Posts Tagged ‘RPD’

May 31st Critical Mass Bike Ride and new city ordinances (thanks Rag n Bones Bike Co-op)

Posted: May 10, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bring your bikes and boomboxes yall!

Critical Mass Bicycle Ride
Public
Hosted by Rag & Bones Bicycle Co-op

When
Friday, May 31 at 5:00pm
Where
Monroe Park (VCU)
620 W. Main St.
Richmond, Virginia 23220

Details
A critical mass bicycle ride to promote bicycle awareness on the streets of Richmond. Route will be announced before we ride.

BRING THE Noise and fun!

Monroe Park
Meet at 5pm
Leave at 6pm

Update on the new bike ordinance:
Ord. No. 2012-232 (Patrons: Mr. Conner and Mr. Agelasto) – To amend and reordain ch. 102, art. IX, div. 1 of the City Code by adding therein a new section numbered 102-441 for the purpose of making it unlawful for any person to attach a bicycle, motorcycle or moped to a City-owned tree and to amend and reordain City Code § 102-439, concerning the impoundment of bicycles, for the purpose of authorizing police officers to impound bicycles, mopeds or motorcycles, which, for a period of more than 72 consecutive hours, have been attached to City-owned trees, posts, signs or other property owned by the City.

Here’s the original ordinance:

http://library.municode.com/index.a…

Sec. 102-439. – Impoundment.permanent link to this piece of content

(a)

Any police officer may impound a bicycle which is not properly registered, which is not displaying the license decal as required by this article, which is without a serial number, which is abandoned or which is parked in such a manner as to create a traffic hazard. The owner of a bicycle impounded by the police or the owner’s agent may claim it at the place it is held and, upon proof of ownership, obtain possession thereof without the payment of any fee or charge on account of the impoundment. However, the owner, if a resident of the city, shall first obtain a license decal and register such bicycle before it shall be released. The chief of police shall use due diligence to ascertain the name and address of the owner of an impounded bicycle and notify the owner that it is being held. If a bicycle is not claimed by the owner within 30 days from the date it was impounded, it may be either donated to a charitable organization by the chief of police or sold by the director of procurement services. Every such sale, whenever practicable, shall be made on the basis of competitive bids after the public notice required for the sale of tangible personal property owned by the city, and when there has been competitive bidding such sale shall be made to the highest or best responsible bidder. The director of procurement services shall have authority to reject any or all bids and to order new bidding or, with the approval of the chief administrative officer, make the sale to any person, whether a former bidder or not, without further bidding. The proceeds of such sales shall be paid into the city treasury. The cost of impounding, removal, storage, investigation as to ownership, notice and sale shall be paid out of the proceeds of such sale, and the balance of such funds shall be held for the owner of such bicycle at the time of its impoundment for a period of 60 days. The balance of the proceeds of sale shall thereafter be deposited in the city treasury. If, within three years after the date of sale of such bicycle, the ownership thereof at the time of its impoundment is established to the satisfaction of the chief administrative officer, such owner shall be paid the balance of the proceeds from the sale, without payment of interest or other charge. No claim shall be made nor any suit, action or proceeding be instituted for the recovery of such proceeds after three years from the date of sale.

(b)

Any bicycle found and delivered to the police by a private person which thereafter remains unclaimed for 30 days after the final date of publication as required in this section may be donated to a charitable organization or given to the finder; however, the location and description of the bicycle shall be published, at least once a week for two consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. Such notice shall be published in a form to be approved by the chief of police. If the bicycle is given to the finder, the finder of the bicycle shall be responsible for the publication of such notice and any cost associated therewith. Prior to release of the bicycle, the finder shall present verification of compliance with the publication requirements, as set forth in this section. If a license plate or tag is affixed to a found bicycle, the chief of police shall use due diligence to notify the record owner that it is being held.

Basically if you lock a bike to city property for 3 days and something goes missing from the bike that makes it inoperable then police tag the bike and remove it in 7 days. Also If you attach a bike to any city property for more then 10 days the city is allowed to remove your urban eyesore regardless of operability.

Complaints can be filed to:
Parker Agelasto (city council 5th district)
Phone (804) 646-6050
Email parker.agelasto@richmondgov.com

Charles Samuels (city council 2nd district)
Phone 804.646.6532
Fax 804.646.5468
Email charles@samuelsforcouncil.com

Update Re: Richmond Police Files

Posted: April 30, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/richmond-recovers-police-data-flash-drive/article_638f9228-b1c1-11e2-820c-001a4bcf6878.html

The Richmond Police have reportedly received the missing Police Department flash drive from a 3rd party (neither Mo Karnage of the Wingnut nor Nathan Cox of Copblock).  See link above for full news report.

The flash drive was reportedly found on the ground near a trashcan. The cop Martin Harrison who’s flash drive it was had testified in court that he never took the flash drive from police headquarters- yet said there were no reported intruders during the few days when the flash drive went missing. And yet the flash drive was found outside.

Thanks to Tom Roberts and Andrew Bodoh- the attorney’s representing in this case. www.robertslaw.org to find out more about them and make a donation to their legal fund.

Recent Police Brutality in Richmond

Posted: April 17, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Richmond Police Department, like most police departments, routinely breaks the law, behaves in racist ways, and engages in acts of brutality against the public.

In the past week we have seen or heard of 3 incidents of police brutality. Anyone with video footage of police brutality is highly encouraged to email us a copy or a link at wingnut_collective@yahoo.com

Anyone who wants tips on how to copwatch or on your rights when dealing with the police is also encouraged to get in touch. The Wingnut Anarchist Collective started Richmond Copwatch about 3 years ago. We no longer have a formal Copwatch organization (though if you are interested let us know), but we still have the capacity to host workshops, come to you and your organization with a workshop, and of course to observe and record the police in Richmond and every where we go.

Here is a link to a story about an incident that occurred in Gilpin Court, a nearby neighborhood: http://www.nbc12.com/story/21997791/richmond-community-claims-excessive-police-force-during-arrest

We have also heard that a man in Southern Barton Heights was beaten up by the police this week, and some of us were a witness to a man getting tazed at Harrison and Grace St. on Saturday night.

If you have video or pictures of the police tazing, beating, harassing, stop and frisking, etc. please send it to us! The more people who watch and record the police on a regular basis the less bullshit they can get away with. These are our neighborhoods, let’s take them back from the biggest most violent gang in Richmond- the Police Department.

Copwatching 101 – April 4th at 7pm

Posted: March 22, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

copwatchflier1

Prior Restraint of Free Speech and the Freedom Works Foundation

Posted: December 24, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Here is an update from our lawyers, who are currently helping us in our ongoing legal battle with the Richmond Police Department over documents. Please read, and go to their link, and if you have the ability/inclination, donate to help them be able to take on more cases like ours.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C., an affiliate law firm of Freedom Works Foundation, is proud to stand against prior restraints and censorship of speech protected under the United States and Virginia Constitutions.  Freedom Works Foundation was founded in 1999 as a non-profit foundation in Virginia to defend against attacks on freedom, to promote, assure and enhance freedom.

The American tradition stands in stark contrast to the English licensing system, which expired in 1695, where all printing presses and printers were licensed and nothing could be published without prior approval of the state or church authorities.   All despotic and tyrannical governments attack the freedom of the people to speak.

One of the more famous cases in the United States involved the attempt of the government to restrain the publication of the “Pentagon Papers”, the Vietnam Study Task Force report created by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, consisting of thousands of pages including documents classified as “Top Secret—Sensitive”  At first President Nixon was not opposed to the publication since it was perceived to be embarrassing to the prior administrations of Kennedy and Johnson, but his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger convinced President Nixon that the publication might establish a negative precedent.  The administration then attacked Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo, who allegedly leaked the documents, arguing that they were guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917.  Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal injunction ordering the New York Times to cease publication, which was appealed.  Then Assistant United States Attorney General William Rehnquist unsuccessfully sought an injunction against the Washington Post, which was denied.  Judge Murray Gurfein wrote that “[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”  The government appealed.  The United States Court of Appeals confirmed that the prior restraint of speech was unlawful, in a 6-3 decision with nine different opinions.

Justice Black wrote “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

***

The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. stands behind police forces when they uphold and enforce the law — the firm opposes any police force when the power entrusted to it by the people for the people is used to oppress and rob those they are to serve of the benefit and protection of the law and the constitutions they have sworn to uphold.  It is our sworn duty!

***

Most recently in City of Richmond Police Department, et. al.  v. Moriah Karn, et. al., Case No. CL 12-4939, the law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. is defending Nathan Cox and Moriah Karn against the outrageous attack by the City of Richmond Police Department and the City of Richmond on their rights of free speech under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I § 12 of the Virginia Constitution.

In that suit, the Richmond PD alleged that defendants “somehow obtained certain confidential information of the Department” including the names, addresses, telephone numbers and/or “other confidential information” concerning certain officers and employees of the Department.”

The suit does not allege who specifically posted the information online, but does allege that Karn and/or Cox posted links to the information on websites.  The suit among other things seeks to prevent Karn  and Cox from pointing the public to this information released to the public.

MORE- at this link: http://www.robertslaw.org/prior-restraint-of-speech-first-amendment-violations/

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC – Re: RPD Documents

Posted: December 5, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Latest injunction from RPD:

http://archive.org/details/InjunctionOrder12512

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

The Richmond City Police Department and the City of Richmond have alleged, based on speculation, that the one or more of the defendants in this action (they don’t identify which one) have converted (taken possession or exercised dominion and control over) a portable hard drive that is apparently missing. Of course, as they have sued ten individuals whom they do not identify except as “Does 1-10”, so the defendants to this action could be anyone. They do not explain in their pleading how this hard drive was lost, when it was lost, or where it was lost. They do not describe what the hard drive looks like.

They allege that the hard drive contains what they describe as “confidential” information or documents that has made its way into the public domain and was republished on various websites. The Richmond City Police Department and the City of Richmond allege that they are suffering and continue to suffer damages as a result of the alleged conversion of this hard drive and the loss of the documents on the hard drive.

If the person in possession of this hard drive (if it exists or still exists) reads this post, some or all of the defendants would probably appreciate it if this hard drive were delivered to the clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond (see order below). You may wish to consult an attorney since the Richmond City Police Department has threated criminal charges in what in the opinion of one or more of the defendants is not only a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but also an apparent effort to cover up the incompetence related to the dissemination of the information that they claim to be “confidential,” apparently without adequate password protection or encryption.

Defendants would appreciate it if you would notify counsel for Nathan Cox and Mo Karn if the hard drive is delivered to the clerk.

Video of RPD Serving an Injunction

Posted: November 24, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a video of 2 cops serving an injunction at the Wingnut Anarchist Collective on Wednesday, Nov. 21st, 2012

<p><a href=”http://vimeo.com/54190421″>VID 20121121 142513</a> from <a href=”http://vimeo.com/wingnutrva”>WingnutAnarchistCollective</a&gt; on <a href=”http://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a&gt;.</p>

Don’t forget- you have the right to film and record the police! Contact us if you or your organization would like to discuss how to do Copwatch!

Re-Uploaded General Orders from the RPD

Posted: November 19, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here are links to a few individual sections of the Richmond Police Department’s General Orders, and then a link that contains 285 files of General Orders.

These General Orders do not contain the type of information which was prohibited in the injunction received by activists earlier this week. So even though all of the police files were taken off of a previous upload website, these ones should not have been, based on the language of the injunction. The injunction is concerned about confidential information, which they define as personal information such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, and information about undercover agents. None of this type of information is in the General Orders.

Please download and share these General Orders, to better keep the police accountable to the public.

Oleoresin Capsicum Spray Canister and Fogger 01-08

Firearm Discharge 01-09

Procedure For Consular Notification Of Foreign Nationals 01-10

285 RPD General Order Files

For Your Viewing Peasure – Injunction Sent to Mo Karnage RE: RPD Files

Posted: November 19, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here are copies of the legal injunction served to Mo Karnage on Friday Nov. 16, 2012. The copies that were served to the Wingnut were delivered by a Federal Marshall with at least 2 cops, who arrived in a black SUV with tinted windows.

This is of similar content to the injunction others such as Nathan Cox with Virginia Copblock received.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=1lcXCdm_1zRJSEw-XR0Gqbw9QwPkNvA2whMA2dXxkbUEBzrkj-lHPPDaPQlo0

 

 

Leaked RPD files indicate illegal drug and weapon buys for gang infiltration, with fund requests

Posted: November 19, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From an anonymous contributor:

After searching through the entirety of the leaked documents using keywords I’m fairly satisfied that I’ve at least scanned through all of the material. A lot of the files turned out to be duplicates or older versions so there wasn’t actually all that much to go through. Most of the documents were pretty short and easy to digest, but I think we’ll still need help getting everything relevant out of the 110 page “Emergency Operations Plan” document which is marked in red as “Exempt from FOIA.” Many of these police general orders aren’t really news, and there is honestly a lot of fairly benign material in here. Though not particularly incriminating, the release of this information is still a victory for advocates of transparency and accountability in our public servants. Knowing their modus operandi and internal rules should help political activists and regular citizens alike deal with the police from a more knowledgeable and therefore empowered position. Despite the banality of the bulk of the leak, documents of likely interest have been set aside for your consideration to save you time if you don’t want to dig through a bunch of bureaucratic language to find them.
The quarterly reports and dispursement documents had a couple of interesting pieces of information in them. There is some less-refined employee input here (in contrast to the general orders) that is very telling. I took a couple of notes looking through these files and was particularly taken back by the nonchalant admission that police regularly interact with gangs supposedly in an attempt to win confidence, gain information, and build profiles on members. And by interact, I mean buy drugs and guns. Taxpayer money from the “Investigative Fund” requested by Captain Marty Harrison IV of the Special Investigations Division (SID) is admitted in correspondence to be intended for firearm and narcotics purchases from gangs, as well as for the paying-off of informants! These are not sting operations. Chief Norwood seems happy to grant the requests for $25,000 and $30,000. Is perpetuating a war on drugs worth this kind of routine expense?
Also noted here are quotes from police procedures for handling complaints from civilians regarding the conduct of officers. It might just be me, but the language seems to have an air of disdain for those making complaints and while I’m sure frivolous complaints are common I get the impression that fulfilling requests for complaint forms is generally discouraged. People in other areas surveying their local police department’s willingness to dispense a complaint form have been met with serious resistance. Perhaps a good test of of a department’s willingness to police itself is in its willingness to hand over a complaint form. It’s something worth trying (and recording)…
Finally, I found language about a database system called “CrimeNTel” and a methodology mentioned as “Problem-Oriented Policing” to be worth noting. Homeland Security apparently works with police to use this software to track criminal complaints and general information about suspects or those with histories. It’s noted that it’s unverifiable and inadmissible as evidence in court, but they’ll still use it to keep an eye on you.
For those attempting to make FOIA requests for information from the police, please see the file named “Public Information Requests” for detailed information about their policy for honoring them.
Please see the original documents uploaded here for context and more details. See something we missed? Email http://virginiacopblock.org or http://wingnutrva.org and send us a tip.
-Anon
—————————–
LINKS TO FILES:
 
 
Links good for 7 days
 
—————————–
QUOTES:
#BUY FUND LETTERS
#REQUESTING MONEY FROM THE POLICE’S INVESTIGATIVE FUND TO BUY DRUGS (NOT FOR STINGS BUT TO WIN FAVOR WITH AND “DOCUMENT” GANGS) AND PAY OFF INFORMANTS
“…SID is requesting $30,000.00 of buy money from the Investigative Fund.  The buy money is utilized to further narcotics and gang investigations which impact violent and property crimes in the city.  The money pays for narcotics and gang investigations, to include the purchase of narcotics, payment of informants for investigative operations, court appearances, information pertinent to arrest and current investigations…”
“…CONCLUSION:
I respectfully request that $30,000.00 from the SID buy fund account be disbursed to SID as soon as possible, that  our investigations may continue without interruption…”

(more…)

Older Entries