#SlutWalk #NOLA #OCAM

Save Markey Park Letter Presented at NORDC March 28 Meeting

Below is the letter presented to the NORDC Facilities Subcommittee at the March 28, 2013 meeting. Vic Richards was not in attendance. 

My name is Rhonda Findley and I would like to extend a thank you for your time today as I present a statement on behalf of the Save Markey Park group comprised of close to 500 residents in favor of an inclusive park design. A design which was originally agreed to through 18 months of neighborhood engagement –  that would include an area for children, an appropriate green space for leisure and a fenced off-leash dog area, of which the latter was pulled from the final design. In support of this statement, I am presenting to you an education packet that clearly demonstrates this process. To familiarize you with the Save Markey Park group – we are business owners, homeowners, parents with children, grandparents with grandchildren, lawyers, nurses, musicians, teachers, artists etc. Productive members of this city we represent a diverse overlay of the community. This has touched not only the immediate neighborhood but far beyond the Bywater proper, from all economic backgrounds young and old and. For example, at the sign-making event last month many of our children voiced their concern through drawings, that their companion animals will not be able to play and exercise in their park.
 As citizens it is fair to say we all agree that the mission for the redevelopment of a non-programmed NORD park such as Mickey Markey Park be formed around a design of an inclusive park reflecting the diversity of this area. It would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood, City, or the benefactors, in particular the Trust For Public Lands and their generosity that Mickey Markey Park fall into the same decay it experienced when City of New Orleans and NORD budget constraints left the park abandoned in disrepair.  It was in this state when many neighbors with dogs “reclaimed it”, unofficially, as a community dog park.
Immediately after Katrina members of this same group, under the guidance of NORD, officially formed as the Markey Park Booster Club and not only paid for the maintenance of the park but also wrote the grant that commissioned the Allstate Foundation to build the children’s play area that exists there now. Adding fencing that separated children from dogs and allowed a green space for relaxation.
 All of us agree that we want the park to consist of responsible park users.
Across the country research has identified dog owners to not only be the most responsible park user group but in addition, at 365 days a year, they are also the group who uses the park more than any other park user group.  Rain or shine, dog owners serve as a powerful neighbor watch group discouraging less than desirable elements. Dog park users also serve as steady patrons of the many local businesses that surround their park. We are all aware that designated off-leash dog areas are a national trend and have been so successful across the country that many cities now include fenced in dog areas in their park planning to guarantee a successful park. They serve as an asset both communally and financially to their neighborhoods. Last year, Mr Vic Richard, our NORD leader himself acknowledged that,“Society has changed and the way we do business and interact with one another, including pets, has changed. We need to get out in front. We understand we were behind the curve, and we also understand that we have the opportunity to get this right.”  As a point of interest, Philadelphia Parks and Recreation, where Mr. Vic Richard worked prior to returning to NORD, now has 15 successful off-leash dog parks. Twenty years ago NYC had the very same problem we face today and to offset cost the commissioner agreed to allow a first time fenced in designated off-leash area in a park in the East Village on the condition that the dog owners pay for its’ maintenance. That park became so successful that as of now there are 55 vibrant dog parks in that city because they make good business sense. Ironically incorporating a fenced in off-leash dog area provides and ensures more safe usable space for all non-dog responsible park users.
 Three surveys taken of the residents of the Bywater reflect that the majority of citizens in the neighborhood desired to include a portion of the park to be fenced in for an off-leash dog area.   We all engaged in the process of this issue respectfully and proactively. The people of this community showed up at all meetings and discussions, contributed input, and were happy to compromise for a small portion of the park believing there is room for everybody at Mickey Markey Park. As Mr. Vince Smith pointed out in the Times Picayune, when interviewed on the possibility of including a small carved out area for dogs in a park where there’s room, it is a “win-win process”. To reflect the desire of the community, Trust for Public Land drew up 3 plans that included a small fenced in off-leash dog area in each. Something the Trust for Public Lands has been doing all over the country. They even offered to draw up another plan that didn’t include said area but could easily incorporate one at the last minute. We were all excited about the possibility of this serving as a progressive and positive model for the other NORDC facilities facing similar problems.
 So what happened???? Is it really possible that a letter denouncing this inclusion of a fenced in area for off-leash dogs, influenced the final decision??A letter that was written by a small group of the BNA who were simply afraid of the $200,000 not going through if they pushed for what their neighborhood wanted and asked for and whose community they have now inflamed??   This is an issue that is not going to go away but simply become compounded as there are more and responsible dog owners who contribute to this vibrant community. Note the recent article in the Gambit “Pet Issue” reporting on the increase in doggie daycares and pet boutiques. In regards to the Riverfront dog area, we the “Save Markey Park” group, appreciate the intentions of this proposal however, as detailed in our education packet, this would not serve as a feasible solution. Among some of the serious concerns to this area are its physical challenges to the elderly and disabled dog owners in the neighborhood as well as its lack of visibility and its isolation from the street making it an obvious invitation to crime on the edge of the neighborhood. Additionally, as the neighborhood association, BNA, of which I am a member as well as many others from the Save Markey Park group, signed a MOU – memorandum of understanding to be fully financially and physically responsible for the continued maintenance of Mickey Markey Park – it is therefore imperative the park offer the most diversity in use as the City will contribute minimally to the fiscal obligations of park maintenance – shouldn’t it go without saying, “if we have to pay for it it should be overall an inclusive design that gives the neighborhood the best shot at raising money across the board by appealing to a diverse population?” Your constituents sincerely hope that as more information comes to light that you as leaders of this city might see that you were missing a piece of this puzzle. You engaged. We responded. But to then disregard the needs and input of the people you engaged seems a blow to the citizens of New Orleans making the process less than transparent. Save Markey Park is ready to meet immediately and re-engage to come to a quick solution through the leadership of this committee. Your leadership can easily avail a simple solution with a small amount of fencing. It’s not too late. Perhaps through an “Order of Change”-used by the city when additions or adjustments to projects become necessary, a few well placed fences can mend a whole lot of fences. We are ready to meet.With respect. 

Swedish Articles About Sweden's Espionage Laws

I am quoting two entire articles here because it is very important but is published in Swedish, and I know some people might not know how to translate it.Sweden's argument that Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the US for espionage charges demands attention. 

The article "War Journalism needs to be free" appeared on March 10 here: http://www.expressen.se/debatt/krigsjournalistik-maste-fa-vara-fri/

Should it be prohibited to disclose information about abuse and mistakes that occur in the context of international military operations in which Sweden participates? Should it be a crime to publish information about secret prisons, torture, and the consequences for the civilian population, for example in Afghanistan?

The questions appear on reading the Espionage and other illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95).

Government investigators want to introduce two new offenses, foreign espionage and aggravated espionage abroad. As the specimen was Counsellor Ella Nystrom spent the provisions of espionage against Sweden. 

The provisions relating to foreign intelligence would be applicable in international military operations such as ISAF in Afghanistan and KFOR in Kosovo. It plays unlike spying not matter if we are formally at war or not. 

Just as in the case of espionage directed specifically against Sweden breaks the constitution regulated protection for whistleblowers in foreign espionage. But beyond the restriction of informant protection is also suggested that the so-called crimes directory of TF expression constitutions and YGL expanded.
It will be a crime to go to a foreign power or organization, as "warlords in Afghanistan", provided by publishing information the "revelation" can cause "serious harm" for a military operation in which Sweden participates. But even in cases where the purpose is to build opinion against or engage in news reporting about an operation shall be an offense to publish a statement "concerning any fact of a secret nature."

Obviously, it means a "serious but" if the information may risk soldiers' lives are in circulation, such as elective surgery and armament. Such data deserves strong protection but probably already covered by a qualified confidentiality.

But the publication of a task " means that the operation is weakened, for example by a participant ... can only attend to a lesser degree " is under investigation constitute a serious but. This also applies to things that are not directly related to the operation, such as " information of a more general and political nature, such as concerns national peer relationships or future cooperation " . However, it should be possible to publish information that leads to a "limited undermining" of the operation.But what is meant by "limited" is not clear.

Inquiry balance between the interest in protecting military operations and to critically examine the stakes are superficial. Any discussion of how the proposal would affect the news agency and public opinion are not made. The investigator is content frankly to explain that the proposal will have "negative impacts" of expression and freedom of information, but may be considered acceptable.
The investigation took lightly speech interest is also reflected in several other ways.

According to the report "it is difficult to assess the practical need" of new press and speech crimes. The need would usually be given a decisive role in the introduction of rules especially if they affect fundamental rights. The inquiry has not even made an attempt to estimate demand.

According to the report, it is "not unlikely that a foreign power or organization" could use constitutional protection to overcome the "information covered by the proposed criminalization". The reasoning is incomprehensible in terms of the introduction of new speech crimes.

The investigation has not nearly been considering whether it might be enough to expand and possibly tighten the confidentiality of certain information in order to achieve the same goals as the introduction of the crime of international espionage with their penalties.

The study appearing and seeking legitimacy for their proposals by writing that the "consultation with the Committee of Freedom of Speech." Any documented consultation in the sense that Freedom Committee had to give their views on the Committee's proposal has not happened.

The investigation does not affect the expansion of Sweden's obligation to provide legal assistance to other countries resulting from the proposal. With the new offenses, other countries have the right to expect that Swedish authorities including after graduate and holding interviews with informants in Sweden, which has provided information about the other country units and soldiers' conduct in an international military intervention.The question of what impact the proposal will have on the possibility of using coercive measures, such as phone tapping and covert raid against editors, are not affected. 
The Committee's proposals represent a danger to an Examining war and foreign reporting. Such journalism requires sometimes that even information that could constitute "serious harm" for the operation or future cooperation dragged into the light. 
NILS Funckeis a freelance journalist and press freedom expert. He is a former secretary of Yttrandefrihetskommitén-chief of the Riksdag & Departement.AD:

February 6, 2013

ENHANCED CRIMINAL LAW PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE http://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Nyhetsarkiv/2013/Februari/Forstarkt-straffrattsligt-skydd-mot-spioneri/

Two new offenses introduced in the Penal Code.The study on enhanced protection against foreign enemy intelligence surrender today February 6th report of espionage and other illegal activities (SOU 2012:95) to the Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask.The study, which had a Supreme Court Justice Ella Nystrom as special investigators, suggest two new offenses introduced in chapter 19 of the Penal Code. One can be described foreign espionage and involves a strengthened judicial protection of data about conditions of an international military operation in which Sweden participates. This is because Sweden increased participation in international security and defense cooperation.The second offense is classified illegal intelligence against Sweden and directed the activities aimed at overcoming data concerning conditions where it damages the Swedish security of a foreign power feel to them.The proposal is intended to increase the opportunities to intervene earlier to prevent damage.The report proposes certain amendments to the Freedom of Press Act and the Fundamental. This is justified by changes in the Penal Code which, among other things, that foreign spying will be a press offenses.The amendments will come into force on 1 July 2014 and the constitutional amendments on 1 January 2015.SOU 2012:95 

 

#NOLA #Bunarchy

#WayOfJustice March #NOLA #OCAM

#WayOfJustice March #NOLA #OCAM

#WayOfJustice March #NOLA #OCAM

#WayOfJustice March #NOLA #OCAM

Markey Park and The Army Corps of Engineers?

After hearing from NORDC today at a meeting in City Hall that the Trust for Public Land will not spend money developing Markey Park if dogs are allowed, I have been made aware of the following. No one in attendance was able to answer the question of the terms of the TPL grant and when the conditions that do not permit dogs were established or by whom.

FACTS THAT MAKE THIS SITUATION SEEM EVEN MORE BIZARRE:



1. The TPL apparently saves other off-leash dog parks from evil bank foreclosures
Potso Dog Park

Since 2002, the city of Tigard had leased 2.6-acres off Hunziker Street for use as an off-leash dog park for the growing number of urban dog owners. The park was used by hundreds of people and pooches weekly--many coming from nearby Beaverton or Lake Oswego. Then in 2010, Capital Pacific Bank took control of the property in lieu of payment from the owner and started looking for developers to purchase the land. The Trust for Public Land stepped in to hold the property off the market while the city's dog park community helped mobilize support for a $17 million park bond measure on the November 2010 ballot. The bond passed and the city council voted unanimously to purchase the park, saving the off-leash play area from closure. As the permanent owner of the park, the city plans to improve the amenities and expand park hours.

http://www.tpl.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/oregon/potso-dog-park.html

2.  Quote from BNA Newsletter page 20 August 2011

At Markey Park, NSCAN is concerned that one of only two neighborhood parks has been largely in use for off-leash dogs. NSCAN has no problem bringing up the issue of Markey Park, and will ask that the park be returned to full, dedicated use for children. There may be up to $600,000 in funds available for the park from a combination of a CBMC grant and money from the Trust for Public Land. In CBMC meetings, the Army Corps suggested putting restrictions on the use of funds in making park improvements at Markey; namely, that none of the CBMC funds can be used for a dog park. The money can be used for direct purchase of hard equipment (lighting, fencing, infrastructure), but not if that equipment is located in a dog park. NSCAN is not sure how the Trust for Public Land feels about dog parks, but NSCAN feels strongly that no money should be used to improve dog parks until all NORD facilities for children are fully funded and repaired. NSCAN will present their points at the Youth and Recreation Committee meeting, including comments they have received from a dog park expert who visited Markey Park. CL inquires about a time line in terms of ending off-leash dogs in relation to the opening of the riverfront dog park opens. JM says the time line depends on any resistance, neighborhood support, interest from City Council and NORD. NSCAN is interested in working with the City to re-write ordinances to allow dog parks on non-NORD property if they follow best practices. NSCAN will press the Fifth District to enforce the law as relates to off-leash dogs in NORD parks. Under the current development schedule, ground-breaking will occur in January 2012.

  
   

 3. NORDC Minutes June 14, 2011 

NEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION met on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall

The facilities committee met on June 14, 2011 and heard a proposal from the Trust for Public Land (TPL) which will be reviewed over the course of the next month. 

[I've looked through July 2011, August 2011, and December 2011 and do not see any mention of the review of the TPL. I cannot find any minutes available for September, October, or November of 2011, and I can find no mention of the actual reviewing of the TPL proposal and what went on at the meeting when it was first discussed.]
April 2012 - NORD Commission appears to have met meet but Meeting minutes are missing from city website due to broken link.

    
4. April 2012: BNA Newsletter reports that The NORDC Facilities Sub-committee met  on February 28th, chaired by Deputy Mayor Judy Reese Morse. 

Capital Project Report:

Consideration of Citizen Advisory Task Force (CATF) on Dogs in Parks

Chair’s Report and Minority Report: The Commission reviewed both reports and had some discussion about the issue. The NORDC Director stated that his staff was doing what they could to enforce the current ordinances, but that many residents were intentionally breaking them such as removing signage in NORD parks. The CATF process was criticized for not including more public comment The Director of Capital Projects, Vince Smith, will obtain more public input from residents and suggest a process for identifying appropriate dog park areas by district. No vote was taken on the issue at this meeting. Larry Schmidt (Trust for Public Land) attended. He said that he has a memorandum of understanding (MOA) with the city and NORDC to develop Markey Park and that the private funders supporting the project want funds spent this calendar year. He requested to move forward under the originalagreement and not consider the issue of the dog park at this time (the original agreement did not include a dog park/run). He said a dog park could be possible in the future. He will present plans at the next sub-committee * meeting for approval so TPL

    * does the next sub-committee meeting mean the one with NORDC?

    Mysteriously missing from the NORD website are the Facilities Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes - April 30, 2012

5.  Under "New Business" from the June 14 NORDC Facilities meeting minutes, it appears that the the TPL's negotiation with NORDC was in some way contingent upon a letter from the Core of Engineers that detailed the funding for Markey Park (which I imagine would have something about not allowing dogs because in the August 2011 BNA Newsletter, it says that the Army Corps suggested putting restrictions on the use of funds and not allowing CBMC funds to be used for a dog park).

   

Bobby Garon – Noted that there is a proposal from the Trust For Public Land would like to give a presentation on the development of Markey Park.

Larry Schmidt (Trust for Public Land) – Discussed the process that the Trust for Public Land went through to bring the proposal of Markey Park to the Commission, the plans for a potential partnership between TPL and the NORD Commission. The mission of TPL was noted and other service that could be available to the NORD Commission. Roy Glapion motioned to bring the proposal of the Trust For Public Land to the full Commission to authorize further negotiation contingent upon a letter from the Core of Engineers stating that money is specifically designated for Markey Park and that the Friends of NORD has the specified the 200k to the Foundation for a similar purpose, and to authorize the Facilities Committee to approve the final contract. The motion passes unanimously.

Questions:

1. Why would the Army Corps of Engineers or Industrial Canal Lock Replacement Project or Community Based Mitigation Committee care about dogs in a park?

2. It seems like NSCNA (New Saint Claude Neighborhood Association) was raising the dog issue at CBMC meetings, so did the Army Corps of Engineers just try to mitigate? [I am assuming "Core" is spelled incorrectly by whoever took the NORDC minutes.]
3. Would obtaining any correspondences they had with NORDC or the BNA be worth investigating?

4. How many more groups am I going to find out about while trying to determine who exactly said dogs cannot be in a park developed with TPL money?

thinking

TriLumination Projection Squad NOLA

 

 

This Revolution Will Be Televised (in the streets)!

TriLumination Guerrilla Projection Squad has launched in New Orleans! A few members of Occupy The Stage are projecting images and videos on public walls! For a long time, we've been wanting to share activism-related Indy Media with the general public. Our Free Anons Mardi Gras float was well-received, and locals made it clear that they were interested in learning more about political prisoners but didn't know where to find the information. We'll be bringing the revolution to the streets.

The First Few Days!

We've finally gotten a projector rigged up to a tricycle, complete with a car battery and charger! TriLumination Guerrilla Projection Squad embarked upon its maiden voyage on March 19th, 2013. We're still working out the technical aspect, but right now, we can project videos and slide shows onto walls by placing a projector, car battery, and inverter in the basket on the back of a large tricycle.

---

Getting ready!

My car is so old, it doesn't have a working cigarette lighter socket, and logistically it seems easier to use the tricycle so we don't have to worry about finding a parking place AND a decent wall to project on.

To figure out how to supply power to the projector while using a tricycle, we used the Projection Bombing tip sheet from Instructables and the great tip sheet from The Illuminator website.

What we used:

• Trike with basket
• Optoma Projector
• MacBook with special adapter cord to connect to projector
• 750 w Power Inverter (where you plug the projector cord in)
• Car Battery (connects to inverter)
• 1 Amp Slow Battery Charger (charges battery from electrical outlet)
• Plywood cut to size of trike basket
• Zipties and bungee cords to secure battery to basket
• Videos supporting Free Anons on YouTube
• PowerPoint to make slideshow if we weren't using internet connection
• Photos, facts, info about NDAA for NDAA slideshow
• Hotspot to give WiFi to laptop to show videos
• Backpack to carry laptop and projector while en route
• Headlamps to wear while riding bikes
• Android to livestream the experience

We don't have very loud speakers yet, so we made a slideshow about the NDAA and a playlist of Free Anons videos that had a lot of text on them, so important information would be accessible visually.

We also had to come up with a name for our Guerrilla Projection project, and Other Possibilities Network helped us brainstorm.

J (@ots_nola) came up with TriLumination!

• Tri - because the projector is on a tricycle!
• Lumination - because we want to light up the nation with information mainstream media isn't showing! 
• Squad - because we're a very small unit of OTS members focusing on Guerrilla Projecting!
   

                              

Maiden Voyage March 19

With the battery partially charged and the projector and laptop in my backpack,  J and I headed downtown to Frenchmen Street. I rode my bike and he maneuvered the tricycle through the construction on Esplanade. 

A live band was playing on the street corner on Frenchmen, so we decided to set  the projector up on a side street where we could project on a garage door. Music from the live band played as we first showed the NDAA slide show and answered questions as people walked by and stopped to ask what we were doing.

We were able to project a video "Soul Side In - Invincible FreeAnons/FreeHammond" onto the wall before we ran out of battery!

We're really looking forward to showing more Free Anons videos and slide shows, as well as videos and images related to activist causes, Indy media,  the Occupy Movement, the NDAA, NOKXL, Walmart Strikers, and issues the mainstream media ignores! We'll be sharing #OpPenPal info when we show videos of political prisoners, so we hope this will raise awareness about the political persecution  and help with Mail to The Jail!

On a personal note, I seriously want to live in a city where less people ask me "Who is Jeremy Hammond?" A lot of people just aren't getting the information, so we are trying to change that.

If you have any videos or images that you'd like to share with us so we can project them, please CONTACT US or holler at @small_affair on Twitter.  Videos that include text or captions in the actual video are ideal right now because we don't have a loud speaker system yet, and it's New Orleans, so there might be a band playing in the street at any time! 

Thanks to everyone who offered technical tips and watched our first night of Guerrilla Projecting!
Check out our livestream of first TriLumination Guerrilla Projection Squad run.

St. Roch Tavern Employees Censored!

The St Roch Tavern is one of the New Orleans bars being targeted by what's been described as an attack on live music. Local writer Sam Jasper does an excellent job describing the issue in his blog post Between St. Roch and a Hard Place.

From Jasper's blog:

In the last 18 months or so, St. Roch Tavern has been the target of a concerted effort to harass the bar itself and its customers. Launched by a neighbor, who in fact used to work there, it has become a purposeful, obsessive attack which has spilled out on occasion to the neutral ground. While there hasn't been a ticket for anything written inside or outside the St. Roch in four years, according to one of the bartenders there, the police have been called over petty complaints repeatedly by this neighbor. The City Council person, Kristin Gisleson Palmer, has also gotten complaints. Formerly a partner in the food concern at St. Roch (not an employee, the food suppliers are separate business entities), this neighbor is on constant alert from reports I've heard. Evidently this guy and his domestic partner's sole purpose is to get the St. Roch Tavern shut down. (Who they'll harass if that happens I don't know, but it has become clear that these people are folks who need to have someone in the crosshairs in order to be happy.)

The constant harassment has taken some dark turns, reports of customers allegedly being physically attacked by these neighbors aren't rare. Verbal attacks are apparently standard fare. The staff is walking on eggshells in order to avoid drama. The livelihoods of St. Roch staff are being endangered by an obsession for vengeance. I wish I could ask the neighbors why, but I have no doubt that the answer would make no sense to me.

Bar on the corner for 80 years. Neighbors doing all this? Moved into the neighborhood barely 2 years ago. We can't let this neighbor and his partner close down a business out of vengeance. Police were called on New Year's Eve. Police were called Krewe du Vieux night. The Fifth District police want to see a show of support from those of us who care about this place. They've been very good at communicating what they need from us and I applaud that. Let's help them by contacting them, signing petitions, patronizing St. Roch Tavern.

The Music and Culture Coalition of New Orleans (MACCNO) has been organizing in response to the controversial increase in enforcement imposed on live music venues, and issued calls for support when it was time for St Roch Tavern owner Rob Waguespack to appear before The Alcohol and Beverage Control Board.

On March 19th, Defendant Rob Waguespack, who owns the St Roch Tavern in New Orleans, appeared before The Alcohol and Beverage Control Board. NOLA Defender has detailed the hearing here: ABO Suspends St. Roch, Restricts Live Music


After spending hours reviewing the footage of the ABO hearing, I'm concerned about the quality of evidence the prosecution submitted. Even more disturbing is the bullying inflicted upon the defendant by City Attorneys Dan McNamara and Nolan Lambert, which resulted in what appears to be illegal censoring of St Roch Tavern employees.


Prosecution forced Waguespack to answer the same questions about two employees' Facebook posts repeatedly. The prosecution, who admitted "I don't know a lot about Facebook" was unable to discern if a comment was posted on the employee's personal wall, nor could he understand if the employee was acting on her own or on behalf of the bar.

Employee Martha Wood had posted the following request for good vibes on her personal Facebook wall: "John and I are about to go meet with the "powers that be" regarding the fate of The Tavern and our liquor license. Please send positive vibes our way and all the good mojo you can. We're gonna need it..."

The conversation that ensued, along with a comment made by a friend of the employee, was introduced by the prosecution as Exhibit 11.

The prosecution then grilled Defendant Rob Waguespack about a potential conspiracy to blackmail the D.A. by asking questions like the following:

Isn't the reason that they'd want to get dirt on the prosecutor that they would want to blackmail the prosecutor? [56:40 from video]
 

"Do you know why your employee would talk to individuals to get dirt on the D.A. other than blackmail?

One needs only to examine Wood's Facebook updates for a moment to see that she does not spend time posting malicious comments on Facebook. If anything, her posts about dogs that need homes and offers to give away shoes are an asset to the community, as are her status updates that occasionally give her friends a peek into what to expect if they visit her while she's working at St. Roch Tavern. Especially in New Orleans, bartenders play a huge role in bringing in clientele. Bartenders have personal relationships with their customers; they have followings, and patrons literally follow cooks and bartenders from one establishment to the next if they change jobs.

The prosecution asked leading questions, implying that is is inappropriate for an employee or independent DJ to post the details about events at the bar on Facebook without the owner's knowledge is ridiculous.  Waguespack was unaware that Martha Wood and Rusty Lazer posted details about St Roch Tavern events on their personal Facebook walls. The prosecution tried to paint a picture of Waguespack as an incompetent business owner because he did not know that his employees were posting this information.

First of all, to my knowledge an employee has a first amendment right to post descriptions of public events on Facebook (unless a social media policy was issued by the company).

 

Also submitted as evidence was a photograph of graffiti that appeared on the wall of one of the few residents who has complained about St. Roch Tavern's noise. The prosecution argued that this graffiti appeared on Scotty Heron's home because he was mentioned in the conversation on Martha Wood's Facebook wall. At no point does anyone on Facebook post this man's address or express any malice towards him or his property. The image below was taken in a neighborhood with an abundance of graffiti; it's obviously not something written to spite Heron because he complained about the tavern. It reads "Wolfe XX Eye will Rape Yo Anus." At no point at the ABO Hearing was anal rape referenced, and it is not an issue that connects to the tavern.

The prosecution, who had no evidence of litter, provided flimsy evidence of a door being open a jar, and a suspiciously cropped photograph that makes it look like the "no loitering" sign was missing. The video showing the door that was not fully closed does not include a date or time, and the prosecution did not have a photograph of the entire front of the bar to show that the loitering sign is indeed absent. When cross-examined, Waguespack showed the well-used "No Loitering" signs that he claims have been posted on the outside of the tavern. Waguespack also stated that the prosecutions's photo that does not include a "no loitering sign" appeared to have been cropped. 

The prosecution attempted to use more information from Facebook to make their case. 

After admitting they could not understand the origins of a Facebook Event (an event created by an individual), the prosecution entered the event as evidence of Waguespack's violation of a city noise ordinance. The event, posted by Rusty Lazar, invites patrons to enjoy a DJ's performance at the St. Roch Tavern ALL NIGHT! 

In theory, anyone can create a Facebook Event that would imply a noise ordinance would be threatened.  This event should not even be considered evidence of Waguespack violating his earlier Consent Decree because it doesn't prove that noise was audible within 50 feet of the establishment. Moreover, the Facebook event is listed as taking place at St Roch Tavern; it was not posted on the St Roch Tavern page. It's maddening that this information is admissible in court when submitted by prosecutors who admitted to not understanding what they referred to as "The Facebook."

Despite the fact that they filled out cards to be allowed to speak at the ABO Hearing, advocates for St. Roch Tavern who attended the hearing were not permitted to speak, and the hearing ended with a shocking display of abuse of power.  The prosecution asked the court to censor employees of St. Roch Tavern.

"There will be no disparaging of witnesses in this matter on any electronic medium associated with St. Roch Tavern or any of its employees, and if they were to so disparage any witness, they would be in violation of the terms of the consent judgment," said McNamara.

Employees of St. Roch Tavern are officially censored and were told they cannot make disparaging comments using electronic medium, or Waguespack will be in violation of the Consent Decree and could lose his license.

Not only has the prosecution managed to censor employees, it has done so with almost no understanding of Facebook.

My immediate concern is with the censoring of the employees and the evidence the prosecution submitted at the hearing. 


Below is a letter the editor written by someone who attended the Hearing:

On Tuesday March 19th I was present at the ABO hearing for St. Roche Tavern in the city hall chambers. I was absolutely disgusted and offended at what I witnessed! And we did not get to speak! At all!
I really feel this whole hearing was a waste of tax dollars! This should of been resolved through a neighborhood meeting! And closing the bar for a few weeks only hurts the employees and the musicians that play there! Once again revenue the city needs wasted away!

My tax dollars pay the salary of City Attorneys Dan McNamara and Nolan Lambert. They do not represent my interest at all! They were horrible! The "evidence" was a joke! A doorman checking ID's and a line to get in the bar is not loitering! A stranger on Facebook did not try to blackmail the City Attorney! Saying the bar causes graffiti is like saying Family dollar causes crime!

Even McNamara’s star witness Ann Linn said litter was not a problem, and that noise was only a problem on Sat nights! She even said she frequents the bar and wished it not to close! McNamara even tried to intimidate us in the audience!

If it was not for my partner probably would of been arrested! I so wanted to jump up and scream!

I am a registered voter! I will NEVER forget this! What a waste of my tax dollars! ~ Alexander Flemming