David,

Do you think Nina Totenberg will be there???

Na, she probably won't leave the Libby trial for this. Bummer.

I can't believe you haven't done a profile on Alterman. He's bigger than Schnell.

The italics happen when people use italics HTML in comments. So people should avoid using italics HTML in comments (even though ATL claims that "you may use HTML tags for style").

I'd rather be at this than the Libby trial. Right now they are listening to days' worth of AUDIOTAPES...

Here is an excerpt from DOES NEW YORK CITY LOOK DIFFERENT TO YOU? THE CHANGING LEGAL LANDSCAPE
OF QUEER NEW YORK CITY 26 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 139

DANIEL ALTERMAN: Thank you Cynthia. I am very happy to be here today in the place where thirty years ago I graduated from law school and where I started having to wear a suit and a tie--and where because of the political events that took place thirty years ago, we see each other here today.

*141 First of all, I would like to take a moment of silence to acknowledge the Diallo family and hope that there are no more Diallo victims of police misconduct.

Approximately thirty years ago today, the National Lawyers Guild, of which I am a past president, marched on Hudson Street with the Gay Liberation Front after Stonewall. And so it is amazing to me, even though it is three decades later, to see and participate in Queer Law 2000. And for that I would like to thank the people who put this program together, because it is really an exciting thing.

But as Cynthia has said, if you are a queer New Yorker, there are certain rights, especially under the present administration, that are more elusive than others. And that is why I would like to talk to you about the Matthew Shepard political funeral demonstration, a spontaneous eruption to protest the horrendous situation in Wyoming involving the death of Matthew Shepard.

I think I was in bed around eleven or twelve o'clock at night on October 19, 1998, when I got a call from Catherine Abate, former state senator, who was going down to the police station with current state senator Tom Duane, New York City Council member Christine Quinn, and local attorney Arthur Schwartz to try and deal with the hundreds of people who had been pulled off the street and deprived of their civil rights and who were being held without warning. And I remember meeting Richard McKewen (who helped organize this conference) and people from the Anti-Violence Project down there. Essentially what happened was that, while the spontaneous demonstration starting at 59th Street had become a candlelight vigil walking down to Madison Square Park, the police acted totally unlawfully. They pulled people off the street merely for being on the street, rather than for violating any criminal statutes. They commandeered buses, grabbed people and put them on these buses, and held them for hours before they were even transported downtown to all the police precincts, depriving many of the marchers of medication. (I know the Anti-Violence Project has a medication case pending, a class action case--which is worthy of support--because access to medication when people are arrested is one of those things that may be a life or death situation.) The police kept people on buses, did not provide them with opportunity to use the bathroom, to take medication, to be free. People were handcuffed, people were subjected to antigay abuse. Some people were released after six or eight hours, and some people were put through the system. It was really a horrendous situation. So I went over to central booking at that time, and I perceived a different sort of modus operandi with regard to the way in which this demonstration was handled.

Now I have done police abuse cases with persons of color for about thirty years. I was also a member of the National Lawyers Guild, and I have tried to serve in a progressive fashion. I am also an Attica lawyer; I *142 was the first lawyer in New York's Attica prison in 1971 after the riots, and I tried the second Attica case in 1975. So I am aware of how the police react to situations, and in this situation it was clear to me that the people who went up to protest the Matthew Shepard killing were really pulled off the street purely because they were demonstrating--unlike other situations where people are arrested for an act of civil disobedience, where people sit-in or people block traffic. And when I got down to central booking, I was with a state senator, I was with an assembly member, I was with a city council member, and a couple of us were lawyers. We asked to be allowed into central booking where people were being processed, to talk to the people in order to let them know that there would be lawyers for them and to find out if any of them had individual needs, like medication, like calling people. We wanted to do the things that lawyers do on a customary basis. We were approached by a high-ranking officer who came out and who was very sheepish, and he said, "I can't do that." And Catherine Abate, who represented this district and is a very progressive legislator, said, "Why? I am a state senator, I am entitled to go in there, I am a lawyer." And he said, "We have these orders from on high."

Now to me, that seemed to say that the cops who were monitoring this event were embarrassed because of the absolutely illegal and unlawful treatment that people were being subject to and because this demonstration was being treated differently, and that the orders came down from police commissioner Howard Safir? Giuliani, maybe? Certainly from the head of Manhattan South, who was in charge of demonstrations, telling the police to get these people off the street. Why? Well, I think it was embarrassing--I think it was at the Plaza Hotel, I think it was on Fifth Avenue, I think it was covered by the media, and I think that all those reasons contributed.

So we were turned away. And then we met other individuals there--who are here today--who were on buses for six hours. Some of them went through the system and then were released. Why were they released? They were released because no one could put the paperwork together to show that the demonstrators had done anything wrong. About 140 people, I think, were arrested that night and put through the system. But then when we got to court, most of the people were charged with disorderly conduct. And so we engaged in a strategy that I think is memorable, that needs to be thought about when you all are lawyers and you are representing people who are the victims of police abuse or false arrest or illegal imprisonment--or you all are the people who will be sitting here and talking to the future generations of activists, and saying, hey, if you get busted, we are coming in, we are going to protect you, we are going to make the system work. We said, based on a strategy that we had developed, that we were ready for trial. Because, first of all, you know the district attorneys *143 were not going to be ready for trials, and second, our clients did not do anything wrong.

So I got there and said I was ready for trial, and my case was sent to a trial part, and I had a trial that same day. The cops were not ready, and what we found out in that trial was that there were videotapes because the police department tapes these demonstrations. We found out that the cops were totally not ready for this thing. We also found out there had been no formal training for cops on how to deal with protestors. What happened in this demonstration that made it different from other demonstrations is that, maybe because of the Giuliani administration and also because who our target audience was, the cops did not make the individual arrests--it was their supervisors.

I saw one complaint that said, "I observed John Jones sitting down and blocking traffic in violation of the criminal law." I put the witnessing cop on the stand, and I said, "You signed this document under oath. What did you see?" He replied, "I saw nothing." I then asked, "How do you arrest the guy if you saw nothing?" He said, "Some whiteshirt [which is a police supervisor] said, 'Arrest him!" ' I asked who that police officer was, that commander, that captain, and that supervisor, and he said, "I don't know." So I said, "What you swore to officer, under oath, is a lie." Opposing counsel raised an objection, objection was sustained. "So it is a lie officer isn't it?" His response? "Yes. It is not true. I didn't see them." Obviously the people who were arrested by this officer were acquitted. Here you had something akin to what has been happening with Rampart police officer scandal in Los Angeles-- where the outcome in at least sixty cases has been voided because they had planted evidence. In our case, we won not because the judge ruled that the cop lied, but because the district attorney failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When I got out of there, I attempted to get the videotapes because it was evidence used in my trial, but New York County D.A. Robert Morgenthau resisted.

As far as I know those were the only two cases that were tried. But for me, they raised an issue that is relevant for us here at Queer Law 2000--for those of us here who are going to be activists, the rules may be different when you are dealing with gay people. And the rules may be different when you are dealing with the Giuliani administration. If Norman Siegel, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, were here he would probably tell you that the work of NYCLU has become incredibly relevant during the Giuliani administration (because they have won nine out of eleven major cases!).

When I looked at these cases, I said, "What are we going to do? How are we going to relate to them?" I had cops making arrests without seeing anything, and I had the D.A. resisting release of these possibly exculpatory tapes. Why? Because someone told Morgenthau to resist handing over the *144 tapes. So I then brought an action [FN1] (for which I am going to ask if anyone wants to volunteer). I just amended it to include a class action on the basis of police misconduct. Now, it is my feeling that I am going to get a deposition of either Safir, whom I named as a defendant, or the Chief of Manhattan South, who supposedly has the authority and the responsibility to train these individual police officers. We are saying that the officers were not trained. This cop testified that all he was trained to do was make a wedge to break up demonstrations where people block traffic, but that was the only thing.

And this was a pretty horrendous event because people were pulled off the street, people were denied medication, people were urinating in bottles. The cops really acted terribly.

So we brought a class action and we were in the middle of discovery before I tried to figure out who was arrested and not charged, who was arrested and was charged, and who was in the system. At that point, we decided to try to simplify it all and bring an action based on police misconduct and illegalities from the jump. And I think as an activist and as potential lawyers who do this kind of work, I think that while it is daunting, it really means looking at the bigger picture and being really focused, which is sometimes hard for me to do. I think that what happened here is that something came down from the city administration very early in the process that said, "We don't care what it is going to cost us, take those buses, get those people off the street, stop the cameras, and deny these people their rights. Because by the time this case goes into court, you know, it'll be three years or four years down the road, and Giuliani won't pay the price."

The fact of the matter is though, these lawsuits, while incredibly hard to bring and time-intensive and not particularly profitable, perhaps really have to be brought. Because we have to understand the psyche of the people that we are dealing with. Because we learned a lesson here. We learned that if we demonstrate without a permit, in a spontaneous way, even if it is a candlelight vigil--I mean, people were not going nuts here--that you are going to be the subject of police abuse, and then you are going to be the subject of harassment while you are in custody, and then everyone is going to raise up their hands and say, "I don't know why we did this but we did it." So, I am really happy to be here. I look forward to hearing from anyone who is interested in working on this thing. Thank you very much.

3:41 - I'm sure this would be more interesting that grand jury tapes, however, I'm betting that it is a move-your-feet-lose-your-seat kind of deal in the gallery for Libby.

Ms. Totenberg would probably not remember to tap-tap-place-back either.

David,

If Steven Speilvogel of the esteemed Gallion & Speilvogel happens to be at the hearing on Thursday, please do not forget to give us ALL the delicious details!

Lat, what about this link? (wherein you are mentioned)

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/02/paper_trail_disturbed_at_sulli.html

If the "GSBarristers" show up, those dudes better be packing - powdered wigs!

3:49, no one's going to read your stupid law review excerpt.

http://www.lawprose.org/videos.php?video=kozinski.wmv

Although I, too, enjoyed the Gallion & Spielvogel comments, I think one can go too far. After all, they are just trying to make a living and aren't hurting anyone. It takes a lot of courage to go out on your own, take on a lease, office equipment, staff, etc. I think we should cut them some slack. How about it?

it's an article on alterman . i ddnt write it

I am with just thinking. I think Mssrs. G and S probably felt like they had to be that effusive to get the attention of clients. I mean, Fasman doesn't need to sell himself to get clients - they'll just come to him. But they're just starting out...

Still, we did have some good laughs

Thanks, Moment of Pity 5:18 PM

I feel badly that they shut down their web site. Blogging is a powerful medium; reputations can be tarnished in seconds. I think we should stick with legal issues and not get sidetracked with ridiculing people. That's just too easy.

can someone explain to me why messr. alterman has time to post on this blog under the name "anon" and refer us to a law review article about him and another comment about how prestigious he is?

actually, gsbarristers should be grateful to atl and its readers. who knows how long they had that awful and laughable website up.

now they can fix it and replace it with something more humble, professional, and just plain normal.

sometimes you don't know there's a problem until someone points it out to you. like if you have something caught in your teeth and nobody tells you.

Lat, great Brioni reference. Please check to see whether his suit's sleeve buttonholes are working, sham, or a combination of both; also check if the lapel buttonhole is handsewn. If you can determine whether his lapel features a boutonniere loop on the reverse side you win Blogger of the Year.

lulz at gratituous shirtless picture in your friendster profile

[not saying you look bad]

lulz at gratuitous shirtless picture in your friendster profile

[not saying you look bad]

*typo in first comment

For those of you who need a fix of Spielvogel, check out the website of the International Network of Boutique Law Firms (http://www.inblf.com/). It repeats the pompous jackassery found at that old G&S site ("eminently eminent," "prestigiously prestigious," etc.).

Note too, in addition to founding INBLF, Spielvogel also founded the International Association of Networks, "whose membership consists solely of the presidents of only the most selective and significant of professional and business associations." A select association of select associations? The guy is unstoppable.

Suprising about Cadwalader, esp. after reading this: http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=1170682662248

What time is the hearing scheduled to begin?