Thursday, March 28, 2013

DHS Emails Question Federal Law Enforcement's Role in Violence at Occupy Wall Street and Oakland Rallies

from truth-out.org




Thursday, 28 March 2013 13:15By Jason LeopoldTruthout | Report
Occupy Oakland.(Photo: Audrey Penven / Flickr)More than a year after tens of thousands of people aligned themselves with OccupyWall Street to protest economic and social inequality and corporate influence on government, the public still does not have a complete picture of what role, if any, the federal government played in dismantling the nationwide encampments.
Unfortunately, about 250 pages of redacted documents released last week by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Protection and ProgramsDirectorate (NPPD), in response to Truthout's 17-month-old Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, does not contain any smoking guns that would put to rest that lingering question.
The newly released documents serve as a reminder that the federal governmentbecame concerned - even fearful at times - as the Occupy protests grew in numbers. One document describes the 15,000 protesters in New York City and more than 700 protesters arrested for blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge.
The documents are largely made up of emails sent by the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Protective Service (FPS) agents from regional offices throughout the country about Occupy's plans and pending protests. Included in the batch of records are also threat assessments about certain Occupy groups. The threat assessments were based on news reports, the mining of social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, and chat rooms FPS agents monitored in which Occupy organizers discussed their goals.
The emails show that FPS agents throughout the country were largely concerned about whether the protests, which peaked in October 2011, would spill over onto federal property and, if so, what steps FPS agents should take to remove the protesters, who might have included "anarchists" in Northern California, New York City and Chicago, who may have caused "significant property damage."
Some emails also capture agents' observations of the Occupy protests as they turned violent. In one email, dated October 25, 2011, an FPS agent is observing an Occupy Oakland protest and writes, "I am watching the arrests on TV. Looks like a potential for gas."
It was first thought that it was a gas canister fired by Oakland Police that critically injured Iraq war veteran Scott Olsen, 24, who was hit in the head by a device that fractured his skull. Olsen's attorneys later claimed that it was a beanbag projectile and that the injury was not an accident. Oakland was the scene of the most violent response by police to the Occupy protests.
Another email, sent on October 25, 2011, by an FPS agent, whose name was redacted, describes "hundreds of OPD [Oakland Police Department] in riot gear at Frank Ogawa Plaza arresting protestors."
The FPS seemed most concerned that they were not blamed for the violence that hit the streets during the worst of the protests in Oakland, especially in light of video of the violence and severe reaction by police at that October event.
An October 26, 2011, email sent to FPS agents that month by an FPS official, whose name also was redacted, said, "[redacted] would like to know the following about the OWS incidents last night [in Oakland]: Is FPS involved in any complaints about police brutality."
"My initial response was no, that the marches last night were about the incident in Oakland but we need to make sure," the same FPS official wrote. 
Additional questions in the email posed to FPS agents were, "Was there media coverage of the events last night which may show FPS involvement? Was tear gas deployed? OC [pepper] spray? By whom? [redacted] would like to view the CCTV [closed circuit television] footage from any incidents last night which occurred near our facilities and may have involved our personnel. I've been instructed to cruise youtube for the same thing."
A follow-up email by an FPS agent in response to those questions said FPS was not involved in any of the brutality that unfolded.
Please be advised of the following:
1. FPS was not involved in any known complaints of police brutality.
2. There was some media present last night; however, CCTV footage also showed that some members of the crowd were holding lights in a manner that they could have been attached to cameras.
3. Tear gas was not deployed by any member of the Service. No use of force or known contact or hands on involvement by any member of the Service with the OWS protesters.
4. We can send you the CCTV footage but is too big a file to be emailed. We reviewed the footage. There was no hands on activity observed by any members of the Service during this incident.
The forceful response to the Northern California protest was captured in one email, in which a police officer wrote, "I have every uniform in Oakland, SF (San Francisco), and SJ (San Jose) working tomorrow's protest. I anticipate it being larger than today's and will probably draw from the Occupy SF group."
Some emails also revolve around the escalating protests in New York City in October 2011, where New York Police Department (NYPD) officers were also accused of brutality. However, the emails blame the protesters for violence.
In an October 14, 2011, email under the subject line "Post Conf Call Wrap Up," an FPS agent wrote, "NYPD is reporting protesters have been attempting to bait officers into confrontation. Given the highly-charged emotional environment . . .  I think the potential exists for an otherwise routine protest to get out of hand quickly if we are not properly prepared."
Later emails describe arrests of Occupy protesters by NYPD due to "assault of NYPD officers and damage to scooters. Plan accordingly for any future demos by this group."
In Michigan, just weeks after the formation of Occupy Wall Street in September 2011, an FPS inspector sent an email to agents about Occupy Michigan asking them to "gather more intel on these posttests (sic)."
"We have the one in Lansing, MI (at state capital), coming up that is scheduled for three days," the September 30, 2011, email states. "My concern is the US Courthouse 75 feet from that property! I am looking for info/intel that will justifies the need (sic) for an FPS presence at our facilities. Please advise when possible."
A month later, an email that noted information about Occupy Michigan collected from "open source monitoring" about upcoming protests said, "no specific threats have been identified" and added, "Information cannot be collected or maintained solely on First Amendment protected activities or on the basis of any racial, ethnic, religious, political or other profile."
A five-page report included in the newly released records, and officially released by DHS last week, was prepared by NPPD and titled, "Special coverage: Occupy Wall Street October 2011." Rolling Stone first reported the existence of the five-page report last year, after reporter Michael Hastings found it in a cache of documents released by WikiLeaks.
This report belied the concerns of FPS agents involved in monitoring Occupy Michigan, as communicated in the above email.
The report said, "OWS protests have placed a considerable burden on emergency services personnel to control crowds, protect critical infrastructure, and maintain public order. Although there have been hundreds of arrests made, most have been for minor offenses, and confrontations between police and protesters have been rare. Police departments have sought to minimize these types of incidents, enhance security and heighten awareness through public-private information sharing."
A November 1, 2011, email written by an FPS agent in San Francisco showed interest in stopping the OWS encampments. The camps were subsequently taken down as OWS shifted its focus from encampments to political action.
"Several law enforcement organizations have undertaken steps to discontinue Occupy encampments within their jurisdictions or are in negotiations with demonstrators to close them down," the email reads. 
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

JASON LEOPOLD

Jason Leopold is lead investigative reporter of Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit jasonleopold.com for a preview. His most recent investigative report, "From Hopeful Immigrant to FBI Informant: The Inside Story of the Other Abu Zubaidah," is now available as an ebook. Follow Jason on Twitter: @JasonLeopold.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Occupy Wall Street Moved Esposito into Forefront

from wsj




Associated Press
New York Police Department chief Joseph Esposito addresses the Occupy Wall Street protesters as they arrive at Times Square for a rally in October 2011.
Though he was the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the New York Police Department, outgoing chief of department Joseph Esposito toiled in relative anonymity.
He was the stoic and unsmiling presence behind Commissioner Raymond Kelly at public events, while behind the scenes, he was the leader of  rank and file officers who coordinated the department’s response to some of the city’s most dramatic and headline grabbing events.
But in October 2011, the four-star chief’s public profile was raised considerably: during the infancy of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Esposito – with 43 years in the department – finally gained recognition.
Esposito–long known within the department for eschewing his executive office for the intimacy of the street– was a steady presence at the roving Occupy protests and at its encampment at Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan.
He led the small army of so-called “white shirts,” high-ranking officers who responded to the protests to coordinate mass arrests and to negotiate protest routes with the sometimes-unruly gathered.
In one memorable encounter on Oct. 16, 2011, Esposito was hailed as a hero by his traditional foes when he came between a spontaneous march of hundreds and his officers in Times Square.
As evening descended that day, the marchers began to clash with officers as they sought to knock down barriers that had been set up to pen them into a specific part of the tourist-heavy square.
Officers wearing riot helmets pushed back against the surge as police horses were sent into the mass of civilians – causing moments of panic as protestors attempted to avoid being tread upon by the large animals.
Video of the incident  shows a stout figure, wearing a white NYPD shirt with four stars on the lapels, in the middle of the fracas, attempting to get in between the officers and protestors, losing his navy blue police cap in the process.
It was Esposito. Moments later, he retrieved his cap and calmly motioned for his troops to take several steps back, restoring order to what appeared to be an escalating and dangerous confrontation.
The protesters erupted into cheers – some chanting “Esposito! Esposito!”
Esposito smiled broadly and waved at the crowd.
“Isn’t that great? Isn’t that absolutely phenomenal?” Esposito said with a wide grin as he recalled the incident during an interview with the Wall Street Journal ahead of his mandatory retirement on Wednesday. (According to the city’s administrative code, no uniformed officer can serve beyond their 63rd birthday.)
To long-time protestors, the incident was typical of Esposito’s style. While enforcing what are often criticized as heavy-handed NYPD tactics during large demonstrations, Esposito always had a knack for playing peace maker.
That October evening was Esposito’s fondest memory of Occupy, he said. He recalled that even his subordinates were stunned that he had pulled them back.
“I was confident enough after 12 years to take a chance and it worked,” he said, referencing his tenure as chief of department, the longest in the NYPD’s modern history. “Would I have made that decision in my first year as chief of department? Maybe not. I was willing to say, ‘Let’s take a chance.’”
By his own admission, Esposito also “mixed it up” with Occupy protestors and “they’ve criticized me for that.”
“You just can’t make everyone happy all the time,” he said.
That was certainly true for many.
William Dobbs, a member of the Occupy press team, said in an interview that Esposito’s presence was “alarming and chilling” and “set a tone where repression of protest was everyday business for the NYPD.”
“There’s been a tremendous amount of repression of dissent in New York City,” Dobbs said. “That is part of Esposito’s legacy because he’s atop the police department.”
In one video posted on YouTube,   a cigar-chomping Esposito is seen standing outside of Zuccotti Park observing, while the camera operator attempts to engage him in a conversation – inviting the chief out to dinner and a movie and dancing.
Esposito does not respond. But when the voice behind the camera thanks him for his actions during the Times Square protests, then admonishes him for not doing the same at a protest one month later, Esposito nods and then shrugs.
“I’d be batting .500 right?” Esposito responded. “I’d be in the Hall of Fame wouldn’t I?”

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Jamie Dimon Agrees With Occupy Wall Street: 'Too Much Inequality'

from dailyfinance.com




Jamie Dimon agrees there is financial inequality
Getty Images
Jamie Dimon has said many notable things over the years, from calling a multibillion dollar trading loss "a complete tempest in a teapot" to answering a critical analyst's doubts by explaining, "That's why I'm richer than you." The JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO made news again Tuesday, while delivering the keynote address at the 2013 Annual Greater Louisville Inc. meeting.

According to Chris Otts of The Courier-Journal, Dimon told his audience that the United States has "too much inequality." This isn't a novel insight -- the Occupy Wall Street protests were predicated on this idea, expressed through the slogan "we are the 99 percent" -- but it's striking to hear it coming from Wall Street's most outspoken defender of financial elites.

"It doesn't mean we blame the successful," Dimon continued, sounding more characteristic, "but it's true. You want to have problems in society? Have inequality." Dimon mentioned "struggling inner-city public schools" in particular, Otts reports.

The statements represent a slight rhetorical softening for Dimon, who has in the past rejected the anti-banker sentiment that arose after the financial crisis of 2008. "Acting like everyone who's been successful is bad and because you're rich you're bad, I don't understand it," he said in late 2011 at an investors' conference in New York. Since then, a lot has changed for JPMorgan: the bank, seen as the most successful of the financial behemoths during the crisis, was recently the subject of a "scathing" Senate panel report that accused Dimon and other executives of hiding trading losses from investors and regulators.

According to The New York Times, a criminal investigation of this affair -- known popularly, after the trader who caused the losses, as "the London Whale" -- is "at an advanced stage."

Over at AlterNet, Lynn Stuart Parramore traces "The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Jamie Dimon, Wall Street's Golden Boy," presenting his life story as "a critique of the American Dream." Dimon, she argues, was singularly concerned with pursuing wealth, although in his early days as JPM CEO he "was widely perceived as a smart and cautious leader, shrewdly avoiding many of the fancy financial engineering tricks that were all the rage on Wall Street." And a society that has long viewed material flourishing as a sign of God's favor -- perhaps in some secularized form, more recently -- embraced the "success" Dimon so often touts, along with his self-professed prudence (embodied by his favorite catchphrase, "fortress balance sheet"), as a sign of goodness. President Barack Obama, for instance, held up JPMorgan and its leader as worthy examples of American finance: "there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed," the president said in Feb. 2009, explaining why his administration did not seek to replace executives at bailed-out firms, "JPMorgan being a good example. Jamie Dimon, the CEO there, I don't think should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio." (That balance sheet, incidentally, is by now almost one-ninth the size of the U.S. economy.)

Those days of public favor are over. Particularly damning is a report by Johsua Rosner, a longtime chronicler of Wall Street malfeasance, succinctly entitled "JPMorgan Chase: Out of Control." The blog Naked Capitalism called it"astonishing"; as one reads the report, writer David Dayen averred, "it's hard to see the bank as anything but a criminal racket just days away form imploding, were it not propped up by implicit bailout guarantees and light-touch regulators."

All of this might have been on Dimon's mind when he gave Tuesday's keynote, adopting a tone more in line with the concerns of ordinary Americans, while not exactly abandoning his defensive stance regarding "success". What Dimon has yet to do, at least publicly, is acknowledge the connection between anger at the banks and dismay at the consequences of inequality: namely, that public subsidy of financial institutions -- which, according to Bloomberg, consumes about three cents of every tax dollar collected -- diverts resources that might otherwise be applied toward socially useful ends. For instance, funding those struggling inner-city schools.


Friday, March 8, 2013

Why the Police in Michael Premo's Occupy Wall Street Trial Are Unlikely To Face Perjury Charges

from the villiagevoice 




Categories: CourtsNYPDOccupy Wall Street
Premo_TARU.JPG
Jon Gerberg via Vimeo
This officer may be pointing a video-camera at the scene of Michael Premo's arrest, but police say they didn't shoot anything that night.
Many of the readers who commented on last week's story about Michael Premo, the Occupy Wall Street protester who beat his criminal charges last week thanks to video evidence, wanted to know: Would the police officer whose testimony was contradicted by the video face any consequences? Would he be charged with perjury?
The short answer is: Don't hold your breath.
But that's not to say that a closer look at Premo's trial doesn't reinforce the impression that the police testimony against him looks a lot like perjury.
In the initial complaint, Premo's arresting officer, Ron Vincent, described a version of events recounted to him by a second officer -- the one who actually handled Premo's physical arrest -- who he referred to as the "informant:"
"When informant was attempting to place the defendant under arrest defendant twisted defendant's body, refused to place defendant's hands behind defendant's back, and pushed informant with defendant's hands, causing deponent [sic] to fall.... Defendant's above described conduct caused informant to suffer a fractured wrist and substantial pain."
(Bizarrely, the initial complaint also alleged that Premo had interfered with police "by means including releasing and failing to control an animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct the lawful activity of such peace officer," a claim so completely off-kilter that we're guessing it resulted from an errant keystroke in the cut-and-paste language generator used to phrase police accounts in terms most conducive to conviction.)
The problem with that initial complaint, Premo's lawyers argued in a motion, was that it failed to state underlying conduct -- that is, it charged Premo with resisting arrest and second-degree assault while resisting arrest, but didn't have any explanation for while he was being arrested in the first place. It seemed Premo had been arrested for resisting arrest. So prosecutors came back with "superceding information," effectively a second complaint.
This one featured an account from Sergeant Richard Jones, the "informant," who cuffed Premo before handing him off to Vincent. In this version, Jones says that Premo was "obstructing vehicular traffic by walking in the street" at the corner of 7th Avenue and 29th Street -- a problematic claim, given that police had already shut off both ends of the street with orange netting and there was no traffic in the street.
Otherwise Jones sticks to the initial narrative, though he walks back the claims of his broken wrist:
"When deponent was attempting to place defendant under arrest, defendant twisted defendant's body, refused to place defendant's hands behind defendant's back, and pushed deponent with defendant's hands and body, causing deponent to fall twice and causing deponent to suffer a sprained right hand and substantial pain."
Both Officer Vincent and Sgt. Jones signed the boilerplate form at the bottom their statements, which reads False statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law."
When Jones was called into court and sworn in to give his version of events in Premo's criminal case, he offered a more detailed picture. Jones first testified in a pre-trial hearing the day before the trial started, then took the stand to say much the same thing on the second day of the trial. You can read the full transcript of Jones's testimony below, but the back and forth between him and the lawyer make for a complicating read. A more concise version of Jones's story can be found in the findings of fact Judge Robert Mandelbaum articulated after listening to Jones's testimony, which read in part:
"The defendant successfully pushed his way through the measure by causing it to give way on the bottom and slipping out underneath it so as to remove himself from the detention area. In coming out, he bumped into a uniformed lieutenant, Lieutenant Welsh, who attempted to grab him, and the defendant and lieutenant went down on to the ground.
Sergeant Jones, having observed all of that, responded in an attempt to assist the lieutenant. The defendant refused to be detained and continued to attempt to try to run westbound down 29th Street. Sergeant Jones fell down on the defendant, as a result of the defendant's actions, and the defendant continued to flail and stiffen his arms, and the defendant got back to his feet. The sergeant told him to stop resisting, but the flailing and stiffing of the arms continued, such that Sergeant Jones again fell with the defendant, and finally three or four police officers were able to subdue the defendant and place him under arrest."
Specifically, Jones testified that Premo went under the mesh but "he didn't go on the ground." Rather, "he pushed his way, like you're on a line for football," before knocking over Lt. Welsh before struggling with three or four police officers and falling over twice more.
But as the jury saw, video of Premo's arrest shot by Demcoracy Now freelancer Jon Gerberg contradicted key points of Jones's sworn testimony. Lieutenant Welsh is nowhere to be seen in the video, nor is any other white-shirted senior officer. Premo is quite clearly crawling on the ground to get out of the scrum, doesn't knock anybody over, and doesn't appear to resist arrest at all.
So will Sgt. Jones face perjury charges for repeatedly swearing to statements that could have landed Premo in jail for a year of his life?
When the Voice asked the Manhattan District Attorney's office, their response was "Decline comment."
Defense attorneys and advocates of police reform certainly aren't overly hopeful.
"Officers are very rarely if ever investigated or prosecuted for the kind of "testilying" that they do, in part because the whole prosecution machine depends on testilying," said Gideon Oliver, the former president of the NYC National Lawyers Guild, who has represented many defendants in street protest arrests.
Oliver recalls working on the defense of Dennis Kyne, who was accused of inciting a riot and resisting arrest during the 2004 Republican National Convention. Kine's case was dismissed in the middle of his trial when a new video surfaced plainly contradicting the testimony of a police officer.
But while contemporary news accounts of the Kyne case wondered if the new era of cheap video equipment would turn the tide against false police testimony, Oliver says it hasn't happened yet.
"Police officers are largely insulated from the consequences. "Defendant's don't really have effective recourse," he says. "You could sue for false arrest, for false imprisonment, things like that, but with civil judgments cops don't pay individually -- usually the city indemnifies them. With a civil suit, there's no deterrent effect."
Robert Gangi of the Police Reform Organizing Project says there are a number of reasons why district attorneys are reluctant to bring perjury charges against police officers.
"One reason is the day-to-day pragmatic reality that district attorneys have to work with police in making their cases, so they're very gun-shy with taking steps that might alienate either individual officers or the NYPD as a whole," he said. "There's also the politics of it. Taking steps to impugn a police officer or the NYPD involves some political risk," Gangi says. "Every District Attorney in the city is a politician, an elected public official, and is therefore reluctant to be seen as an antagonist of the police.
Defense attorneys and police reform advocates are quick to stress that while the cases of Michael Premo and Alexander Arbuckle spotlight how video can unravel police misrepresentation, the vast majority of criminal defendants aren't so fortunate. Without video evidence, officers have even fewer reasons not to lie.
As Michelle Alexander wrote in her New York Times Op-Ed Why Police Lie Under Oathlast month, police know that judges will always take their word over that of a criminal defendant, and "at worst, the case will be dismissed, but the officer is free to continue business as usual."
And while there's little encouraging officers not to lie, there can be substantial pressures to do it, says John Eterno, who retired as an NYPD captain in 2004 after 20 years on the force. Eterno, who now teaches criminal justice at Molloy College and has authored studies critical of the NYPD's focus on statistics, says testilying isn't a problem of a few bad apples, but a direct result of pressure to make quotas and protect their fellow officers. "It's a centralized issue," he says. "The pressure on individual officers to make quota and to have each others' back is just tremendous."
For a close look at how the pressure on officers to make quota can lead directly to dubious arrests, take a look at the Voice's NYPD Tapes series.
There have been a number of cases in recent years -- among them those of William EisemanMichael Carsey, and Adolph Osbeck -- in which district attorneys have charged officers with perjury. Critics aren't impressed, though. "My assessment is they will, from time to time, pick out a case where they charge an officer with perjury," Gangi says. "But in my view, it's almost totally cosmetic."
When Sgt. Bobby Hadid was sentenced for perjury in December after lying about unprofessional relations with a murder suspect's wife, his judge called it "A rare case of perjury." Habib got off with a sentence of probation.
With protest arrests, the profusion of video evidence may be starting to change the equation. The New York Civil Liberties Union is hoping to expand that effect to stop-and-frisk arrests with a new smartphone app. Video evidence can cut both ways. Many Occupy Wall Street protesters have been convicted or taken pleas after it became clear that the NYPD's Technical Assistance Response Unit had collected damning video. But defense lawyers are increasingly concerned that TARU footage is only being made available selectively. In Premo's case, prosecutors and police insisted there was no TARU footage shot at the scene of his arrest, even though Gerberg's video clearly showed a TARU cop staring through the viewfinder of his powered-up camera, apparently framing a shot.
Lawyers representing people arrested last March 17, when police forcefully raided Zuccotti Park, have been startled to learn that police and prosecutors claim there is no TARU footage from the entire incident. (Again, other video (like this one, starting at the 0:11 mark and this one, at 2:53) seem to undercut that claim.
"Video has resulted in some cases where the DAs will throw out a case or juries find them not guilty but it doesn't seem to have affected in any kind of sweeping way the conduct of police officers," says Gangi. "And that's because they're not being penalized. there aren't any severe sanctions. It's the same story again and again."
Here's the first complaint filed against Premo, signed by Officer Vincent:
Here's the superceding informormation, signed by Sgt. Jones:
And here's a transcript of Jones's sworn testimony in a court hearing the day before the trial started:
Previous Coverage:
Go to Runnin' Scared for all our latest news coverage.