Port and County Prosecutor team up to perpetrate political farce and attempted extortion

author : Pat Tassoni topic : Port Militarization Resistance | Port of Olympia

by Pat Tassoni

On August 20, the first Stryker brigade soldier died in Iraq. Sargent DeRoo was previously stationed at Fort Lewis, and it was his unit's equipment which passed through Olympia during the last weeks of May this year. Eleven days of protest at the Port of Olympia attempted to stop war shipments bound for Iraq. Those protests resulted in 37 arrests. Demonstrators brought to the attention of the Port of Olympia officials, the wider community and eventually the world, the immorality and illegality of the war in Iraq. Protesters also pointed out that the Olympia community and the Port of Olympia should not be complicit in and profiting off of war crimes and a continued presence there. If the port officials had listened, Sgt. DeRoo might not have been killed, and the lives of many more soldiers and Iraqis might have been saved.

The Army contracted with the Port of Olympia for the first time in nearly two decades and began transporting war equipment into the Port, including 300 Stryker vehicles, in mid-May. The United States Naval Ship Pomeroy came into the Port on the evening of Memorial Day to deliver the equipment to Iraq. This prompted a continual protest presence at the Port and daily corner demonstrations and street marches. During the first week of direct actions, fourteen were arrested by the Olympia Police on Marine Drive for "pedestrian interference." Unfair consideration was given by the OPD to the military convoy's access to the roads over those of community members by inappropriately rerouting and escorting the convoy through local access roads and arresting pedestrians. None of those cited and arrested have been charged with that crime from the city prosecutor's office. If the prosecutor believes that the police acted in bad faith, in a biased manner or illegally, they often do not pursue charges against the arrested and hope to let the issue go away. The police know this too  --  that it is not always about getting the criminal  --  but they still take particular actions to achieve a short-term political goal. In this case, they clearly decided that one group's interests were more important than another's and removed any barriers to that favored interest. It has also come to light that the OPD made the decision to destroy their May 30 port videos, which may have been an illegal act.

One activist during this time, Drew Hendricks, was arrested and originally prosecuted by the county with a felony trespassing charge. How exactly does a citizen trespass on public property, like the Port? How is a constitutionally-protected demonstration against a government agency, like the Port, considered criminal? When the prosecution could not make the case stick before a judge, it was dropped to a misdemeanor charge which will eventually be dismissed with a one-year deferred sentence. Hendricks also had to pay a fine of $43 for court costs as part of the plea bargain he accepted.

The next week, with the imminent arrival of the USNS Pomeroy, hundreds of community activists took the protest to the Port gates. There they were confronted by many jurisdictions of police who used disproportionately violent responses (pepper spray, unnecessary and excessive force, withholding of medical care, and mass arrests) against the non-violent protesters. Demonstrators also held a teach-in led by International Politics and Middle East Professor, Steve Niva, had a public party, and staged a die-in as the USNS Pomeroy left the port on May31.

The police used flawed and slanted political logic by demanding that demonstrators remove a base-camp from a parking lot because "it would attract homelessness." Don't they understand that by allowing and escorting the convoy to the port and setting up a massive police camp, they sent out open invitations for demonstrations there? The police got what they asked for on both counts.

On May 30, twenty people were arrested at the Port of Olympia for "criminal trespassing" -- the same reduced charge that Hendricks got. Two were arrested for "riot," which by state law requires three or more people to be involved. As the county prosecutor pursues the riot charges, it will be a telling commentary on our judicial system if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1 +1 = 3. Again, it just illustrates that the prosecution is left to clean up the mess that sloppy [political] policing gives them. We should remember that the Prosecution is willingly complicit in that farce -- they could simply drop the charges.

The Port of Olympia is also applying political pressure on the county prosecutor's office to extort $29,000 from the protesters. In a letter their attorney sent to the prosecutor, they state: "Please know that the Port of Olympia seeks restitution in order to be made whole from the damages caused by the defendants name[d]...and which resulted in your agency filing the above criminal charges."

Don't they know that none of the protesters are charged for the alleged damages cited? No one has been charged with destruction of property nor did any of those charged ask for the police to set up their camp on overtime pay. None of the protesters, by the way, got paid  --  regular time or overtime. In a parallel occurrence, eleven nazis recently came to town and the police established a one-day 275-officer presence and about a half-mile of rented chain link fence. Why aren't the nazis being asked for restitution for this $50,000 expense? Can you say "political choice?"

Nevertheless, the scrambling prosecutor is using the restitution issue, in addition to threatened jail time, to intimidate the protesters into accepting a plea bargain. Often in district court, a jury decides guilt or innocence and the judge imposes the sentence and/or fines. The prosecutor at one pre-trial hearing informed the protesters of a deal that she said she mailed the day before (she didn't). All but one have rejected a "deal" that is consistent with Hendricks', except with the additional stipulation of paying $200 restitution each for the port gate.

Most of the protesters are represented by an attorney or public defender, but five are representing themselves and were ready for their trials to begin August 28. The prosecution, faced with having to prosecute all before their 90-day speedy trial right expired, forced a continuance on the judge by presenting an absurd motion to ban political speech during the trials mere days before they were to begin. Again she said she mailed it to the protesters the day before (and again, she didn't), but this time she produced enough copies on the spot for them, blurting out to the judge's procedural frustration that the war has "nothing to do with it." In essence, the prosecutor is petitioning the court to not allow the protester/defendants to utter such words as "war," "Iraq," or "demonstration," in the context of this charge which stems from a demonstration against the illegal war in Iraq. It is unlikely that the judge would impose this limitation on free speech and equitable arguments, but she did grant a procedural continuance for a full hearing on the matter. So for now the prosecution has bought some more time for themselves as the trials were moved back to October 9. Maybe they can take this time and focus on finding exactly what crime was committed since nothing they've done so far seems to make sense.

The Port of Olympia Legal Defense Fund was established to help offset the costs associated with these cases, including potentially suing the police and/or the port for their behavior. You can donate to the fund via PayPal at http://www.paypal.com to the following address:

olyport.ldf@gmail.com or mail a check to: Port of Olympia Legal Defense Fund, PO Box 295 Olympia, Washington 98507-0295.