Occupy St. Louis!

On October 1, 2011 St. Louis joined hundreds of other cities where citizens have assembled in support of the "OCCUPY WALL STREET" actions in New York City. PCU•Free Assembly Project went to work in 1st Amendment support... selected policy moves, legal positions, and reference docs are compiled here : : : "We Are The 99%!" ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (( LINK: http://www.free-assembly.org/speechforum/streetpolitics/occupy-stl ))

pcu_/FAP Letter to City: "First Amendment Notice" - 5oc11 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-10-09 06:50 AM

PCU_Free Assembly Project commenced 'Legal Observer' activities at Kiener Plaza on Monday, 10/3/11 -- with tensions building on alleged City permit requirements for use of this public park, and very real Police threats to evict protesters for violation of the 'Curfew Ordinance' (§ 22.18.010). In response, this "First Amendment Notice" was faxed to the Mayor, Parks Commissioner, and Police Chief on the evening of 10/5, challenging the current and imminent constitutional harms in the City's actions, and demanding remedies for the protection of this expressive assembly. DISCLAIMER: This policy critique was advanced solely and unilaterally by PCU•Free Assembly Project in the public interest, and does not speak for "Occupy St. Louis" or represent the views of participants... however many seem to strongly agree.

St. Louis Parks - Regulations & Forms by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-11-05 04:47 AM

from the City website, key rules, procedures, policies & forms for 'Special Event Permits'.

Webmail to Mayor, 10oc11 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-11-05 10:17 PM

- a message to Mayor Slay via his website, 4 days after the arrests and expulsion of 'Occupy St. Louis' from Kiener Plaza, raising constitutional and admin-law concerns: Should the Police be running 1st Amendment Policy in St. Louis, or ANYWHERE?

'Sample' Permit, proposed by City - 28oc11 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-11-05 04:40 AM

A draft Special Event Permit proposed by the St. Louis Parks Dept on 10/28/2011, naming 'Occupy St. Louis' as permit Holder - stamped "Sample" in red across the page. It was brought to the General Assembly the next day and promptly rejected.

Letter to Parks Dept., 1no11 - "The 10/28 Draft Permit, as Proposed" by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-11-05 05:20 AM

Policy critique from PCU•Free Assembly Project to St. Louis Parks Dept., in response to the Draft Permit "offered" to Occupy St. Louis: In review on key points, it is found unworkable, unconstitutional, and fraudulent as applied to this public assembly. The analysis goes on to urge a fitting alternative means of authorization - a consensual 'Operating Plan', effecting Notice of terms & standards, and engaging cooperation of participants in meeting legitimate public interests.

Draft copy of permit for review by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-11-05 11:44 PM

- as posted to the General Discussion Forum at 'OccupyStL.org', for review... the text of the Draft Permit "offered" the City on 10/27, dated the following day. This version does not include the name of the prospective signer... hmmm.

re: Draft Permit - Forum Reply, 10/31 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-11-05 11:50 PM

- the "terse, torrid Reply" to the Draft Permit, posted on that topic in the online General Discussion Forum on 10/31... personal observations by sca, in the shoes of PCU•Free Assembly Project.

Proposed OSL Permit - Legal Review Needed by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-11-05 11:53 PM

- a 2nd post on 10/31, to the (surprisingly dormant) Legal Forum at 'OccupyStL.org'... responding to the Permit proposal, noting the risks of the situation, invoking cooperation among legal players.

Legal Forum Post (11/5), re: 'Permit' Letter by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-11-06 12:05 AM

- Post to OSL Legal Forum, re: PCU•FAP Letter to Parks Dept., 1no11 - "The 10/28 Draft Permit, as Proposed" - with brief explanation & doc links... referenced in separate post to General Discussion Forum, for fair disclosure.

'Compton v. Cops' - Phase I: Fed Suit filed 11/11/11 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2012-05-16 04:13 AM

On 11/9 two Mayor's staff reps came to General Assembly, proposed that Occupy St. Louis break down and accept 1 all-night parking space at another site. Predictably the "offer" was refused... of course it was a mission to fail: The next day the City gave 24-hour notice to vacate Kiener Plaza. On Veterans Day 11/11 an emergency lawsuit was filed for 24 Plaintiffs: 'Compton, et al. v. St.L Metro Police, et al.' -- seeking a Temporary Restraining Order, argued weakly that night in Federal Court, to no avail. With 200 cops and numerous Parks personnel already deployed to Kiener Plaza, the takedown went forward before the judge commenced deliberations: 27 were arrested, and the whole encampment was dismantled. Days later on 11/15, the Plaintiffs returned to Court for a Preliminary Injunction hearing, and this Motion was also DENIED... the lawyers did not meet the burden of proof, the judge could do nothing else... no constitutional relief.

Occupy St.L 'Vigil Plan' - proposed 11/29/11 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-12-01 02:41 AM

... a 'Cooperation Plan' proposed to the St. Louis Parks Dept., for a "VIGIL for ECONOMIC JUSTICE" in Kiener Plaza, 24/7 -- presented as a special use Application, and terms for Authorization. It would set up a simple encampment in a small area of the park, as an expressive & protective presence, and as a base for daily public forum activities. It was signed by 3 'Volunteers' from Occupy St.L as an open public assembly, acting personally as participating citizens, in the only way they could comply. By addressing legitimate public interests and meeting equivalent standards, the Plan serves regulatory purposes in lieu of a Special Event Permit.

St. Louis Parks - Denial Letter, 11/30/11 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2011-12-06 11:37 PM

The St. Louis Parks Dept. responded to the 'Vigil Plan' by letter the next day - refusing to consider this application in light of the pending lawsuit in Federal Court. Further inquiries are referred to the City Counselor's office in this light, politicizing the issue in the Mayor's office.

'VEJ' Rehearing Request to St.L Parks, 12/27/11 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2012-01-06 03:23 AM

Letter from "VIGIL" proponents to St. Louis Parks Director, following upon the Department's vague refusal of the 'Cooperation Plan' they presented: Requesting a Rehearing on the denial of their application, if 'special use' procedures provide for one - or otherwise confirmation that this was a final agency action subject to court review. Prepared on 12/27/11, signed by the 3 volunteers over the weekend, sent by certified mail on 1/3/12.

St.L Parks - Final Reply Letter, 1/6/12 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2012-02-04 08:37 PM

- a non-response to the 'VEJ' Rehearing Request... the Parks Director simply referenced their previous Denial letter (11/30/11) and pointed to the City Counselor's office again. (Then by definition, there is no administrative review of this decision, and this reply was the final agency action subject to judicial remedies.)

'Compton v. Cops' - Phase II: 'Vigil' Claims enter, 2/7/12 by Scottie Addison — last modified 2012-05-22 02:48 PM

A special use Application for the "VIGIL For ECONOMIC JUSTICE" was submitted to the St. Louis Dept. of Parks, Recreation & Forestry on 11/29/11... final denial of a permit was confirmed by the Director's letter of 1/6/12... the three 'Volunteers' moved to bring new claims into the 'Compton' case on 2/7/12: With 2 of them already Plaintiffs in this live civil case on related facts & harms, they sought to add the 3rd Plaintiff and new official Defendants in "supplemental" claims under Rule 15 (FRCvP), separately captioned with the same case number ___/ 'O'Bryan v. St.L Parks' \___ to establish distinct new issues within its scope. Over the ensuing weeks the pleadings were fully filed and amended, and Plaintiffs moved for a Preliminary Injunction hearing. However at a status conference on 4/2/11, the Judge DENIED the joinder of new parties & claims in the 'Compton' case: With different official defendants and requested relief, either the Complaints had to be combined, or 'O'Bryan' had to be commenced as a separate case.

.DS_Store by Scottie Addison — last modified 2012-05-16 03:51 AM