council

2. we were not given the option to put away our banners as the Democratic Party was

4. The rule on "social issues" is ambiguous at best and not allied equally to all

8. No matter what alleged violation of the ambiguous rules we were guilty of, dragging 65 year old physically challenged women across Tejon, using choke holds, arm twisting, and Tasers, was not warranted!

Letter I wrote to all members of council, the mayor, and chief of police, Myers:

Nothing will ever justify the treatment 65 year elderly ladies
<http://csaction.org/StPatsDay/31707_05.html> got in the streets of
Colorado Springs during the St. Patrick's Day Parade, but we'd like an
opportunity to set the record straight on some of the more ridiculous
claims being made, so that you have all the facts at your disposal.

We had a permit, paid in full, but were told at first we did not. Then
when we proved we did, we were told it was revoked. We asked for
explanation and got none. We asked for badge numbers and got none. We
asked for peace and got none.

The taser seen in the photograph here
<http://csaction.org/StPatsDay/31707_15.html> is firing and several
people heard and saw it fired. No, my photo didn't happen to catch the
spark, but I'm not the only one that heard it and saw it. If that's
policy the policy needs to be changed. If it's not policy, the officer
needs to be retrained.

<http://csaction.org/StPatsDay/31707_08.html> The choke hold used
against former priest, Frank Cordaro, is just that, and "the untrained
eye" that backs us up in this contention is a federal corrections
officer with 8 years experience, named Barker. Just because the thumb of
the officer is also employing a pain, submission, pressure point hold,
does not mean the arm under the neck is not a choke hold. It is, and the
photo proves it. Frank was picked up by his neck, and that was punitive
as well, along with being totally unnecessary brutality. All of this
police brutality was unnecessary for compliance.

Many of the entries in the parade are promoting "social issues", and
peace was not a violation of that in 2006
<http://csaction.org/31106/31106_06.html> , so we had no reason to think
it was in 2007. Many entries are political in nature, and whereas we
don't think peace is a political opinion, it was fine in 2006
<http://csaction.org/31106/31106_03.html> , so no reason to think it
wasn't in 2007. The photos prove
<http://csaction.org/StPatsDay/31707_31.html> there was no hiding of
banners, intent, or agenda for over an hour before their parade marshall
told us it's time for us to line up in the street. No one came from the
crowd or side streets to join us. We assembled for over an hour in plain
view with everyone else in lot #21, on Tejon, between Willamette and
Monument.

There was no protest, unless you consider the Democratic Party float a
protest against the Republican Party, and we certainly don't. There was
complete compliance with permits, payment, and protocols. The Democratic
Party was told a banner they had about Bush would have to go, so they
put it away. We were not given that option, and would have complied
immediately. Most of the banners we brought ended up in back of the
Bookmobile, deemed inappropriate, by our decision, before the parade,
including banners about Bush.

We still don't know what this ambiguous "social issue" proviso means,
but it's easy to deduce what it does not mean. It did not mean peace
banners in 2006. It did not mean no politician or party, which we made
no statement about, but were there in the parade, with no objection from
anyone, especially us. It does not mean no statement about war because
many in uniform marched in the parade, with no objection from anyone,
especially us. We had many Veterans with our group, more than 1 of those
arrested, and get a positive response from most all people in uniform,
including on St. Patrick's Day and since.

We didn't stop the parade, the parade marshals did. We made no attempt
to block the parade, but moved out of the way, and the parade went on
past us while we tried to work out the permit issue. We did not subject
children to an ugly scene, the police did. We got no negative response
last year at the parade in Old Colorado
<http://csaction.org/31106/31106_05.html> City, and expected none this
year. We are once again the victims of a few overzealous officers that
need to be trained better and learn to do their duty with nonviolent,
non criminals with minimum force.

The parade organizer has put the city in a very bad situation, and given
the subsidies the parade receives, we believe it is the responsibility
of the city to oversee the rules, application thereof, and especially
the use of police in this matter.

response from Bernie Herpin, appointed at large member of council, to replaced Richard Skorman:

An investigation is on-going concerning the actions of the Colorado Springs Police Department to remove the PPJPC entry from the St Patrick's Day parade - a privately organized parade without city support (the organizers paid for police presence and other requirements).

As to the "We had a permit, paid in full", the Bookman had a merchant permit for which a fee of $15 was paid. I walked in the parade as a city council candidate and paid the "political" permit fee of $100. I would have more sympathy for the PPJPC position if they had properly declared their intentions and paid the appropriate political entry fee.

I do not believe that a fun family event is the proper place to protest a person's views on the war on terror. The proper venue was the one you participated in on the following day, for which a proper permit was obtained. I certainly support your right to conduct YOUR event without disruption. Had pro-war demonstrators showed up at your event and tried to disrupt it, I would support having the police remove them. Likewise, I support the St Patrick's Day parade organizer's decision to prevent the disruption of their event by your group.

Much has been said about the First Amendment right to free speech. The First Amendment restricts the Federal government ("Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"), not private businesses. I refer you to an excellent discussion on the First Amendment at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/019.pdf, which states, in part: "Speech in public forums is subject to time, place, and manner regulations, which take into account such matters as control of traffic in the streets, the scheduling of two meetings or demonstrations at the same time and place, the preventing of blockages of building entrances, and the like." The First Amendment provides protection for political speech but does not guarantee a forum, especially in a private (non-governmental) forum.

As to the police response when asked by the parade organizers, I will await the results of the investigation before commenting.

As to the true motives of the PPJPC in attempting to participate in the parade, I think the Editor of the Colorado Springs Gazette accurately expressed my view: "Everything went perfectly as planned. For the anti-war war protesters, that is - not for parade organizers. Just as the party crashers anticipated, the news on Sunday wasn't about Saturday's St. Patrick's Day parade downtown — which many people judged the best in recent memory - but about the disruptions and arrests that occurred when a handful of anti-war activists tried to hijack it for selfish purposes ("Our View", Gazette, March 20, 2007).

I'd say you accomplished your objectives on March 17th, probably in a much better fashion than if you had been permitted to walk in the parade.

letter from Cyndy Kulp to Jerry Heimlicher and Lorne Kramer, city manager and former chief of police, trained by Darryl Gates of LAPD infamy:

Dear Jerry,
I already sent this to Mr. Kramer, but since you are my council
representative, I also want to let you know how distressed I am with the
way that the peace marchers were brutalized by the police on Saturday.
Officers drug an elderly woman who uses a walker and has multiple health
problems across the pavement on bare skin, and another senior citizen
had her arm twisted behind her and shoulder injured when she tried to
intervene because an officer was using violence against the driver of
the Bookman truck. These people are not criminals! They are life-long,
dedicated workers for nonviolence and social justice, and at over 60
years old, hardly a threat to anyone. Both of them had to go to the
hospital, and who knows what type of long-term problems they will suffer
at their age?
This type of heavy-handed tactics are so uncalled for, so unnecessary.

Parade organizers and the police severely overreacted to this situation.
No attempt was made to communicate verbally and work out a solution
respectful of everyone needs. What is the big deal anyway with allowing
a handful of people wearing peace shirts to march in the St. Paddy's Day
Parade anyway? They are part of the community, too. Only in Colorado
Springs could a message of peace be considered controversial!

Considering that this is the second time our city has been in the news
for using violence against antiwar demonstrators, I must ask: why does
the CSPD find it necessary to repeatedly brutalize people working for
peace? Hundreds, maybe thousands, of peace vigils were held throughout
the nation last weekend, yet most departments seem to know how to handle
these situations without abusing those who are exercising their civil
rights of dissent.

I have lived here long enough to expect that nothing will happen -- no
apologies will be made, no reprimands will be issued to the police
officers involved, there will be no changes in police attitudes or
policy, and city leaders will conclude that the peace marchers were
responsible for the over-the-top behavior of the police officers. If
anything had changed in the past four years (as we were told), this
would not have happened again. So I must be content just to let you
know that I think it is completely unacceptable and a real black eye for
our city.

Sincerely,
Cyndy Kulp
(Proud 4 1/2 year veteran of opposing the War on Iraq)

At this point, I agree with your comments. I am awaiting the report to council next Tuesday on this incident before I pass final judgement. I don't understand why the parade organizers are opposed to peaceful marchers. I know the city does not have anything to do with the rules for the parade, but we should have rules in place on the methods employed to address those that break rules, and, those rules should never subject citizens to the treatment of last weekend....