for Twitter's use as a tool to
undermine authoritarian governments around the world. Twitter was the best source for instant news from
the streets during the protests about the Iranian elections, with raw, impossible-to-verify-in-the-moment
Tweets appearing on the websites of the New York Times, the Atlantic and Huffington Post. In fact the
U.S. State Department considered Twitter to be so important in Iran that
<a href="http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/16/state-department-to-twitter-keep-iranian-tweets-coming/">it intervened</a>
to make sure that Twitter did not shut down for maintenance at a key point during the demonstrations.</p>

<p>Twitter co-founder Biz Stone
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/15/tech/main5090788.shtml">told CBS News</a>,
"we noticed people creating accounts during the riots [in Iran] presumably because they
heard Twitter was the most efficient way to discover and share what was happening in the moment."</p>

<p>Hmm. It sounds like the activists in Pittsburgh might have been using Twitter for the very same reasons
Iranians did, doesn't it?  So what's the problem?</p>

<p>Although the U.S. State Department has encouraged activists to use Twitter internationally, U.S. Army
Intelligence
<a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/10/terrorist-cell">has called Twitter a potential terrorist tool</a>,
referring to activists' use of Twitter
domestically during the 2008 Republican National Convention.</p>

<p>There are myriad examples of governments in other countries cracking down on activists who share
information on the Internet. After Moldova's short-lived "Twitter revolution," journalist Natalia Morar
<a href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,RFERL,,MDA,4a014a9d5,0.html">was charged</a>
with organizing an anti-Communist flashmob and spent three weeks under house arrest.
In Guatemala a man <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43887">was charged</a>
with advising in a Tweet that people should take their money out of a corrupt government bank.
According to Hadi Ghaemi, who runs the
International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran,
<a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43887">many people have been arrested for Internet activity in Iran</a>.</p>

<p>Former U.S. Attorney Cynthia Kouril, blogging at Firedoglake,
<a href="http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/05/criminal-accessory-or-real-time-reporting-fbi-raids-home-of-man-who-twe
eted-police-movements-during-g-20">asks</a>
"what legal steps the prosecution is
taking to distinguish between political speech and real time reporting versus criminal accessory conduct
and incitement to riot."</p>

<p>The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted
<a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/man-arrested-twittering-goes-court-eff-has-documen">several legal documents</a>
related to the raids, including the criminal complaint, search
warrants and motions from Madison's attorneys.</p>

<p>We are now living in a world in which technology allows us to share information on a real-time basis. So,
what country should the U.S. government take its cues from when making policies about this? Moldova?
Burma? Guatemala? Iran? Or, should we try for something a bit more radical? You might call it homegrown
freedom.</p>
</div></content></entry></feed>
