From The Guardian : White House warned on imminent Arctic ice death spiral.
Will the Arctic Sea be completely free of ice during the summer months by 2015 ? New NASA satellite imagery from March 2013 reveals massive cracks in ice connecting Beaufort Gyre region to Alaska.
A must read on NYC education & aristocracy >> @dianeravitch: The Cathie Black Emails wp.me/p2odLa-4Hw
— Occupy Wall Street (@OccupyWallStNYC) 3 de mayo de 2013Something is wrong when they don't bother with education experts and go straight to Oprah. gothamschools.org/2013/05/02/cat…
— nycdoenuts (@nycdoenuts) 3 de mayo de 2013Bloomberg administration reveals Cathie Black emails in response to @villagevoice public records requestm.nypost.com/p/news/local/c…
— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) 3 de mayo de 2013Cathleen P Black eMails - NYC Schools Chancellor - Village Voice public records request
Síguenos en Facebook : Latinos Unidos Contra Christine Quinn
Si eres latino y vives en la ciudad de Nueva York, te enfrentas a la discriminación todos los días. Aunque tengas documentaton, la policía usará "parar y registrar" en contra de usted. Desde se hizo Christine Quinn la Presidenta del Consejo Municpal, se ha habido 4 millones de casos de parar y registrar.
Ahora, Christine Quinn dice que no se debe presentar una demanda en los tribunales contra la policía por esta discriminación. Y cada año, Christine Quinn aprueba el presupuesto de la policía de Nueva York, que permite a la policía seguir haciendo "parar y registrar" en contra de los latinos.
Si a Christine Quinn no le importa que los latinos son discriminados por la policía, ¿ por qué los latinos deberían apoyar a Christine Quinn a la alcaldía ?
After requests for information went unanswered, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Justice as a follow-up to a blog post about the selective nature of the prosecution, among other issues, in the government's case against Lt. Choi.
2013-04-30 Lt Daniel Choi DOJ FOIA Request Louis Flores by Connaissable
My request is heavily patterned after a separate and unrelated request submitted by the ACLU. Let's see what we learn....
Here is the full text of the FOIA request :
30 April 2013
Department of Justice
EOUSA/FOIA/PA Staff
BICN Bldg.
600 E Street, N.W., Suite 7300
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Ladies and Gentlemen :
Re : REQUEST UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT/
Expedited Processing Requested
This letter constitutes a request (“Request”) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., the Department of Justice implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 16.1 et seq., the President’s Memorandum of January 21, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 4683 (Jan. 26, 2009), and the Attorney General’s Memorandum of March 19, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 49,892 (Sept. 29, 2009). I submit this Request as a blogger.
This Request seeks records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Daniel Choi (“Lt. Choi”). Lt. Choi was arrested on Nov. 15, 2010 on a public sidewalk adjacent to the White House, during a protest against the military’s former policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” On March 27, 2013, I submitted a request for information in an e-mail addressed to Angela George of the U.S. Attorney’s Office (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (“Original Request”) requesting various information and records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Choi. Other officers with the Department of Justice were also copied on this e-mail. I specifically mentioned in my Original Request that I requested answers to my questions, or, if there was another process, which I had to follow to submit an “official” request for information, I alternatively requested that I be informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of such process. The U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to this e-mail, so I sent a follow-up e-mail on April 10, 2013 (attached hereto as Exhibit B). The U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to this e-mail, so I forwarded the e-mail chain of my requests for information and records on April 16, 2013 to a general e-mail inbox for the Department of Justice (attached hereto as Exhibit C), to which I finally received an acknowledgement and further instruction dated April 17, 2013 (attached hereto as Exhibit D), which gives rise to this Request.
This Request seeks information and records pertaining to the nature and purpose of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s prosecution of Lt. Choi. Many activists question why the Department of Justice has sought to prioritise the prosecution of activists, such as the late Aaron Swartz and Lt. Choi. Are prosecutors being told to prosecute activists ? The nature of some of the prosecutions of activists have been portrayed in the press to be “rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.” See, e.g., Noam Cohen, A Data Crusader, a Defendant and Now, a Cause, N.Y. Times, Jan. 14, 2003, at A1. Given this prosecutorial tone, has there been any intention to express disrespect to Lt. Choi during the proceedings of the prosecution ? What explains why the U.S. Attorney’s Office refused to address Lt. Choi by his official military rank ? How aggressive were prosecutors instructed to pursue Lt. Choi ? What have been the cumulative costs of the prosecution of Lt. Choi ?
In several press reports, the Department of Justice was portrayed to be engaged in a “vindictive prosecution” against Lt. Choi. See, e.g., Scott Wooledge, Updated: Judge Allows Lt Dan Choi’s “vindictive prosecution” Defense, Daily Kos, (Aug. 31, 2011), http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/31/1012290/-Updated-Judge-Allows-Lt-Dan-Choi-s-vindictive-prosecution-Defense#. And then, before the nature and purpose of the selective prosecution of Lt. Choi could become public information, prosecutors quashed the effort to expose the selective prosecution. See Lou Chibbaro Jr., Judge rules against Choi in ‘vindictive’ prosecution claim, Washington Blade (Oct. 17, 2011), http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/10/17/judge-rules-against-choi-in-‘vindictive’-prosecution-claim/.
Further reports suggest prosecutorial overreach or vindictive prosecution is not limited to the late Mr. Swartz or to Lt. Choi. The scope of other prosecutions, namely, the prosecution of PFC Bradley Manning, could lead to treating all whistleblowers as traitors. This treatment has been described as “extraordinary prosecutorial overkill.” See Amy Goodman & Glenn Greenwald, Glenn Greenwald on Bradley Manning: Prosecutor Overreach Could Turn All Whistleblowing into Treason, Democracy Now (March 5, 2013), http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/5/glenn_greenwald_on_bradley_manning_prosecutor.
Despite these publicized concerns, the Department of Justice remains silent about its intentions with respect of its prosecution of activists. Indeed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to my Original Request. It is unclear why federal prosecutors are persecuting activists. The public has little information about the internal accountability mechanisms by which laws and rules govern the targeted prosecutions of activists. Nor does the public have any information about how the Department of Justice balances First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists against the charges that the Department of Justice brings against activists. Without this information, the public is unable to make an informed judgment about the Department of Justice’s targeted prosecutions of activists. I make the following requests for information in hopes of filling that void.
I. Requested Records
1. All records and information pertaining to the legal basis of prosecuting activists, who engage in protests, including, but not limited, to records and information regarding :
A. what kind of activists may be targeted for prosecution, how many activists have been targeted for prosecution, what are the names of such activists, and which Department of Justice officials approved of such prosecution of activists ;
B. whether the nature and purpose of prosecution of activists may be aggressive, selective, or involve overreach, and which Department of Justice officials approve of such nature and purpose of prosecution of activists ;
C. limits, rules, procedures, or other guidelines that must or should be taken into consideration before, during, and after the prosecution of activists to mimimise the interference with First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists ;
D. consideration of other circumstances, conditions, and restrictions that form any part of the decision to target activists for prosecution ; and, if such considerations exist, under what circumstances, under what conditions, and subject to what restrictions ;
E. any and all agency, executive, judicial, or congressional reports, memoranda, records, and information, which provide any description of the process for the determination as to whether activists can be targeted for prosecution ; and
F. whether agencies other than the Department of Justice may target activists for prosecution, and, if so, under what circumstances, under what conditions, and subject to what restrictions ; and which agency officials approve of such prosecution of activists.
2. All records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the legal basis for the arrest and/or prosecution of Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to, records and information regarding :
A. whether the prosecution of Lt. Choi was part of any Department of Justice’s process to target activists ; and
B. the limits of the Department of Justice’s prosecution to mimimise the interference with First Amendment, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of Lt. Choi.
3. All records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the legal basis for the Department of Justice or U.S. Attorney’s Office to fail to refer to Lt. Choi by his military rank, in accordance with Army Regulation 670-1.
4. The total cost of the prosecution of Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to :
A. any and all records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the cost of arresting and/or prosecuting Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to, records and information regarding :
a. any and all agency, executive, judicial, or congressional reports, memoranda, records, and information, which indicate, calculate, or analyze the budged and actual cost of the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;
b. any and all records of the cost of staff costs, staff benefits, travel, transcripts, accommodations, meals, non-attorney investigation costs, research costs, other investigation costs, and all other costs on the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;
c. any and all records of the costs of fact and expert witnesses in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;
d. any and all records of assistance provided by other law enforcement agencies in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi ; and
e. any and all records of hours worked, paid or unpaid overtime hours, and other information about personnel hours worked in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi.
II. Application For Expedited Processing
I request expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) ; 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c). There is a “compelling need” for these records, because the information requested is urgently needed in order to be disseminated to inform the public about actual or alleged Federal Government activity. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v) ; see also 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c)(2).
In addition, the records sought relate to a “breaking news story of general public interest.” 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2)(i) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii)(A) ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv) (providing for expedited processing in relation to a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence”).
As a blogger, I am “primarily engaged in disseminating information” within the meaning of the statue and regulations. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) ; 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c)(2). Dissemination of information to the public is a critical and substantial component of my mission and work. See, e.g., Jonathan Lemire, Christine Quinn detractors use social media in effort to quash her mayoral run, N.Y. Daily News (April 14, 2013), http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/online-effort-quash-christine-quinn-mayoral-aspirations-article-1.1316224 ; Jill Colvin, Christine Quinn Foes Prepare Campaign to Spoil Her Mayoral Hopes, DNAinfo (Jan. 9, 2013), http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130109/new-york-city/christine-quinn-foes-prepare-campaign-spoil-her-mayoral-hopes. I publish several blogs, produce YouTube videos, and manage several Twitter feeds. Such material is widely available to everyone. This Request originated from questions posted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, so that I could update this specific blog post : http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html.
The records and information sought directly relate to a breaking news story of general public interest that concerns actual or alleged Federal Government activist ; specifically, the records and information sought relate to the U.S. Government’s prosecution of activists. The records and information sought will help determine what is the government’s asserted legal basis for these targeted prosecutions, whether it conflicts with the First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights, how many activists have been prosecuted, and other matters that are essential in order for the public to make an informed judgment about the advisability of this tactic and the lawfulness of the government’s conduct. For these reasons, the records and information sought relate to a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv).
There have been news reports about the prosecution of activists that imposes restrictions, burdens, and interferences with First Amendment, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists. After HIV/AIDS activists were arrested during a peaceful protest in Washington, DC, the U.S. Attorney’s Office demanded the drug-testing of activists, who were charged with nonviolent crimes, such as civil disobedience. The U.S. Attorney’s Office demand for drug-testing of HIV/AIDS activists was fraught with complications, because the activists may have had a prescription for medical marijuana or may have had prescriptions for other medications, which perhaps would have resulted in a false positive. See Trenton Straube, U.S. Attorney Requires Drug Tests for AIDS Protesters, POZ (Feb. 2012), http://www.poz.com/articles/DC_HIV_Marijuana_401_21944.shtml ; Martin Austermuhle, AIDS Activist Faces Trial After Use of Medical Marijuana Sinks Hopes for Dismissal of Charges, dcist (Feb. 9, 2012), http://dcist.com/2012/02/aids_activist_faces_trial_after_usi.php.
These news stories and investigative reports have also suggested that the prosecution of activists was unfair. These HIV/AIDS activists chained themselves together inside the office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to protest, among other issues, cuts to HIV/AIDS programs. They were arrested on federal charges. On the same day as the HIV/AIDS activists were arrested, 41 D.C. voting rights activists, including Mayor Vincent Gray, were arrested on Capitol Hill. The voting rights activists were charged with misdemeanors by the D.C. attorney general. Most, including the mayor, paid a $50 fine. What explains why the U.S. Attorney’s Office was treating HIV/AIDS activists differently ? See Arin Greenwood, HIV/AIDS Activists Complain Of Unfair Treatment By U.S. Attorney's Office, Huffington Post (Feb. 8, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/aids-activists-protest_n_1263144.html ; Brianne Carter, D.C. mayor Vincent Gray, councilmembers arrested : Protesters plead not guilty, WJLA (May 5, 2011), http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/05/d-c-mayor-vincent-gray-councilmembers-arrested-protesters-to-appear-in-court--60103.html ; Debbie Siegelbaum, AIDS activists allege discriminatory treatment following Capitol arrest, The Hill (Feb. 8, 2011), http://thehill.com/homenews/house/209485-aids-activists-allege-discriminatory-treatment-after-capitol-protest-arrest.
Further news reports have caused concern that the prosecution of activists is influenced with political overtones. During his tenure as a U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald targeted 23 activists, who were widely described as critics of U.S. foreign policy. See Peter Wallsten, Activists cry foul over FBI probe, The Washington Post (June 13, 2011), http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-13/politics/35235946_1_activists-cry-stephanie-weiner-targets ; Kevin Gosztola, FBI Continues to Target Activists in Chicago and Minneapolis (VIDEO), Firedoglake (Dec. 9, 2010), http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2010/12/09/fbi-continues-to-target-activists-in-chicago-and-minneapolis/ ; Josh Gerstein, After 1 year, FBI returns property to Minnesota anti-war activists, Politico (Nov. 3, 2011), http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1111/FBI_returns_property_to_Minnesota_antiwar_activists.html.
The activist community and the public-at-large are unable to determine the nature and purpose of the prosecution of activists, because there is a lack of reliable information about the reasons the Department of Justice is prosecuting activists. Indeed, even Congress is left in the dark about the motivations behind the prosecution of activists. See, e.g., Kim Zetter, Congress Demands Justice Department Explain Aaron Swartz Prosecution, Wired (Jan. 29, 2013), http://www.wired.com/ threatlevel/2013/01/doj-briefing-on-aaron-swartz/ ; Marcy Wheeler, Aaron Swartz reveals the hypocrisy of our Justice Department, Salon (Jan. 15, 2013), http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/aaron_swartz_reveals_the_hypocrisy_of_our_ justice_department/. And in respect of Lt. Choi, a magistrate judge had found that was indication that the Department of Justice was singling out Lt. Choi for “vindictively prosecution.” See John Aravosis, Judge finds prima facie evidence that US government may have “vindictively prosecuted” Dan Choi, AMERICAblog (Aug. 31, 2011), http://americablog.com/2011/08/judge-finds-prima-facie-evidence-that-us-government-may-have-vindictively-prosecuted-dan-choi.html ; Scott Wooledge, Updated: Judge Allows Lt Dan Choi’s “vindictive prosecution” Defense, Daily Kos (Aug. 31, 2011),http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/31/1012290/-Updated-Judge-Allows-Lt-Dan-Choi-s-vindictive-prosecution-Defense# ; and Chris Geidner, Government Files Motion to Stop "Vindictive Prosecution" Defense in Choi Trial, Metro Weekley (Sept. 16, 2011), http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/09/government-filed-motion-to-sto.html.
III. Application for Waiver or Limitation of Fees
I request a waiver of search, review, and duplication fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest, because it “is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.17(a) ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k)(1) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(b)(2).
As discussed above, numerous news accounts reflect the considerable public interest in the requested records and information. Given the ongoing and widespread media attention to this issue, the records and information sought in the instant Request will significantly contribute to public understanding of the operations and activities of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office with regard to the targeting of activists for prosecution. See 22 C.F.R. 171.17(a)(1) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k)(1)(i) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(b)(2). Moreover, disclosure is not in the ACLU’s commercial interest. Any information disclosed by me as a result of this Request will be available to the public at no cost. Thus, a fee waiver would fulfill Congress’s legislative intent in amending FOIA. See Judicial Watch Inc. v. Rossitti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“Congress amended FOIA to ensure that it be ‘liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters.’” (citation omitted)) ; OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524, § 2 (Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act,” but that “in practice, the Freedom of Information Act has not always lived up to the ideals of that Act”).
I also request a waiver of search and review fees on the grounds that I qualify as a “representative of the news media,” and the records and information are not sought for commercial use. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(d). Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of the Request should be “limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II) ; see also 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(e)(7) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(i)(2) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.15(c) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(d) (search and review fees shall not be charged to “representatives of the news media”).
I meet the statutory and regulatory definitions of a “representative of the news media” because I function as an “entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii).
* * *
Pursuant to applicable statute and regulations, I expect determination regarding expediting processing within 10 calendar days. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.12(b) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(4) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.21(d).
If the Request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions to FOIA. We expect the release of all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. We reserve the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please furnish all applicable records to :
Louis Flores
()
New York, NY 10011
I affirm that the information provided supporting the request for expedited processing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Sincerely,
The lobbyist Emily Giske, right, has been paid handsomely by owners of taxi medallions for blocking proposed taxi regulations, such as requiring taxis to pick up fares in the outer boroughs. Now comes word that Ms. Giske, who enjoys what some political observers describe as a warm and cozy relationship with New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, second from left, has been able to block through Speaker Quinn's efforts any attempt to increase the availability of taxis, which are compliant or accessible in accordance with the Americans With Disability Act, or ADA.
Because of her connection to lobbyist Emily Giske, @chriscquinn has blocked efforts to make taxis #ADA compliant online.wsj.com/article/SB1000…
— Stop Christine Quinn (@stopchrisquinn) May 1, 2013
Speaker Quinn Uses Bloomberg Events To Fluff Campaign, Turns Back On Bloomberg-NYPD Discrimination Against LGBT Community
Christine Quinn's mayoral campaign is increasingly seen as desperate, since her poll numbers are beginning to fall, now that more and more voters are tuning into her dismal political record -- and to her close relationship with the unpopular mayor, Michael Bloomberg.
So, the minute that activists started running campaign TV commercials about hospital closings, all of a sudden politicians actually start saving hospitals ?
Hmmmmmmm ... ?
SUNY withdraws closure plan for LICH. Read full press release on our blog cobblehillassociation.blogspot.com/2013/04/suny-w… @brooklyncb6 @cobblehill_blog #saveLICH
— Cobble Hill Assoc (@CobbleHillAssoc) April 26, 2013
New ad blasts @chriscquinn for role in closing of #StVincentsHospital youtu.be/J3b4ZaU1nI0 @chrischristineq @herdizzoner @iamdeputymayor
— Stop Christine Quinn (@stopchrisquinn) April 24, 2013
But pressure on @nygovcuomo won't ever produce results, if electeds only start petitions. youtube.com/watch?v=EI-gLP…
— StopNYMRT (@StopNYMRT) March 29, 2013
Patients would never vote to close 10 NYC hospitals. Yet, since 2006, that is what Stephen Berger has done with political enabler help.
— StopNYMRT (@StopNYMRT) April 26, 2013
Oft-repeated refrain at #strikedebt rally at St. Vincent's was that 10 hospitals have closed in NYC since 2006 thevillager.com/2013/03/28/occ… #Gov1%
— StopNYMRT (@StopNYMRT) March 28, 2013
The latest ad by New York City is Not for Sale 2013 blames Christine Quinn for her role in St. Vincent’s Hospital closure.
A group of citizen activists has previewed an advance look at a new TV advertisement that blames New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn for the closing of St. Vincent's Hospital.
The TV ad, released by the group known as NYC Is Not For Sale 2013, exposes how there has been an appearance of a quid-pro-quo between Speaker Quinn and Rudin Management Company, the real estate developer, which foreclosed on St. Vincent's Hospital. Members of the Rudin family, who own the billion-dollar Rudin Management Company enterprise, donated $30,000 to Speaker Quinn, who conveniently later supported a zoning change that paved the way for the Greenwich Village hospital to close.
Read more : SEE IT: New ad blasts Christine Quinn for role in closing of St. Vincent’s Hospital
In exchange for $30,000 in campaign donations, did New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn sell out her community ?
Do the political campaign donations by Beth R. DeWoody, Madeleine R. Johnson, Eric C. Rudin, Jack Rudin, Katherine Rudin, and William C. Rudin, who each donated $4,950 to Christine Quinn's presumed 2013 mayoral campaign, amount to influence peddling ? After all, since even before St. Vincent's Hospital closed, Speaker Quinn has been toeing the Rudin family line : close down St. Vincent's and replace it with an inferior urgent care center.
Not only did Speaker Quinn say that we only needed an urgent care center to replace St. Vincent's, but she approved the Rudin family's plan, allowing St. Vincent's Hospital to be rezoned into luxury condos. Since 2010, the Rudin family has been trying to get approval for a billion-dollar real estate development plan for the buildings that belong to the bankruptcy estate of St. Vincent's Hospital. Since the Rudin family wants to build luxury high-rise condos on the site of St. Vincent's, and since they needed City Council approval from Speaker Quinn, do these large campaign donations explain why Speaker Quinn did nothing to restore a Level I trauma center and full-service hospital to the former St. Vincent's site ? Does Speaker Quinn's official acts come as a result of sizable campaign donations from the likes of the Rudin family ?
To Preet Bharara : Do @chriscquinn's official acts come as a result of campaign donations ? christine-quinn-sold-out.blogspot.com/2011/02/rudin-… #StVincentsHospital
— Stop Christine Quinn (@stopchrisquinn) April 4, 2013
Bloomberg Lip Service On Immigrant Celebrations
Last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's media office issued PR-135-13, his press release to kick-off the tenth annual "Immigrant Heritage Week Celebration." The press release also announced that Mayor Bloomberg would present his "American Dreamer Awards" to New Yorkers, who are "improving the lives of immigrants." Declared an official, annual celebration by Mayor Bloomberg, the Immigrant Heritage Week Celebration purports to honor the experiences and contributions of immigrants in New York City.
Too bad that Mayor Bloomberg won't ever receive one of those "American Dreamer Awards," given how he likes to profile, target, and illegally stop and frisk immigrants in New York City.
Nobody needs to look any further than Mayor Bloomberg's remarks from today.
"In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will 'have to change' to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks," reported Jill Colvin for Politicker.
In Mayor Bloomberg's mind, paying lip service by press release for the Immigrant Heritage Week Celebration and the American Dreamer Awards is political cover for targeting the immigrant community for terrorism scapegoating.
The Community Outreach Unit of the New York City Council, a taxpayer-financed office that has organized rallies to protect student subway discounts and sponsored adult education fairs, frequently functions as something else as well: a publicity and public relations machine for Christine C. Quinn. Read more : City Council’s Outreach Unit, Run by Quinn, Mainly Benefits Her Campaign
@uft - @quinn4ny uses Council's 16 person "Community Outreach Unit" as her private campaign staff nyti.ms/Yyq8Ps @mjalonschi
— Defeat Chris Quinn (@defeatquinn) April 19, 2013
The New York Times described the Community Outreach Unit, a taxpayer-financed group of many political operatives, as almost entirely focused on propping up Speaker Quinn's political image, which would benefit her mayoral campaign.
"Inside the community outreach office recently, there was a photograph of Ms. Quinn handing a plaque to Whoopi Goldberg. Below, a dry erase board bore reminders about two coming events the group helped organize: a breakfast for women of faith and a celebration of Irish culture. Ms. Quinn was the featured speaker at both. At the Irish event, the unit’s workers escorted to their seats prominent Irish-American families, including relatives of Thomas Manton, the former chairman of the Queens Democratic Party, whose backing was crucial to Ms. Quinn’s election as speaker," The New York Times reported.
This isn't the first time Speaker Quinn has been accused of using taxpayer money for her campaign.
A former deputy chief of staff to Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn who recently served as a top aide to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s re-election effort has been fined for violating city law by soliciting campaign contributions for Ms. Quinn while working for her.
In announcing the sanction on Monday, the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board said in a statement that around April 2007, the former aide, Maura Keaney, made between six and a dozen phone calls to union representatives to ask them to be on the host committee for a fund-raising event for Ms. Quinn’s re-election bid. The ethics board, which fined Ms. Keaney $2,500, noted that serving on the host committee required a campaign contribution. (NYTimes : Ethics Panel Fines Ex-Aide to Speaker)
Does Outreach do fundraising ? Remember Maura Keaney ? @suzannahbtroy @nyccouncil @chriscquinn @defeatquinn @dumpchrisquinn @colvinj
— Stop Christine Quinn (@stopchrisquinn) April 19, 2013
Moreover, the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, a nonprofit group, which has publicly supported Speaker Quinn's campaign platform for several years, requested $100,000 in City Council slush funds for each of the past three years to advocate for Speaker Quinn. By admission of the office of Speaker Quinn, these funds were granted by Speaker Quinn. (WSJ : City Grants Aids Quinn Campaign)
Wolfgang Busch publishes remarkable video on YouTube, showing how the Ballroom Community was exploited by Jennie Livingston's documentary, ''Paris Is Burning.''
GMHC has chosen to associate itself with Jennie Livingston and her exploitative documentary, ''Paris Is Burning,'' even though that film sensationalizes members of the Ballroom community. Not only that, but when Ms. Livingston's documentary was in production, she took advantage of many individuals, the Ballroom community alleges.
Despite these sensitivities, it is unknown why GMHC supports ''Paris Is Burning.''
Additionally, each year, GMHC sponsors the Latex Ball, which also exploits the Ballroom community. After years of exploitation and insensitivity, the Ballroom community has called for a boycott of the Latex Ball, as a way to give GMHC a wake-up call.
After a series of videos, Wolfgang Busch, a documentary filmmaker and supporter of the Ballroom community, has released this latest video, which is altering public opinion about GMHC.
Several activists stood outside the Jewish Center in Jackson Heights tonight, to protest Christine Quinn's dismal record on LGBT equality, NYPD discrimination, and restrictions on the use of birth control.
Tonight's protest, which had been announced well in advance, was a success, activists said, because Christine Quinn cancelled her appearance at this forum.
Tonight's mayoral forum was sponsored by the New Visions Democratic Club, by the Lesbian Gay Democratic Club of Queens, and by City Councilmember Daniel Dromm.
Activists distributed over 300 flyers outside of tonight's mayoral forum. In their interaction with passers-by and with the attendees at tonight's mayoral form, activists often mentioned how Christine Quinn was primarily responsible for extending term limits to allow Mayor Michael Bloomberg to steal a third term, how Christine Quinn's use of slush funds creates a culture of corruption in City Hall, and how Christine Quinn has failed to hold the NYPD accountable for discriminating against innocent New Yorkers.
LGBT activists question why Christine Quinn, who is the highest elected openly LGBT politician in New York City politics, does not stand up to the NYPD. The NYPD have demonstrated a pattern of discriminating and falsely arresting innocent LGBT New Yorkers if they carry condoms. Police claim that if LGBT New Yorkers carry condoms, then the condoms are evidence that LGBT New Yorkers are engaged in prostitution.
Protest against @chriscquinn's inaction against NYPD condom criminalization today at 6:30 pm facebook.com/events/1650544… twitter.com/stopchrisquinn…
— Stop Christine Quinn (@stopchrisquinn) April 11, 2013
Activists displayed a banner, which portrayed a condom locked in a handcuff to represent how NYPD are trying to crack down on safe sex practices -- forcing us to return to backward Victorian times.
How can Christine Quinn support this kind of crackdown on the use of prophylactics, if the fact that prophylactics and birth control because legal in 1965 only after decades of attempts by Planned Parenthood to make it legal for people to use contraception.
But that's not all. The NYPD policy on stop-and-frisk also deliberately targets transgenders ; meanwhile, Christine Quinn does not hold the NYPD for discriminating against the LGBT community. The stop-and-frisk program discriminates, and, as a consequence, the City of New York ends up paying hundreds of millions in damages for violating the civil rights of innocent New Yorkers.
#NY’s Stop-and-Frisk #Election: In 2011 alone, #NYC paid out over $180 million in lawsuits against the #NYPDbit.ly/Zc7YX3
— BQ Brew (@BQBrew) April 11, 2013
Here is one of the flyers, which activists distributed tonight :
2013-04-11 Christine Quinn Stop and Frisk Condom Flyer
What a disgrace for the NYPD to menace the LGBT community like this. In an article in The New York Times last week-end, it was notable that no LGBT leader in this city was quoted here to denounce the institutional discrimination by the NYPD of LGBT New Yorkers. Most notable was the absence or silence by Christine Quinn, the highest elected LGBT official in New York City politics. She is somebody, who has a sensibility of what it means to be treated different because of her identity as a woman and as a lesbian. And yet she has said nothing about how the NYPD treats others in the LGBT community solely based on their identity. And in all the articles about how stop-and-frisk is used by the NYPD against communities of color and other minority groups, there has remained a radio silence about how a municipality can discriminate against people in public spaces based on sex, race, and other factors that are expressly prohibited by the Civil Rights Act. When were municipalities given the option of not enforcing the Civil Rights Act ? And how can the NYPD deliberately violate Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case that legalised the use of contraceptives in the United States ? When did carrying contraception or prophylactics become a criminal behaviour ? How can this be ?
One day after New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver defended his speakership from the spectacular corruption scandal arrests of last week, the blogger and artist Suzannah B. Troy confronted the Assembly Speaker on Centre Street in Manhattan.
Ms. Troy asked Speaker Silver for comment about the corruption up in Albany. When Speaker Silver said nothing, Ms. Troy asked Speaker Silver, "Are you part of the corruption ?"
