Video of press conference in front of the courthouse
STATEMENT
AT ST. PATRICK'S 7 PRESS CONFERENCE
November 29, 2007
Eric:
I'd like to thank everyone who been involved, and for keeping up the enthusiasm about this,and I think this is a fantastic outcome. I wish there would be some way to take the city to task so that it's not seen an endorsing or becoming a police state in our city. It really is an uncomfortable feeling for me to see them endorse what they did to us. But this is a battle that I think we won so, we'll probably be offered another one soon.
Elizabeth:
I just wanted to thank everyone for coming again and for supporting us, and I would just like to comment on the article that was in the paper today. I was very surprised that things that are now NOT in the public interest, such as the time the policemen would have to give to be at a trial, and the time the citizens witnesses would have to give, and the time the prosecutors would have to give, didn't exist a month and a half ago, I'd love to know what happened in the last month that made it not in the public interest now. If I ever get to meet Ms. Kelly, I would like to ask her that, and then I guess I'm also saddened by her statement that she felt like everything the police did was justified. I was thinking that maybe at next year's parade she might want to go and stand with the adolescence boys and girls, who stood across the street on the west side of rejoin, clapping and shouting and laughing and hopping up and down and everything, as 2 policemen dragged me and scraped me across the stone pavement, leaving, not a road rash, but a burn that called for 5 visits to the Memorial wound clinic. I am just sorry that she feels that that was not anything unjustified by the police and I guess now the police might have permission from the city attorney to do whatever they want to anyone who they feel isn't doing exactly what they say, when they say it.
Jeff:
I would like to express gratitude to the 7 that stood up for us all of us who were in the parade, and now that the charges against Eric Verlo and Elizabeth Fineron have been dropped, I hope that more people in this city will come to believe that we never intended to disrupt the parade. That all we wanted to do was march for peace and stand up for all the American people in this county that want us out of Iraq. We only intended peace and we are going to continue marching for peace.
Peter:
I would thank everybody too for their ongoing support. May we all caution ourselves that this is not really that much of an aberration. This is much more in character with what cops can be expected to do because their interest is in protecting empire, and we have an empire here that thinks violence is how we resolve problems, and I believe that's is wrong, therefore I believe our work is not done, and we can expect more of this, so let's keep our moral spinal column very strong.
Bill
I want to thank you all and to speak these last thoughts for my wife, Genie,
and our out-of-town friend, Frank Cordaro, both of whom walked with me in
the parade.
We congratulate all 45 walkers who were there by invitation and legal permit,
who were signaled to begin to walk by the parade organizers, who joyously
wore green shirts carrying the universal sign of world peace. All are humanity's
heroes. I wish to make no distinction between ourselves, since some of us
were singled out randomly for arrest. All of us were peaceful people there
to celebrate an Irish-American holiday and stopped our walk on command of
the organizers and police. I walked because I'm Irish. I was arrested for
asking why we were ordered off the street.
I have participated in over 40 years for conscience's sake to witness against
war and violations of human rights as a Christian pacifist and have risked
arrest for doing so in foreign countries and five states in the U.S. I know
what protests are, what civil disobedience is. This event was neither. There
was no civil disobedience, no protest, no blocking, no intention, no preparation,
no planning, no organization, no coordination, no conspiracy, not even a
discussion.
Nevertheless, I with others, was thrown to the ground, arm bent, handcuffed,
dragged, told I was a coward and aiding the enemy, the result for me (a
former heart attack victim) being a dangerous rise in blood pressure for
no apparent purpose and made to defend myself with others for six months
until a jury could not find us guilty of anything.
My wife, Genie, who was threatened with a taser for trying to help me, and
my guest, Frank Cordaro, hear from people across the country who say this
could only happen in Colorado Springs. And I say why? I call on ourselves,
police, government, media, and activists to restore dignity and respect
for humanity and democratic process to this community, and I say –
do it now!
So those are my last thoughts on the St. Pat's Day 7. It is over. But it
doesn't end there with a local pre-emptive strike here last March. We will
move on from here. In the world it all continues on a greater scale with
surveillance, detention, rendition, judicial destruction, torture, and empire-building
– all in the name of democracy – while here at home the terror
of losing our human rights and liberties, our very historic constitutional
freedoms, looms large. So we must renew our efforts to take back our country
and hope that a year from now it will be so.
Below is the official statement of the city prosecutor, Patricia Kelly, who announced to the media that all charges were going to be dropped, then put in the caveat that the cops did nothing wrong, they have a great case, and could win the trial, but faults the jury system for not finding people guilty when they're innocent, so she doesn't want to continue.
OFFICIAL
STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
November 27, 2007 John Leavitt, 385-5242
City Attorney Patricia K. Kelly said:
"The City Attorney's Office has just concluded a comprehensive review of
evidence regarding further prosecution of Eric Verlo and Elizabeth Fineron.
Based upon that review, we have decided that it is not in the public interest
to continue the further prosecutions. We have decided to seek a dismissal
of charges against the two defendants."
"The comprehensive review revealed police actions were appropriate during
the St. Patrick's Day parade and there was probable cause to arrest the
defendants. Further, the review found ample and sufficient evidence,
along with multiple witnesses to continue with the prosecution. However,
a second trial would require a significant time commitment from police officers,
citizen witnesses and prosecutors, and, in this case, it would appear that
the public has already spoken when the first trial ended in a hung jury."
# # #
Note: there will be no further comment or interviews about this case.
Eric's
statement to John Weiss, publisher of the Independent Newspaper, on the
gallant attempt to open a dialogue between the police and peace community
to hopefully stop such brutality from happening in the future;
Dear John, and Elizabeth,
John, I'm sorry to have let you down in your efforts to negotiate a settlement
with the city on the Saint Patrick's Day affair. I have always valued your
advice and I remain hopeful that the city will consider a reconciliation
over this matter.
If it's all right I'd like to explain my position relative to your proposed
terms of a settlement offer to the City Council. I am absolutely in favor
of foregoing any civil lawsuits, but this must be in exchange for an admission
of wrongdoing on the part of the police department.
Why would the city or police department have to cling to the formality of
denying culpability if there would no longer be a threat of a lawsuit? You've
described that having the police attend a public discussion would be admission
enough, but I fear that if I am so hard to convince, probably most of Colorado
Springs will not grasp the subtlety either.
You may insist that the police department will never admit it conducted
itself improperly. I say it must. Excessive force and reckless endangerment
must be condemned.
As I've explained before, I have no interest in being awarded a public meeting
only to give the police chief a forum to reiterate both that his men did
nothing wrong and that firm policies are necessary when dealing with unpredictable
crowds.
You also make the point that that we cannot hope to admonish Officer Paladino,
owing to the strength of police unions and the brevity of our police chief's
tenure, etc. The most we could hope for according to you would be to have
an unspoken agreement that Paladino would not be assigned to protest or
parade duty. Even that request you fear may out of the question. I say with
all due respect, nonsense.
Officer Erwin Paladino was the direct instigator of our unnecessary arrests
and the escalation of violence, Probably not by coincidence in 2003 he was
also found to have acted outside his jurisdiction in the Dairy Queen arrests.
Would it be enough to ban him from functions requiring crowd control? No!
Paladino is on the New Hire Police Advisory Board. We must ensure that his
dim regard for dialog and non-violence is not perpetuated with new officers.
What happened to my friends and I at the St Patrick's Day parade should
not have happened, and I fear that the repercussions may still be felt next
year. As the city prosecutor persists in trying to justify the actions of
its police, I have no alternative but to stand firm.
An expeditious settlement with the city might be better for public relations,
but it does not address the need to assure the rights of citizens will be
respected in the future.
Yours,
Eric
Eric's statement for the press release on the charges being dropped:
I'm
very happy that the city has decided to drop the charges. It confirms, despite
their statement to suggest the opposite, that they did not have cause to
arrest us, and should not have interfered with our rights as citizens to
freedom of expression unmolested by the city.
It appears the city does not welcome further scrutiny of how its police
officers behaved toward us. It does not want the public to question whether
they too might be treated with unwarranted brutality by those entrusted
to enforce our laws and respect our civil liberties.
The city's official statement is a coarse pronouncement that they reserve
the right to a drag an infirm woman across the pavement and declare it "appropriate."
They are saying a citizen exercising his right to free speech can be probable
cause for arrest.
By their arrogant official statement, they are practically daring us to
sue them, aren't they? Are we going to have to take the city to the mat
before they will offer up assurances to Colorado Springs residents that
their policemen don't just beat on whoever they please?
And what about the parade organizer? Can he continue to pretend that he
alone determines what messages are allowed and not allowed in a city parade.
His parade is subsidized by the city. Has the city apologized for denying
they were giving him a subsidy, which turned out to be untrue?
Was the peace message so inappropriate? What about the Junior Marines? In
light of our criticism of African and Asian nations which recruit boy soldiers,
is a young boy wearing a uniform something to celebrate in our country?
On the question of whether to bring a civil suit, with the hope of forcing
our city to acknowledge the errors and excesses of its actions, I'd like
to challenge the Gazette to poll its readers: do they feel secure about
their rights to express themselves without fear that a police officer can
be given the authority to beat them up? When more people march next year
than last year is when I'll know that their intimidation has been challenged.