1. JUDGE APPROVED UNSEALING OF POLICE INTELLIGENCE FILES
1. So, the release of documents surrounding the arrests of protesters at the 2004 RNC would prejudice the City’s right to a fair trial? In what way? On what planet? In which universe?
Of course the public has no right to know; it wasn’t as if any of “them” were arrested. That was only the criminal element, right?
All that posturing over who leaked the documents to the Times—the demand from city attorneys for affidavits of denial from the ACLU attorney’s?—ludicrous. I’ve seen better jockeys working the weekday claiming races at Belmont. And these clowns think these are big stakes?
Probably. Everyone gets delusions of grandeur when they start getting their name in the papers.
A “no-summons policy” for arrests? Fingerprinting people? Under what pretext? Felony? Ok, fine. The city claims justification by prior knowledge, from intelligence gathered before the convention. Me? I’ll go along with Reagan’s old commercial vs. Mondale: WHERE’S THE BEEF?
Yeah, and what is “misleading” or “inflammatory” or “prejudicial” in repeating to the press the exact iterations made in the S&C?
Tuesday 5/29/07 – NYCLU ORDERED TO TURN OVER QUESTIONNAIRES
& Thursday 6/7/07 – LAWYER AFFIDAVITS REJECTED IN LEAK OF RNC PAPERS
When politics enters the courtroom, there’s always got to be plenty of extra seating. You’re going to have to make space at the plaintiff and defense tables for extra motions as well, along with extraordinary privileges and exclusions—that goes without saying. Just also expect a benchworth of pleas and arguments coming from the steps of 60 Centre Street, where cameras can turn an exit into an impromptu press conference. Ergo, hence, thus thereafter, into the subjects of rulings. And the only way to know you’re doing it right is when both sides are unhappy with you.
Throw a bone to the DA’s office—that’s easy. The questionnaires taken by the ACLU of just-released protesters, on their arrests, was a no-brainer. The “intake form” was for the purposes of creating a general study survey of practices and procedures used by police, their tactics and results. But an expectation of confidentiality?—Nope! Not a chance. Attorney-client privilege? Geddoudaheya. Unless you show intent of further legal services, that dog won’t hunt. When you publish results in the pamphlet entitled “Your Rights, Their Wrongs,” don’t come into my court and start waving the constitution. I’ve already got one.
On the other hand though, it gets equal application when the Government makes asinine representations like accusing the lawyers for the plaintiffs of leaking classified intelligence reports to the press. You can do that all you want on Foley Square—that’s public property. But when you put a demand motion in front of me, saying that all 30-plus counsels should give me sworn affidavits that they were not responsible…well, you gotta laugh.
How many employees on the city payroll could’ve handed over these documents? Oh yeah, and the two reporters who got them? One showed me raw data abstracts. The other had their final product—but without the “attorney’s eyes only” stamp that’s on all the papers you turned over in discovery, right? So maybe they could’ve used white-out? I’ll buy that—useful stuff; doesn’t even show up on copies, if you do it right.
So let’s play ‘Let’s Make A Deal’. You want disclaimers, even after the reports had come out in the press and I lifted the confidentiality order. You want me to discount the DD5 forms, used by your intelligence units, that showed up as the source for one article—the forms you didn’t turn over to the plaintiffs. That the other piece may have come from someplace else, that’s your case, right?
Ok. So now that we have the full Monty Hall on the table, you get to choose Dorr #1 or what’s behind the Curtain of Silence. Door #1 means I want direct evidence of a violation of the protective order by a lawyer for the plaintiffs. Show me something with a chain of custody. Either that or go behind the Curtain and get me sworn declarations from all of the State’s employees who had access to these documents.
Then we’ll see who gets the big prize.