Man cited in the past for feeding birds near airport is being overcharged, lawyers say
Attorneys for the man accused of creating a public safety nuisance at Bob Hope Airport by feeding a large flock of pigeons argued Friday in court that there was insufficient evidence in the case, and that the charges should be dropped.
Charles Douglas pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charges of creating a public nuisance and disobeying a court order in September.
Donald Ingalls, who with Bruce Kaufman represents the Burbank business owner, said Friday that their client should be facing only an infraction for violating the Burbank municipal code for feeding pigeons and should not face the repercussions of a state nuisance charge, a misdemeanor.
Defense attorneys also said Douglas already faces an alleged probation violation in a related case and a new charge of being in contempt of court should not apply.
Burbank Assistant City Atty. Denny Wei said a judge had already ordered Douglas not to feed pigeons.
"That's why we're prosecuting him, because he is in contempt of court," Wei said.
In his comments to the judge, Wei said a local statute does not preclude a state statute and said the defense's argument lacked merit.
Ingalls said that authorities were trying to intimidate his client, and that they "wanted to teach him a lesson."
Airport authorities allege Douglas, 59, has been feeding pigeons since September 2010, a violation of municipal code.
Of greater concern to airport officials is the threat posed to aircraft when large numbers of birds come near the airfield.
In July, a Southwest Airlines flight was diverted to Ontario after it flew into 20 to 30 pigeons during takeoff, airport authorities have said.
Court records show Douglas has been cited several times for creating a nuisance by feeding pigeons. In August 2011, Burbank police arrested Douglas at his business on suspicion of disobeying a court order and creating a public nuisance by feeding pigeons.
The Glendale resident posted $5,000 bail the same day, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
In an interview in August, airport police Cmdr. Allen Schmitt said an officer saw Douglas put feed on the ground on Sept. 29, 2010.
In December 2010 and in February 2011, Douglas was found guilty of feeding pigeons to the point of creating a nuisance, court documents show.
On July 31, Douglas was again cited for feeding pigeons, Schmitt said.
Ingalls said at an October court appearance that Douglas lacked an attorney at prior proceedings and called his client’s arrest a "media frenzy."
Wei said the maximum penalty on one of the misdemeanors is six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Margaret Oldendorf is expected to issue a written decision next week.
By Maria Hsin, maria.hsin@latimes.com
Source: The Burbank Leader
Monday, February 13, 2012
Lawyer for Gitmo Detainee Challenges Mail-reading Rule
An attorney for an American accused of conspiring to carry out the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging a new rule at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility instructing agents of the military and the government to read all correspondence between lawyers and those prisoners suspected of being 9/11 conspirators.
James Connell, defense counsel for Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, in his pleading asks the federal court to block enforcement of the rule, citing a violation of his client's constitutional right of access to counsel, as well as the privilege afforded communication between attorneys and clients. Connell, a lawyer based in Washington, D.C., also charges that the correspondence guidelines infringe upon the privacy legally afforded all mail exchanged between private citizens.
As reported by the Washington Post, Connell explained, "The Supreme Court has said there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a letter when you mail it from one person to another and there have to be certain requirements before the government can violate that."
As reported last December in The New American, the commander of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, Rear Admiral David Woods, issued a fundamental rule change regarding the military's right to access and review written communication exchanged between Gitmo prisoners suspected of being co-conspirators in the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the attorneys representing them.
According to details of the rules published by the Associated Press, all the covered correspondence sent back and forth between any of the five detainees categorized as 9/11 co-conspirators and their legal counsel would be thoroughly reviewed by law enforcement and Department of Defense personnel.
In response to a request for input from Admiral Woods, the attorneys for the five prisoners have written a memo opposing the new rule based on their averment that such a scheme would violate the privilege afforded communication between attorneys and clients. Furthermore, were the rule to be enforced, their clients would be deprived of the right to counsel guaranteed to individuals by the U.S. Constitution.
Specifically, as set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Brewer v. Williams 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the applicable rights granted by the Sixth and 14th Amendments "mean at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." After the initiation of legal proceedings, a defendant has a right to confer with counsel whenever he is questioned by an agent of the government.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
Given the gravity of the situation and the substantial effect on one of the Bill of Rights' most fundamental guarantees, the lawyers for the five detainees have requested an extension in the time originally afforded them to review the letter and the order sent them by Admiral Woods.
The lawyers also insisted that they needed more time in order to account both for delays in obtaining the necessary security clearances and for the new restrictions on the exchange of correspondence with their clients.
On February 4, that request was denied by Department of Defense officials. Bruce MacDonald — the senior Pentagon official overseeing all aspects of the war crimes tribunal process underway at Guantanamo - refused to allow the attorneys representing the suspected 9/11 co-conspirators any additional time for preparing for the impending military tribunals. This could prove to be a significant obstacle to the zealous defense of the five men represented by the attorneys who filed the motion as Attorney General Eric Holder announced in April that the five would be arraigned before military tribunals sometime in 2012. All five face the death penalty if convicted of the charges against them.
In defiance of the new rule, in January, the head of the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel for Guantanamo Bay military tribunals, Colonel J.P. Colwell, sent an e-mail ordering all lawyers under his command to ignore rules authorizing and requiring officials at the naval facility's detention center to open and read all correspondence between lawyers and the five detainees.
The other four detainees have also been in custody at the Guantanamo facility since 2006 after having been detained - and allegedly tortured - by the Central Intelligence Agency at secret "black site" prisons located throughout the world.
Attorneys representing these high-profile detainees have repeatedly complained about policies in place at the prison. In November of 2011, for example, lawyers sent an open letter to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs decrying the regular revocation of the attorney-client privilege. The letter accused the Joint Task Force Guantanamo of opening, reading, confiscating, and analyzing letters sent between the detainees and their legal counsel. The lawyers insist that such actions are illegal.
Per the Associated Press account: "What they keep wanting to do is to have their intelligence employees promise not to tell anybody about our communications and say that's good enough," said Bryan Broyles, deputy chief defense counsel for the military commissions. "And as a matter of law it's not," he stressed.
For his part, Rear Admiral David Woods testified that the new rules serve to balance his responsibility to accommodate the free exchange of correspondence between lawyers and clients and his obligation to maintain order and safety at the Detention Facility based in Cuba.
Furthermore, Woods stated that those tasked with monitoring the mail do not read the letters so much as verify that the pages are properly marked as privileged communication.
Connell disagrees, however, and in his suit he avers that the rule, in force since late December, must conform to applicable U.S. law regardless of the crimes with which his client is charged.
According to the Washington Post: "A Pentagon spokesman, Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, said the military would not comment on the suit. But officials have defended the rule as a necessary security step, denying it violates attorney-client privilege and makes it impossible to ethically represent the defendants."
Connell's client, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (also known as Ammar al-Baluchi), allegedly transferred most of the money that came to the hijackers of the planes used in the attacks of September 11, 2001. The 9/11 Commission reported that Ali "helped them [the hijackers] with plane tickets, traveler's checks, and hotel reservations," and "taught them about everyday aspects of life in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food." Aziz responded that he often provided this service to travelers from Dubai as a means of supplementing his income. He claims that there was no way he could have known of the ultimate aims of those to whom he provided such assistance.
By Joe Wolverton
Source: The New American
James Connell, defense counsel for Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, in his pleading asks the federal court to block enforcement of the rule, citing a violation of his client's constitutional right of access to counsel, as well as the privilege afforded communication between attorneys and clients. Connell, a lawyer based in Washington, D.C., also charges that the correspondence guidelines infringe upon the privacy legally afforded all mail exchanged between private citizens.
As reported by the Washington Post, Connell explained, "The Supreme Court has said there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a letter when you mail it from one person to another and there have to be certain requirements before the government can violate that."
As reported last December in The New American, the commander of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, Rear Admiral David Woods, issued a fundamental rule change regarding the military's right to access and review written communication exchanged between Gitmo prisoners suspected of being co-conspirators in the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the attorneys representing them.
According to details of the rules published by the Associated Press, all the covered correspondence sent back and forth between any of the five detainees categorized as 9/11 co-conspirators and their legal counsel would be thoroughly reviewed by law enforcement and Department of Defense personnel.
In response to a request for input from Admiral Woods, the attorneys for the five prisoners have written a memo opposing the new rule based on their averment that such a scheme would violate the privilege afforded communication between attorneys and clients. Furthermore, were the rule to be enforced, their clients would be deprived of the right to counsel guaranteed to individuals by the U.S. Constitution.
Specifically, as set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Brewer v. Williams 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the applicable rights granted by the Sixth and 14th Amendments "mean at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." After the initiation of legal proceedings, a defendant has a right to confer with counsel whenever he is questioned by an agent of the government.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Given the gravity of the situation and the substantial effect on one of the Bill of Rights' most fundamental guarantees, the lawyers for the five detainees have requested an extension in the time originally afforded them to review the letter and the order sent them by Admiral Woods.
The lawyers also insisted that they needed more time in order to account both for delays in obtaining the necessary security clearances and for the new restrictions on the exchange of correspondence with their clients.
On February 4, that request was denied by Department of Defense officials. Bruce MacDonald — the senior Pentagon official overseeing all aspects of the war crimes tribunal process underway at Guantanamo - refused to allow the attorneys representing the suspected 9/11 co-conspirators any additional time for preparing for the impending military tribunals. This could prove to be a significant obstacle to the zealous defense of the five men represented by the attorneys who filed the motion as Attorney General Eric Holder announced in April that the five would be arraigned before military tribunals sometime in 2012. All five face the death penalty if convicted of the charges against them.
In defiance of the new rule, in January, the head of the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel for Guantanamo Bay military tribunals, Colonel J.P. Colwell, sent an e-mail ordering all lawyers under his command to ignore rules authorizing and requiring officials at the naval facility's detention center to open and read all correspondence between lawyers and the five detainees.
The other four detainees have also been in custody at the Guantanamo facility since 2006 after having been detained - and allegedly tortured - by the Central Intelligence Agency at secret "black site" prisons located throughout the world.
Attorneys representing these high-profile detainees have repeatedly complained about policies in place at the prison. In November of 2011, for example, lawyers sent an open letter to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs decrying the regular revocation of the attorney-client privilege. The letter accused the Joint Task Force Guantanamo of opening, reading, confiscating, and analyzing letters sent between the detainees and their legal counsel. The lawyers insist that such actions are illegal.
Per the Associated Press account: "What they keep wanting to do is to have their intelligence employees promise not to tell anybody about our communications and say that's good enough," said Bryan Broyles, deputy chief defense counsel for the military commissions. "And as a matter of law it's not," he stressed.
For his part, Rear Admiral David Woods testified that the new rules serve to balance his responsibility to accommodate the free exchange of correspondence between lawyers and clients and his obligation to maintain order and safety at the Detention Facility based in Cuba.
Furthermore, Woods stated that those tasked with monitoring the mail do not read the letters so much as verify that the pages are properly marked as privileged communication.
Connell disagrees, however, and in his suit he avers that the rule, in force since late December, must conform to applicable U.S. law regardless of the crimes with which his client is charged.
According to the Washington Post: "A Pentagon spokesman, Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, said the military would not comment on the suit. But officials have defended the rule as a necessary security step, denying it violates attorney-client privilege and makes it impossible to ethically represent the defendants."
Connell's client, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (also known as Ammar al-Baluchi), allegedly transferred most of the money that came to the hijackers of the planes used in the attacks of September 11, 2001. The 9/11 Commission reported that Ali "helped them [the hijackers] with plane tickets, traveler's checks, and hotel reservations," and "taught them about everyday aspects of life in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food." Aziz responded that he often provided this service to travelers from Dubai as a means of supplementing his income. He claims that there was no way he could have known of the ultimate aims of those to whom he provided such assistance.
By Joe Wolverton
Source: The New American
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)