Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
Popular content
Today's Top News
Taxpayers Off The Hook For GOP Convention Lawsuits
Critics say the agreement has only encouraged police to use aggressive tactics knowing they won't have to pay damages.
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Taxpayers should be off the hook for any damages stemming from claims of police misconduct related to the Republican National Convention under a first-of-its-kind agreement.
The deal required the Republican Party's host committee to buy insurance covering up to $10 million in damages and unlimited legal costs for law enforcement officials accused of brutality, violating civil rights and other misconduct.
Other cities who hosted conventions in recent years - including Denver, Boston, New York and Philadelphia - either covered those costs from their general budgets or used tax money to buy insurance policies.
But St. Paul officials, led by Mayor Chris Coleman, insisted the committee use its private donations to purchase the insurance policy. They had some leverage because the party had named St. Paul as the location for the convention before striking the city services agreement in January 2007.
"The negotiating team, with the mayor's encouragement, took the firm ground that we had to have the police professional liability insurance paid for by someone other than city taxpayers," said City Attorney John Choi. "Ultimately, and reluctantly on the host committee's part, we were able to secure that."
The deal could save taxpayers millions. Police have arrested nearly 300 people, and many protesters are threatening lawsuits. New York City still faces more than 400 lawsuits from some of the 1,800 people arrested at the 2004 GOP convention, said Laura Postiglione, a spokeswoman in the city's law department.
In St. Paul, some critics say the agreement has only encouraged police to use aggressive tactics knowing they won't have to pay damages.
"It's an extraordinary agreement. Now the police have nothing to hold them back from egregious behavior," said Michelle Gross, who leads Communities United Against Police Brutality. She is considering filing suit after being handcuffed and searched last week during a raid of the St. Paul hub of an anarchist group.
21 Comments so far
Show AllAfter the Police run through the ten million what will Saint Paul have to pay for all the rest of it's insurance policies? Perhaps the mayor will find that the city's insurance policies have all been canceled.
It also said "unlimited legal defenses"
___ which is a VERY big number
¿ Perhaps someone should investigate the insurance companies ( OWNERS & source of capital ) ?
Namaste
This agreement is blatantly unconsitutional and persons who file suit should challenge it as well as the criminal acts that have been committed against them. A city cannot contract away to private entities its constitutional liabilities.
First, it's likely that the policy has some sort of exclusion for gross negligence and/or intentional malfeasance -- a properly worded civil suit could still have some effect.
More important, liability insurance only protects against civil damages. Insurance policies against criminal penalties are illegal, to my knowledge, in every state. File criminal complaints under RICO (each arrest is a separate instance) or other applicable law. Use the issuance of the insurance policy, itself, to substantiate malice aforethought.
This (potential) precedent cannot be allowed to stand - it's too insidious.
Yeah, but there's a catch-22 there. Criminal charges can only be brought by a DA's office. And the DA's office is on the same side as the police and you'll never see that happen in today's system. So, that only leaves civil suits as a vehicle by which citizens can seek any relief.
That's basically the same con the Democrats were trying to run during the debate on FISA and telecom immunity. They kept trying to spread the misleading line that the immunity only applied to civil suits, and that the telecoms were still vulnerable to criminal charges. But, once again, everyone knows that neither a Democrat nor a Republican DA would ever file criminal charges. So the only immunity that the telecoms really needed was from civil actions.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
There is a shell-game going on here in the claim that taxpayers won't have to pay. No, they won't have to pay directly through their taxes. But many little consumers all over the US who have policies with the company issuing the RNC policy will have to pay. That's the whole idea of insurance: You sell many policies, and you spread out the risk. If there are milti-millions of lawsuits, no, it didn't cost multi-millions to purchase the policy, but many businesses and private individuals have and will later contribute to paying for the irresponsibility and abuse of power.
Some taxpayers will pay through their insurance companies, and those responsible won't have to. This is capitalism's game. It sounds and feels a bit like socialism, but only those who pay get to join the club.
So this in effect means that the St. Paul police were privatized for the convention. This should absolutely be the grounds for a lawsuit. The city has no right to privatize the police force...do they??
Technically the city was interested in protecting it's infrastructure. With foreknowledge of a controversial political convention, likely to attract many demonstrators, a canny move would be to shift any costs on to the organisers.
It is sad that it doesn't seem the city considered it might also cheapen the civic resolve of some their police officers.
For me, the above article explains a lot. The 10 million dollars to cover legal costs from the actions of the police, basically allows them to arrest anybody they want without having any legally defensible reason. The police can make false or illegal arrests with impunity because they have "insurance". The money trail clearly starts with the RNC. The RNC essentially paid the local police to suspend the Constitution.
It is interesting to compare this with the article by Amy Goodman (from today) with, when I last checked,10 times the responses as this one. This article has more far reaching implications.
Being able to have a fund to pay off all the lawsuits created from illegal actions of a "bought" police force, means that the RNC (and entrenched power)is ostensibly above the law.
There is some justification for labeling Amy Goodman as someone who incites civil unrest. If you listen to her program, as I do occasionally, she continually uses the phrase, "took to the streets" to refer to what people do when they protest. It probably appears in her show more than once a week. She uses the phrase almost as a suggestion of how people should act. I sometimes think she'd like us out in the streets more than she'd like to help solve the problems people are facing.
That's your justification for arresting journalists? It'd be hard to describe them as protesters if they "took to the couch". The ones inciting civil unrest are the war criminals in Washington, DC.
Johnny J-Rock
Going out in public equates to civil unrest now? The times, they are'a changing.
It seems sensible that a city would insure itself against damages claims. If criminal charges were ever filed against the police officers responsible for the criminal violations, I wouldn't be too suspicious. But indictments are extremely rare and convictions are virtually non-existent. So, in practice, the civil suits are the only impediment to police crimes and in the end, if you want to dispense with all that Constitutional Rights mumbo-jumbo, all you have to do is buy the city an insurance policy.
I suspect that very point was made explicit at some point in the negotiations. At some point, someone said, "Look, do what you have to. Just shut these troublemakers down and we'll pay for it."
Or, conversely, "Look, if you want us to shut these trouble makers down, you're going to have to pay for it."
These blue bandits with their padded outfits and truncheons are a serious menace and no civil suit will protect us from them.
Sue the hell out of them. The RNC is footing the bill.
AmeriKa you are toast. Its over. Your constitution is history. You have no rights. Get used to it.
This amounts to a conspiracy between the state/city and the RNC to agree to commit crimes against the people. Therefore anyone who sues the city should also name the RNC as a co-defendant or co-conspirator. Certainly an agreement, in advance of trampling on people's constitutional rights, is tantamount to conspiring to undermine or circumvent the constitution--a crime of treason.
While they do this they have the audacity to claim people who are expressing their constitutional rights to assemble, speak and petition the government--are terrorists.
It's the government officials who behave arrogantly toward the people who are the danger to our republic. They deserve impeachment, criminal prosecution, and long jail terms, followed by disbarment, disenfranchisement, and renunciation of US citizenship.
Their own laws accusing us of being TERRORISTS.
___ can be _r.e.v.e.r.s.e.d_ to be used against them
___ as they are the real conspiratorial TERRORISTS
Namaste
My wife (credit where it's due) just made an excellent point: which insurance company? How much did they charge? Because this is a very bad risk: after the recent judgment in New York, it's obvious the lawsuits will run well into the millions.
That means issuing the policy is an outright bribe. The company should be named and held accountable.
How anyone is going to hold the police accountable is another question.
I did see the kernel of a good idea: sue the city and the RNC committee for a criminal conspiracy, not the police. Only the police are insured, according to this article.
Oregoncharles
If you have a daughter from an S. American connection, I might be able to guess your wife's name. No, the chances are astronomical …
I left a comment much the same to the earliest posting -- so serendipity has already entered the room ( see under Humbaba September 4th, 2008 1:23 pm ).
Namaste
I hope the RNC goes bankrupt with the lawsuits........
I'm with Tom Larsen. $10 million is nothing. I think in about 3 years, the citizens of St. Paul are going to have to settle with the Republican National Committee on who pays the damages, and on who is more guilty. I hope the citizens of St. Paul elect a really tough mayor next time, who turns up the heat all the way on the RNC. Otherwise the City has another big mortgage to pay off -- higher interest servicing rates too for a long while.