[HCCN] Fwd: National Lawyers Guild on Hr 347

Mon Mar 5 23:16:35 UTC 2012


> From: "Doug Rawlings" <rawlings at vfpmaine.org>
> Date: March 5, 2012 1:24:14 PM EST
> To: listserv at vfpmaine.org
> 
> Here it is as well in PDF format.
>  
> We have been following HR 347 closely on our National Lawyers’ Guild List Occupy Defense Serve.  Passage was under radar and rushed in anticipation of the upcoming G20 in May as well as the parties’ national conventions this summer.  It is a vast expansion of government power to squelch dissent, and sadly only 3 House members voted no (all Republican I might add!!!)  Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud both voted FOR.  In my view, through clever wordsmithing, it effectively means that the law is no longer confined to civil disobedience but is expanded to include heretofore lawful protest.  One driving force behind the recent change in the law (in my view) is a $6 million settlement recently achieved by the National Lawyers Guild on behalf of 700 citizens who were wrongfully detained and arrested during protests against the Iraq War in Chicago in March of 2003 (that protest drew 10,000 people). http://www.nlg.org/news/press-releases/nlg-reaches-6-2-million-settlement-in-class-action-against-chicago-police/  My theory on this has to do with the fact that the G20 is taking place in Chicago this May, and the organizers want to make sure Chicago police have free reign.
>  
> It has been approved by both House and Senate (Senate passed the change in the law by a voice vote on February 5, 2012 so the public has no right to know who voted for or against!!!!  Senate made amendments to the original House version, which is why it went back to House for another vote on February 28th to conform to the Senate amendments).
>  
> After Obama signs it (anticipated), it will likely be the subject of a challenge under the 1st amendment, which hopefully can be accomplished in advance of the G20 this May.  This is classic chilling of speech and protest of the kind courts disdain.  That said, we are in the Citizens United era, in which corporations have broad protections under 1st amendment and people increasingly have few.
>  
> Here is a summary posted last week by the Southern Regional VP of the National Lawyers Guild:
> Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
> The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
> Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
> Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
> The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
> It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
> Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
> Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
> In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
> Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
> With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
> When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
> And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
> On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occurring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
> United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
> “Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.
> Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
> Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anne O'Berry
> Southern Regional Vice President, National Lawyers Guild
> Check Out Our Website at NLGSouthernRegion!
> NLG Southern Region on  Facebook!
>  
>  
> John H. Branson, Esq.
> Branson Law Office, P.A. 
> 482 Congress Street, Suite 304 
> P.O. Box 7526 
> Portland, Maine 04112-7526 
> Tel.: (207) 780-8611 
> Fax: (207) 221-2203 
> jbranson at bransonlawoffice.com 
> www.bransonlawoffice.com
>  
> 
> ______________________________________________________________ 
> 
> This listserv is primarily a listing of appropriate announcements of coming events and actions, and relevant articles directed to members and interested individuals of Maine Veterans for Peace. Its content is monitored and updated by a single administrator -- Doug Rawlings, Chapter Secretary. If you have an article or event that you would like posted to this listserv, you can email him at rawlings at vfpmaine.org for consideration. This listserv is not a running log of events and personal insights with an online audience, or a blog. If you wish to be removed from this list, please email unsubscribe at vfpmaine.org
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mainetalk.org/pipermail/hccn_mainetalk.org/attachments/20120305/4434a2cf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: HR 347-Text.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 122992 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mainetalk.org/pipermail/hccn_mainetalk.org/attachments/20120305/4434a2cf/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mainetalk.org/pipermail/hccn_mainetalk.org/attachments/20120305/4434a2cf/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mainetalk.org/pipermail/hccn_mainetalk.org/attachments/20120305/4434a2cf/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mainetalk.org/pipermail/hccn_mainetalk.org/attachments/20120305/4434a2cf/attachment-0003.htm>