Tweet
Legal Working Group (photo: Nathan Johnson)
There are working groups that provide the meals, working groups that organize the library, working groups that work on various process issues. You name it, there’s a working group.
Being the law geek around the Lake, I went to introduce myself to the Legal Working Group and was given an interview by one of its members, Janos Marton. Mr. Marton works at a law firm by day and spends his off hours helping OWS. The firm members who know about his activity have been supportive.
The Legal Working group evolved over time. Originally, the National Lawyers Guild set up and manned a table for 2 hours each day from 5 to 7 PM. However, protestors at the park had questions all day long, so a group of lawyers and interested lay people took shifts to expand the hours of operation at the legal table.
The primary advice initially was to make sure that the protestors know the arrest process and to make sure they were matched up with lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild.
Help Kevin Gosztola purchase & distribute supplies from the Occupy Supply fund.
Since then the Legal Working Group has expanded. They now are doing legal research to be prepared for various contingencies that may arise. They also work with other working groups that have legal questions, such as about trademarks, permits, and possible corporate or PAC structure to manage the donations. They also work on basic criminal issues.
The working group members are also a conduit to facilitate communication between the National Lawyers Guild and the General Assembly and occupiers.
The General Assembly recently passed a resolution that any litigation commenced on behalf of OWS must be pre-approved and vetted by the Legal Working Group. So, if you want to send a letter to the Police Commissioner, if you think OWS should be a 501 C4 corporation, if you want to commence a litigation on behalf of OWS, you need the Legal Working Group to bring the matter to the General Assembly.
I asked about the possibility of commencing either an Article 78 Proceeding in state court or a First Amendment case in federal court over some of the asinine restrictions (no tents, no porta potties) that have been imposed on OWS. With respect to Liberty Plaza, he said this:
“Because there is so much legal uncertainty over the status of privately owned public spaces, including their relationship to the 1st Amendment, it is unclear if the current situation [at Liberty Plaza] would be helped or hurt by litigation.”
It occurs to me that OWS could test things without jeopardizing their status at Liberty Plaza by applying for permits at two suitable (hard scaped) parks, one federal and one city. Washington Square Park is a city park nearby and Castle Clinton down at Battery Park is federal. If the permit to engage in free speech via 24/7 occupation is denied at those locations, there is a perfect opportunity to bring an action apiece in state and federal court.
27 Comments
Thank you, Cynthia
For a grass routes movement it seems well organized.
I need advice. I’ve been part of an Occupy movement in Merced, Ca – a small Central California Valley town (85K). During the third meeting we had, a politician who has been on the city council and is seeking re-election appeared. He seems to have a connection to one of the organizers. I objected to his being there – he waited around for over an hour and obviously he is campaigning. I objected to any politician being included in one of our meetings, but the rest of the group seemed alright with it. I left because I don’t think politicians should be able to campaign within our group. What do you think?
I’m on your side on this one, karenb, fwiw.
OTOH, pol or not, I suppose he has the same freedom of assembly & speech as anyone else who’s there.
I suppose, depending on your personality, you could ‘out’ him by pointing out he’s there in a loud voice and asking what your fellow occupiers thought about politicking at occupy meetings. Might embarrass him into leaving if he got booed or something.
karenb, I think you’re correct. A politician would campaign at funerals and probably does. Occupy is not the place for campaigning.
Well, karenb, most, if not all, Occupy sites embrace the local homeless population, so why not politicians?
If a politician follows the rules, waits his/her turn for speaking, and is generally helpful and supportive, why not? If the group feels that the politician is using the group for his/her own election purposes, then the group can discuss it and ask said politician to remove his or herself, or to change his/her behavior.
He has a first amendment right, so to that extent he should be allowed. have you looked at his record what has he done on the city council? be good for people to know. I would stay engaged find out more about him and then decide the course of action
Personally speaking, I think it contradicts the whole point. It would be really nice if the people and the politicians were on the same page but that is not the reality of the situation. I think we are a long way away from that if it can be achieved at all. In the meantime, the only thing I will trust a politician to do is talk out of his/her mouth.
karenb, I think if someone wants to attend as a citizen and participate equally with the group, no problem. If they make friends and build alliances, as we are all doing at our Occupations, and if people want to help them in their other work (campaigning or whatever), that is the choice of the people who get involved with that work.
But I think Occupiers have enough of our own work to do. I honestly hope that some of our elected or elected wanna bes are affected by the movement and can help to further our ideas, that is also ok with me.
Two thoughts:
First, Cynthia is not a geek, legal or otherwise.
Second, on politicians, I think it depends on whether or not he/she is helping in their official capacity. If they’re standing up for the protestors, supporting permits, arguing against police evictions or other actions, then that would lead me to think that maybe they’re personally in sync with the OWS movement. In my local city, we have one city councilman who became a councilman after leading the fight against local corruption and over-development. Him I’d welcome at any OWS event. Our other four councilmen? Wouldn’t let them in the same ZIP code as an OWS event. (BTW, our good guy councilman not only attends public rallies, he often organizes and leads them.)
Cynthia, thanks for writing this. I would like to give a big thanks to lawyers from the Lawyers Guild, ACLU and others who are doing pro bono work for us.
We have a few lawyers in ABQ who are active with us regularly. I feel it was in part the work of our volunteer lawyer who kept in contact with the police when our arrests were imminent, that the police knew we would not resist arrest, and the “chemical dispersant” that was threatened was not used.
So a big props to Larry Kronin and others who are doing this because they believe in our right to assemble among other legal imperatives!
I believe there is an app for getting arrested. Have you heard about it? It will notify your friends or contacts you select.
Hear, hear!
Report what you find out about the pol and report it back to the group.
By definition, a 99% movement has to be dedicated to inclusion as opposed to exclusion.
Thank you all for responding to my call for advice. Much food for thought. I appreciate all of you and FDL.
Excellent point. And a good dose of common sense to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
If you can’t smell a pol who is only trying to capitalize, you will find out soon enough.
A politician is treated like any other person. He/she can get in the stack just like anyone else. No special privileges.
Which is exactly the way that Occupy Atlanta handled John Lewis.
As a human being they can speak. But do not defer to the fact that the person is a politician.
Cynthia, thanks for this interview and for the ideas about test cases. I found the issues about whether or not to go to litigation helpful background on the difficulty legal working groups face.
Yep, there is an iPhone app, called “I’m being arrested!” Maddow showed it last week. According to this, there is an Android version, too:
http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/26/8493825-getting-arrested-use-this-app-to-alert-important-people
Cynthia – I like your idea of two test applications. But if they lose the local case even at another park, couldn’t that affect the Zucotti/Liberty Park situation?
I must admit, that public/privately-owned park thing is a tad hard to wrap my head around.
Forgot what I was going to ask: do you know if all the OWS books are developing legal working groups, and sharing their research? Of course state law will vary, but it seems a shame to reinvent the wheel multiple times.
tejana, it seems like some places (NYC) are ahead of us on a lot of this stuff, and I don’t know how much various groups are able to communicate about our commonalities whether problems or solutions. So far, it seems like our major commonalities are dealing with the PTBs on the actual occupation of space and now issues of homelessness/food/weather.
Our group seems to be having some nuttiness about things that I don’t think we should be fighting about. I feel sad about that.
Thank you, Cynthia. I was alerted to your post by LLN. I’m starting to think of FDL as an Information Working Group.
I don’t think it should. Liberty Plaza with this private ownership/ 24/7 public access is kind of in legal no man’s land.
So, I think OWS and the City both are afraid to test case b/c there is no telling how it will turn out.
The City park and Federal park idea is low risk b/c right now the City is saying that they can’t be in a city park and they are not currently in a city or federal park. Remember a couple weeks ago they wanted to set up a satellite space in Washington Square and were rebuffed?
State parks are not really an issue b/c, to my knowledge, the only state park in Mnahattan is Riverbank Park way up near Harlem.
Anyway, they need more space and the litgation over space they are not currently occupying doesn’t deprive them of anything they already have.
First Amendment law tells us a couple of things:
1) THE MOST protected kind of speech, is political speech. This is clearly political speech
2)gov’t can regulate speech as to time, place and manner, but not in a way that hinders the content of the speech.
As Elliot Spitzer pointed out a few weeks ago, the 24/7 occupation IS the speech/communication. So, I would argue that any time regulation that did not allow an overnight, regardless of the normal operating hours of the park, would inhibit the speech.
Plus, I know for a fact, because I have walked in city parks after hours, that people who are not consciously exercising their First Amendment rights are not prevented from entering the parks after hours and homeless people often overnight in city parks.
So, I would argue that prohibiting OWS to overnight is a prohibition of the content of their communication.
I don’t know, I am under the impression that each Occupy is it’s own entity, but they appear to communicate.
The OWS Legal working group began spontaeously to fill a void, so I don’t get the impression that there was a grand national plan that set them up in advance.
The advance planning appears to have been getting the support of the National Lawyers Guild, which was brilliant IMHO
LLN=?
Kevin has really made OWS his mission and he’s doing a terrific job.
Ah! The #Occupy working group system! I think this is the movement’s best-kept secret that is actually wide in the open!
I recently wrote an article singing the praises of the working group system and you can read it here:
The Future of the #Occupy Movement — http://thirdpartyindependent.com/node/138
I recently signed up to the NYC GA online community and to the Political and Electoral Reform working group. I can’t be physically in NYC to join in the meetings (I am in the DC area) but I am lurking for the moment to get a feel for the community before I start chiming in. Also planning on paying a visit to #OccupyDC in McPherson Square to say hello and to see if there is interest in an Electoral Reform working group.
good on ye