On Wednesday, the ACLU announced that nineteen students and alumni filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District against UC Davis, over the university’s treatment of protesters during a Nov. 18 demonstration, in which campus police were caught on video dousing seated protesters with pepper spray.
According to a release from the ACLU, the lawsuit seeks to determine why the university violated the demonstrators’ state and federal constitutional rights, and seeks to result in better policies that will prevent repetition of such response to a non-violent protest.
The lawsuit charges that administration officials and the campus police department failed to properly train and supervise officers, resulting in a series of constitutional violations against the demonstrators. The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU of Northern California and cooperating attorneys, including Sacramento civil rights attorney Mark Merin.
The Vanguard spoke with ACLU Staff Attorney Michael Risher and two of the protesters who were at the scene of the November 18 event.
“We filed a lawsuit because we want to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again,” Mr. Risher told the Vanguard Wednesday afternoon.
The university released a statement from Barry Shiller, university spokesperson: “Attorneys for the university and the plaintiffs have been talking. We hope those conversations continue. In the meantime, we’ve not seen the lawsuit and therefore aren’t in a position to comment on details.”
The university declined further comment.
Enosh Baker remembers the spot well because when he was taken to the ground by the police on November 18, he hit his head on a sprinkler head as he was “thrown down to the ground,” as he described, “almost like a suplex [wrestling move].” Then he said “two officers kneeled down on top of me put flexcuffs on me and I was hauled [away] with a few others before the pepper spray incident took place.”
Mr. Baker was one of those who were linking arms around what is known as the Centennial Circle when the police approached from the southwest. He described what happened as the police approached the blockade and gave dispersal orders.
“I stood here in silence linking arms with students whom I mentor,” said Mr. Baker, who is not currently a student, though he did graduate from UC Davis and plans to return as a graduate student. He described, “without much ado the riot police broke our arm linkages, pulled us out from the circle.”
According to the ACLU accounts, on November 18 students gathered in the quad on the UC Davis campus to demonstrate against ongoing tuition hikes, as well as against recent brutal treatment of demonstrators at UC Berkeley. UC Davis campus police arrived in riot gear, and officers threatened students, who were seated on the quad in a circle, and ordered them to disperse.
“We were sitting down as a symbolic gesture of protest and it was an act of solidarity with my friends who were arrested,” David Buscho told the Vanguard.
When students remained seated to continue their demonstration, a UC Davis police officer repeatedly sprayed the line of protesters with pepper spray at point-blank range, while scores of other officers looked on.
“I was pepper sprayed repeatedly in the face,” described Mr. Buscho, a Mechanical Engineering student.
Another officer sprayed the demonstrators from behind. The seated students posed no physical threat to the officers. Pepper spray has excruciating effects that can last for days.
“It’s really the most noxious and painful substance,” Mr. Buscho said as he described the agonizing moments following being bathed in pepper spray.
“My face was totally coated because I couldn’t cover my face,” he continued. “I kept inhaling pepper spray which is really bad. When you inhale pepper spray it’s so painful that your entire chest contracts so it actually feels like you’re suffocating because I couldn’t force myself to breathe.”
He described repeatedly vomiting. Those who tried to help by pouring water on him made it worse because it simply spread the agent throughout his body.
“I was just covered in pepper spray,” he said.
According to lawsuit, “The 19 plaintiffs in this action were protesting university privatization, distribution of resources, tuition hikes, police brutality and other onerous public policies adopted by the University administration and the Board of Regents. Their protest was an integral part of continuing, vigorous assembly and free speech activities which had been conducted by students for weeks at the same time the nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement mobilized thousands nationwide. Seventeen of the plaintiffs were U.C. Davis students at the time; the other two are recent graduates.”
It seeks relief in the form of “a declaration from the Court that campus policies and practices that led to the abuse of the plaintiffs and others offend both the state and federal constitutional guarantees of the rights to free speech and assembly and that the pepper-spraying and arrests of plaintiffs violated their state and federal constitutional rights; an injunction to prevent repetition of such a response to a non-violent protest; and compensatory and punitive damages against the individual perpetrators of the illegal acts and their superiors who ordered, directed and/or condoned this outrageous conduct.”
“We’re looking at violations not just of Fourth Amendment Rights to be free from excessive police force and being falsely arrested, but really much more fundamentally is the right to free speech,” Mr. Risher told the Vanguard. “Universities should be places where free speech is valued, where free expression is fostered and when police respond to non-violent demonstrations with riot gear, with pepper spray and with excessive force, that threatens some of the most fundamental constitutional values we have.”
A group of students had set up tents on the quad and the “Occupation of the Quad” began.
Shortly after the first tents were erected, U.C. Davis administrative employees delivered to some of the students on the quad a notice that included a campus “no overnight camping” policy. The notice was discussed and the group concluded that they were symbolically ” ‘occupying the quad’ in support of and in solidarity with the 99% championed by the Occupy Wall Street movement,” the suit argues.
On November 18, Police Chief Annette Spicuzza delivered a letter from Chancellor Katehi that directed students to remove the tents by 3:00 p.m. “in interest of safety, respect for our campus environment and in accordance with our Principles of Community.”
“Shortly before 3:00 p.m., a large number of police in riot gear armed with long batons, pepper-ball guns and other weapons were seen massing in formation adjacent to the quad. The students moved the remaining tents to the circle on the Centennial Walk, a concrete pathway in the middle of the campus quad, and stood around them,” the suit alleges.
“The officers advanced on the students as can be seen on any number of videotapes. They began pushing students away, or throwing them to the ground. Some of the officers disassembled or destroyed the tents. As the tents were being removed, students sat down in a large circle. Classes were letting out and hundreds of additional students swarmed out of their buildings to watch what was happening,” the suit continues.
It continues: “As the group of students was being pushed by officers, students began to sit down in a line. Officers were stepping over the seated students, who did nothing to stop them. Then Defendant PIKE ordered the students to leave or stated they would be ‘shot.’ As is discernible from audio tapes of his reaction, Plaintiff WHEATLEY responded: ‘You’re going to shoot us if we don’t leave?’ “
At this point Lt. Pike “shook a canister of pepper spray like a can of aerosol paint, stepped over the line of sitting, crouching students and walked up and down the line repeatedly dousing Plaintiffs with orange colored pepper spray, mostly from a distance of one-to-two feet. Students watching the scene screamed or shouted: ‘Shame.’ “
“Our main concerns and our main cause of action is violations of the first amendment and the California constitutional guarantees to free speech, to assembly and to petition the government through redress of grievances,” Michael Risher told the Vanguard.
“That’s the heart of this case,” he said, but added, “This is an excessive force case. The police used grossly excessive force; they falsely arrested people. But the real harm here is to the freedom of expression because when the people see that the police response to non-violent protests is a shot of pepper spray, they’re not going to go out and take the risk of having that happen to them.”
“People silence themselves and that’s the problem, or one of the problems, with this grossly-excessive police response to peaceful and non-violent protests,” he added.
“It was a peaceful protest,” David Buscho described. “I don’t think that police in riot gear should have been brought in. Especially, it was so premature and the whole nature of it all felt so punitive.”
“The university needs to respect students’ rights to make our voices heard, especially when we’re protesting university policies that impact our studies,” said Fatima Sbeih, another student who joined the demonstration on the quad after returning from afternoon prayer, and was subsequently pepper sprayed.
“People were saying things that the police officers probably didn’t agree with, but if there is one [core value] of our first amendment it is that you are allowed to say things that the government doesn’t like,” Mr. Risher said. “Did people say provocative things? Absolutely. That is democracy, that’s free speech. The government cannot shut that down either with strict censorship laws or by sending in police to shut people down and using excessive force against people who are speaking out for the people’s rights in this country.”
Cruz Reynoso, who is heading up the task force charged with evaluating the independent investigation performed by William Bratton and his company Kroll, declined comment at this time, noting that it would be inappropriate to comment given the pending report that he expects to be released on March 5.
That time frame is not impacting this lawsuit, according to Michael Risher.
“We will certainly be interested to see what the investigation comes up with. We will read their reports very carefully,” he told the Vanguard. “Our goals are to make sure nothing like this ever happens again, to get to the bottom of what did happen and we see them as complementary.”
“There have already been two extensions of the report that is coming out,” he added. “We are not going to prejudge those. We’ll be very interested to see what they say. We feel there is also a need for an independent look into this and that’s part of the reason we filed this.”
David Buscho is not hopeful that the investigation will yield the kinds of findings he sees as needed, but he said, “I think now that a reputable organization like the ACLU is here [and] is involved in representing the interests of the students, I think that now we can actually say that [the university will move in the right direction to rectify the situation].”
“To date all [the university] has done is put two officers on paid administrative leave,” he noted.
Mr. Buscho questions the independence of those investigations and believes they are simply there to build a defense case for the university.
For Enosh Baker, the lawsuit is simply a matter of his right to free speech.
“I am joining the lawsuit,” he told the Vanguard, “because the law says my constitutional rights were violated. My freedom of speech, due process and a few other things.”
“What we are asking for in the lawsuit is for the university to be held accountable for unjust actions taken against civil disobedience on campus and it’s clear that there needs to be some recourse for this and one of the possibilities is to ask the university through this lawsuit to amend their policies on how to deal with protesters,” he said.
“The university needs better policies on how it deals with protests and protesters. Students deserve to know what went wrong and how this could be allowed to happen. They want to make sure it never happens again,” said civil rights attorney Mark Merin, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
David Buscho said that after being approached by the ACLU, he decided to join the lawsuit as he sees it as “a good tool so that the public can figure out what happened and also to enact meaningful policy change looking into the future.”
“I hope it really gets to the bottom of what happened. I really want to see meaningful policy changes with regards to police on campus,” he said later.
Enosh Baker is fearful that his involvement will make his admission as a graduate student less likely.
“Aside from the physical and psychological harm which I’m not going to say didn’t happen because it certainly did,” he said, “there’s always the fear that being a prospective graduate student, this harms my application.”
He noted that other individuals involved in activism on campus in recent months have been subjected to investigation by student judicial affairs, which he sees as another activity where the university was attempting to retaliate for those who speak out against their policies.
According to the ACLU’s press release, documents subsequently received from the University of California indicate that the pepper spray used was military grade and, based on manufacturer instructions, should be used from a minimum of six feet away – much farther than the close range at which the students were sprayed.
The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial, injunctive relief and damages. In addition to Mr. Risher and Mr. Merin, attorneys working on the suit are Alan Schlosser, Linda Lye and Novella Coleman for the ACLU-NC, as well as Meredith Wallis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“compensatory and punitive damages against the individual perpetrators of the illegal acts and their superiors who ordered, directed and/or condoned this outrageous conduct.”
No surprise there, we all knew it was coming.
Do you think they should not have filed a lawsuit?
Money talks and BS walks.
That’s a non-answer. Do you think they should not have filed a lawsuit?
Maybe they can all win a huge reward and become a one percenter that the occupiers all despise so much. Wouldn’t that be ironic. So much for idealism.
That’s still not an answer to my question.
I don’t think you have much understanding for how tort law works if you believe this is going to be a case with a big payout, particularly with 19 plaintiffs. The students I spoke too were far more interested in injunctive relief. None of them even mentioned monetary damages.
This should be quite interesting. The trial discovery process and witness testimony under oath(with perjury consequences) could go a long way in peeling away the “lack of cooperation” that has plagued the current on-going investigation.
One of the things that Cruz Reynoso was telling me was how strong the police bill of rights and their right not to bring forth documents is. Even in a criminal matter, police personnel files are guarded and only can be opened through a pitchess motion and even then only the judge actually does the in camera review and only provides names and dates.
“The students I spoke too were far more interested in injunctive relief. None of them even mentioned monetary damages.”
So are you saying they aren’t going after any monetary awards and would turn down any money in lieu of injunctive relief?
You’re asking me a question and never answered mine?
No, I don’t think they should have filed. Speaking of answering questions, you never answered the question asked yesterday on what “ugly peripheral subdivisions” you were referring to in Davis.
I believe the suit would be better timed after the investigation is complete. As it stands, as I understand the article, the taxpayers of the state of California would be the ones paying the legal fees and the judgement. I didn’t pepper-spray anyone, I did not direct anyone to do so, and I do not condone the use of pepper spray in this event. Yet, I’m being asked to pay, indirectly. I believe the lawsuit should be directed against the specific individuals or units. By units, I mean that if there is a judgement, perhaps the UCD police ‘department’ should have it come out of their budget. If the Chancellor is responsible, it should come out of her budget. Know that will never happen.
Rusty: unfortunately that’s how my day went yesterday, I never saw your comment until this morning.
To answer your question in this thread, they asked for monetary damages, my guess is that if they had a chance to settle they would settle for injunctive relief, even if they got a judgment or settlement, when you consider 19 plaintiffs, we’re not talking about a lot of money.
Hpierce: you should be familiar with how public risk management works enough to know that no one is going to be paying directly for this.
That’s precisely why I used the word [quote]indirectly[/quote], and why I said, [quote]Know that will never happen. [/quote]The bottom line is that the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Directly, by increased insurance premiums (that are ultimately paid by taxpayers)… TNSTAAFL
Why not look at it in reverse – the lawsuit is a natural and probable consequence of the police crossing the line, so in essence it should be the police not the protesters who have the fingers pointed their way.
“the lawsuit is a natural and probable consequence of the police crossing the line, so in essence it should be the police not the protesters who have the fingers pointed their way”
Your opinion, many think the protesters crossed the line by blocking the police exit and shouting a threatening verse ‘let them go then you can leave’.
“Your opinion” – It was clearly offered as such in opposition to the view that the protesters were wasting taxpayer money.
“many think…” – many more think otherwise.
“many more think otherwise.”
I think you’re wrong there my friend. By the way, you still haven’t answered the housing question.
[quote]in essence it should be the police not the protesters who have the fingers pointed their way. [/quote]again, WOW… let me be clear that those who are responsible should bear the costs… the UCD police, the Chancellor, or whoever (knowing that they’ll be able to skirt it). If the Chancellor’s office &/or UCDPD have all legal costs and/or judgements cut from their budgets, isn’t it more likely that th
[quote]If the Chancellor’s office &/or UCDPD have all legal costs and/or judgements cut from their budgets, isn’t it more likely that they [b]wilol not repeat their actions in the future[/b] [/quote]
If this lawsuit isn’t about money, then why not wait until Cruz Reynoso’s investigation is completed and his committee’s recommendations are published? IMO, this lawsuit was premature…
I specifically asked Risher that question and his view was that it had already been pushed back twice and that they have not been able to get certain information. He felt like this would prove useful above and beyond the investigation. There is also a good deal of distrust for the investigation by the protesters and certainly those in the advocacy community. They felt like they couldn’t wait any longer.
The other thing he said was that half the people asked what took them so long, I kind of anticipated that this would be a question that my readers would have so I asked it to him.
Again, I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this kind of suit is not likely to produce much money. Even if the university settled at the $1.3 million they did for title ix, you’re talking about little more than $50K per person. That’s really what you are going to base a lawsuit on? I don’t see that as a strong motivator.
“which he sees as another activity where the university was attempting to retaliate for those who speak out against their policies.”
you mean retaliate against unlawful behavior.
From the article in the Davis Enterprise “The protesters are seeking a jury trial and an injunction barring a similar police response to nonviolent protests, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.”
A jury trial. No quiet settlement. They want what happened to be aired in open court. The individual officers are part of the lawsuit. (Can they hide behind the Police Bill of rights when they are being individually sued?) This doesn’t appear to me like a quest for big money.
It is my hunch that the official investigations won’t come up with much that we don’t already know. I have an uneasy feeling that nothing will come of it. Maybe a revision of a policy here or there, but no real accountability for the actions taken by the Administration or police on that day.
“you mean retaliate against unlawful behavior.”
However you want to slice it, that is an inappropriate venue.
I agree with rusty49. The protestors were not arrested or pepper sprayed for protesting, they were pepper sprayed because they were blocking the pathway for the police to safely exit with those previoulsy arrested, and they knew it. The protestors need to take responsibility for their actions. They were not passively protesting, they were actively preventing the police from removing arrested protestors. If you say that that is OK for the protestors to do, where do you draw the line?
“A jury trial. No quiet settlement.”
You do not file a lawsuit with the intent to settle. That may happen as a matter of course, but the initial suit is filed seeking a jury trial.
“The individual officers are part of the lawsuit. “
One of the interesting things will be to see if they get qualified immunity for their actions. To answer the question, the officer’s bill of rights would prevent the discovery of certain information even in such a case, I believe.
“The protestors were not arrested or pepper sprayed for protesting, they were pepper sprayed because they were blocking the pathway for the police to safely exit with those previoulsy arrested, and they knew it.”
You’re missing an important point here – the first action was that they were told to leave a site where they were protesting, when they refused to do so, they were arrested. So I believe that if they were given an unlawful order to leave which violated the first amendment rights, then they were in fact arrested for protesting and in violation of their rights. The court will have to decide whether that was a lawful order because if it wasn’t then the lawsuit is exactly correct. The second point is then that they used excessive force even if the order to leave was lawful.
[quote]Again, I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this kind of suit is not likely to produce much money. Even if the university settled at the $1.3 million they did for title ix, you’re talking about little more than $50K per person. That’s really what you are going to base a lawsuit on? I don’t see that as a strong motivator.[/quote]
The case will make a lot of money for the lawyers…
Thanks for this piece David. Glad you got a chance to interview a few folks too. Just wondering if you have an estimate of the number of students who were arrested or pepper sprayed that day who have NOT joined this lawsuit. Are there any you are aware of? If there are some do you have an idea about how many? Thanks.
Hopefully this lawsuit will uncover some answers.
Students deserve to know why the use of pepper spray was necessary and allowed. And who made that decision.
“The case will make a lot of money for the lawyers… “
That’s a cynical statement that is a good deal unfair. The attorneys in this case are basically ACLU staff attorneys and Mark Merin, I don’t know the other non-ACLU attorney. What I do know if that Mark Merin is an absolute true believer who has taken up major cases in Sac and Yolo County and northern California and never gotten a dime for it. You don’t become an ACLU attorney to get rich, I don’t know exactly how it works over there, but they are certainly not going to get rich off of this.
everyone involved in this case is doing it because they believe in this. You may disagree with them and that’s fine, that’s certainly your right. But to imply anyone is doing this because of money or to get rich or will get rich is not true and unfair. You are not taking on Mr. Ireland’s case to get rich, you are doing it because you believe it is the right thing to do, so too do these guys.
vanguard: “You don’t become an ACLU attorney to get rich, I don’t know exactly how it works over there, but they are certainly not going to get rich off of this.”
if you don’t know how it works, then how do you know they aren’t getting rich? And even if they don’t get rich, Lawyers may take the case pro-bono but hardly for altruistic reasons….. there is a lot of prestige and quite the resume builder for taking high profile cases like this….
vanguard: But to imply anyone is doing this because of money or to get rich or will get rich is not true and unfair.
, you are doing it because you believe it is the right thing to do, so too do these guys.
wow, what naivete!
“let me be clear that those who are responsible should bear the costs”
I truly wish our entire society worked that way. A few examples of individuals I would like to see directly bear the costs of their actions:
1) Bush, Cheney, and any senator who voted to approve the war in Iraq get to pay for it themselves. Or better yet, commit their own children to a deployment.
2) Obama and his advisers get to pay back the taxpayer losses from Solyndra.
3) Romney gets to support those families whose livelihoods were destroyed by his ” creative destruction”.
Ok, you get the idea. I believe that we would live in a far better world if we held our leaders directly responsible for the destruction their policies cause. But I agree. It won’t ever happen.
“you mean retaliate against unlawful behavior”
Interesting. I always thought the role of the police was to protect,defend, and arrest when necessary. I never saw their role as to retaliate under any circumstances. I guess Lt.Pike was in agreement with the above interpretation of his role.
I would recommend to the university that they expel these students. They violated UC regulations and California law, sufficient reason to dismiss.
I also have advice for any future prospective employer that may google the names in this lawsuit. Think hard before hiring any of these individuals. They appear to be more interested in tearing things down then in building for the future.
This lawsuit will cost the university hundreds of thousands in legal fees which will be passed on to the students in higher fees… the very thing they claim to have been protesting in the first place.
Brilliant students.
Maybe they should finish their education first because it appears they need a few more math classes.
As do you apparently Jeff since you think that even if the university does pay hundreds of thousands in legal fees that that would produce any kind of noticeable impact on tuition given small overall impact on the university’s budget.
[i]”let me be clear that those who are responsible should bear the costs”
1) Bush, Cheney, and any senator who voted to approve the war in Iraq get to pay for it themselves. Or better yet, commit their own children to a deployment.
2) Obama and his advisers get to pay back the taxpayer losses from Solyndra.
3) Romney gets to support those families whose livelihoods were destroyed.[/i]
MW, you are so funny!
1.If we are going to do this, then let’s not forget billing the estates of FDR, JFK, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter and Clinton, Bush Senior for the same. However, related to your point… a decade or two from now, the entire world may very well owe Bush, Cheney and our wonderful US military for succeeding in seeding democracy into this violent medieval cesspool of violence called the Middle East, while simultaneously blaming Obama for failing to support Israel and allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and then send it all back into a medieval cesspool of violence.
2.Why stop there. Obama should be held responsible for the additional trillions in debt he heaped on us and our future generations.
3.For this one it is clear that you must have not paid attention in your business finance classes. The net impact of Bain’s work was to retain jobs that would have otherwise been lost as a result of crappy company management causing the business to fail. Unlike the public sector where employees keep their job no matter how poor is the performance of the organization they work for, private companies can and do actual fail and disappear. Too bad some private equity company didn’t find Borders a good bet to turn around.
Sure David, what a few more hundred thou when millions are wasted every year. It is this mindset that contributes to a culture of overspending.
Waste is in the eye of the beholder – it still comes down to a calculation as to whether or not the university has acted appropriately here – if you believe the university did wrong, then the additional pennies are worth their cost.
[quote]That’s a cynical statement that is a good deal unfair. The attorneys in this case are basically ACLU staff attorneys and Mark Merin, I don’t know the other non-ACLU attorney. What I do know if that Mark Merin is an absolute true believer who has taken up major cases in Sac and Yolo County and northern California and never gotten a dime for it. You don’t become an ACLU attorney to get rich, I don’t know exactly how it works over there, but they are certainly not going to get rich off of this.
everyone involved in this case is doing it because they believe in this. You may disagree with them and that’s fine, that’s certainly your right. But to imply anyone is doing this because of money or to get rich or will get rich is not true and unfair. You are not taking on Mr. Ireland’s case to get rich, you are doing it because you believe it is the right thing to do, so too do these guys.[/quote]
Wow, you are naive! Did the ACLU take this case pro bono? Or if UCD settles for something like $1.5 million, will the ACLU take a third to a half of that money as remuneration for their services? You are correct when you state you don’t know what the financial arrangement is. Most non-profits will take a case with the agreement if any money is to be paid, their legal fees must be reimbursed first and foremost, at either an hourly rate or on a contingency basis (percentage of the profits). You might want to check this out. My representation of a DACHA member and legal work on assisting with the DACHA dissolution was strictly pro bono – I will not get paid a dime for any of my efforts.
So you believe that the attorneys involved in this case are doing this primarily for the money rather than because they believe in the cause?
Jeff
You are absolutely correct. What I gave were only three examples. Do you not think that if people were truly accountable for their mistakes as they are enriched by their successes, they might be more judicious in their decision making? After all, I would think it more difficult to choose to gamble if it is your own wealth that is at stake as opposed to someone else’s livlihood. Do you not believe that there would be less overseas war if every leader knew that he or his own children would be expected to lead the invading force?
Mark Merin volunteered thousands of hours of his and his firm’s time to the gang injunction trial – do you believe he got a dime for that? He volunteered his time for the homeless people in Sacramento and shelter, do you think he got a dime for that? He volunteered his time for the Occupy Sacramento people, do you think he’ll get a dime for that? Mark Merin takes these cases because he believes in them and they are the right thing to do. Most of the ACLU attorneys operate the same way. i don’t know the financial arrangement here, but so what if they take some of the money either as an organization or as individuals – we all have to eat. But these guys are not like the ambulance chasing tort attorneys trying to suck everyone dry, they are not wealthy people. These guys are doing it because they believe in their cause.
Or would Obama be more for education vouchers if Malia and Natasha had to attend Washington DC public schools?
“It is this mindset that contributes to a culture of overspending.”
All this time, I thought it was the desired result of advertising designed to tap into our avaricious and jealous nature and generate a cultural sense of entitlement .
[quote]Mark Merin volunteered thousands of hours of his and his firm’s time to the gang injunction trial – do you believe he got a dime for that? He volunteered his time for the homeless people in Sacramento and shelter, do you think he got a dime for that? He volunteered his time for the Occupy Sacramento people, do you think he’ll get a dime for that? Mark Merin takes these cases because he believes in them and they are the right thing to do. Most of the ACLU attorneys operate the same way. i don’t know the financial arrangement here, but so what if they take some of the money either as an organization or as individuals – we all have to eat. But these guys are not like the ambulance chasing tort attorneys trying to suck everyone dry, they are not wealthy people. These guys are doing it because they believe in their cause.[/quote]
Find out what the payment arrangement is…
[i]”All this time, I thought it was the desired result of advertising designed to tap into our avaricious and jealous nature and generate a cultural sense of entitlement.”[/i]
Aw, comeon Biddlin, you know you want my vintage Les Paul Custom. We all like owning cool stuff. I don’t see this as a bad thing unless the cool stuff exceeds the capacity of the buyer/borrower to service the debt undertaken to acquire it.
So I spoke with Alan Schlosser one of the attorneys with ACLU about the issue of attorneys fees.
There is no contingency in this case, so the attorneys will not get a percentage of the awards. However, under civil rights law, the winners are entitled to attorneys fees. That would be part of the settlement as well. The ACLU staff attorneys are on salary and so their share of the attorneys fees would simply go to the ACLU. The volunteer attorneys Merin and Martin who are non-ACLU staff attorneys would get fees commensurate with their amount of work they put into it. These would be normal fees paid at whatever the decided hourly rate would be.
Hope that this settles that issue.
David: Did you ask for their hourly billing rate, and a budget estimate?
For example, 2000+ total billable hours at an average rate of $400 per hour would not be a surprise if the case goes to trial… and when the ACLU gets involved, they like it to go to trial.
Rusty49
I agree this is another example of the same kind of priviledge affected decision making. I would also like to end this portion of the discussion which I think I caused to go very far off topic.
Thanks for your tolerance, Don.
I did not ask them for that. You are correct that the ACLU likes to go to trial because having a trial court helps to change policy. In this case, I’m not sure if that is their aim. I’d be shocked if this goes to trial.
Of course DG didn’t ask the obvious question…remember his posture on what to write & when?
[quote] The volunteer attorneys Merin and Martin who are non-ACLU staff attorneys would get fees commensurate with their amount of work they put into it. These would be normal fees paid at whatever the decided hourly rate would be.
Hope that this settles that issue.[/quote]
It sure does. They are doing it for the money. It’s always the money with these people.
[quote]There is no contingency in this case, so the attorneys will not get a percentage of the awards. However, under civil rights law, the winners are entitled to attorneys fees. That would be part of the settlement as well. The ACLU staff attorneys are on salary and so their share of the attorneys fees would simply go to the ACLU. The volunteer attorneys Merin and Martin who are non-ACLU staff attorneys would get fees commensurate with their amount of work they put into it. These would be normal fees paid at whatever the decided hourly rate would be.
Hope that this settles that issue.[/quote]
Sure it settles the issue – the lawyers stand to make big bucks!
Wow Elaine and JR, I think your cynicism is really misplaced if you think the attorneys in this case are doing it for the money. For one thing, the ACLU lawyers do not stand to make anything on this case because the attorney fees do not even go to them. Mark Merin has taken on more high profile cases pro bono that he’ll never see a dime on than any attorney I can think of. These guys are not in it for money.
Will they take money if they can get it? Sure they have to live. The Vanguard has litigated a number of things over the years with a number of different attorneys. Each one volunteered their time to help. In a lot of these matters there was a possibility that they could get attorney fees, but for a variety of reasons that has not happened. I’d have loved for them to have gotten paid for their efforts, but that’s certainly not why they took the case, that would have been a bonus.