Frankly, I was unprepared for the level of cynicism engendered by the lawsuit filed by the ACLU and two other civil rights attorneys, on behalf of the pepper-sprayed protesters at UC Davis.
It is one thing to argue that the police acted appropriately, and therefore you think the lawsuit is unjustified. It is another to imply that the attorneys were doing this because they would be making big money.
But that is what was stated by two posters, after the Vanguard took the trouble of asking ACLU Staff Attorney Alan Schlosser how the compensation portion of the lawsuit worked.
One person responded, “They are doing it for the money. It’s always the money with these people.” And another, “Sure it settles the issue – the lawyers stand to make big bucks!”
Neither of these statements is actually accurate. Four of the attorneys on the suit are ACLU staff attorneys, who do not stand to make anything on this suit. Attorney’s fees would go to the ACLU and the attorneys are on salary. For the other two, any compensation would be commensurate to the number of billable hours that they work. Split six ways at least, we are likely not talking about a huge amount of hours.
They are not standing to make big bucks and if they are, then it will be based on getting paid for the work they do. The big bucks for attorneys do not come in compensation for billable hours, but rather the huge award settlements that tort attorneys bring in, which they get a sizable cut on.
This case is, first of all, not going to produce a lot of money to begin with. Second, the attorneys are not working on contingency and therefore will not receive a portion of the damages.
The students are not going to see a lot of money out of this, either. There are 19 plaintiffs on this case, and if they got a million dollar settlement, which would likely be the high end, you’re talking about $50,000.
The bigger concern was that the university be held accountable, that they change their policies so that it never happens again, and we get to the bottom of what happened.
Some people argue why not wait for the independent investigation to finish first? I talked to all parties on that – there were concerns that the date on the completion of the investigations was getting pushed back and there was distrust that the process would actually yield real results.
The choice of Kroll and William Bratton has been largely criticized by many who believe that Kroll is conflicted and that this is a massive whitewash job.
Having spoken with Cruz Reynoso a number of times, I am cautiously hopeful that his integrity and years of experience will push this investigation in a different direction. We will see, but right now I think we will be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.
Back to the cynicism. The statement, “it’s always the money with these people,” particularly galls me. Of the six attorneys listed on the suit, I have in the past worked at least four of them, and I doubt any of them got even a dime for the work that they have done on those matters.
The attorney I know the best is Mark Merin, who has made a career out of representing the disenfranchised and the underdogs. He was the attorney who challenged the City of Sacramento’s homeless ordinance, representing the plaintiffs in that matter and even getting in legal trouble when he allowed his property to be used as a sanctuary when the people had nowhere else to go.
He has also represented many of the Occupy Sacramento folks, pro bono.
But it is his work on the West Sacramento Gang Injunction that I think stands out to me as most telling, that he is not one who is “always” about the money. He and a group of attorneys agreed to represent the defendants in that case pro bono.
It did not start out that way. They petitioned the court to be the appointed attorneys for the defendants in the case, much as it would work in a criminal matter. But Judge Kathleen White ruled that the matter was civil and therefore the defendants were not entitled to attorneys and not entitled to a public defense.
So with Judge White’s decision, the attorneys would not receive money from the county to defend the defendants. So, what did Mark Merin and seven other attorneys do? Did they cut tail and run because they would not get paid? No. They agreed to represent the plaintiffs pro bono.
The trial lasted nearly six months. Mark Merin and one of his staff attorneys were there almost the entire time – we are talking probably 70 hours of just court time each week that the trial lasted, with no pay. That is just from Mark Merin’s office. There were generally four or five attorneys at the trial each day. That does not include the prep time, the research time, or other expenses.
In general when you are thinking about all of the attorneys who make great livings and are getting rich, you are not thinking about public advocacy and civil rights attorneys. Most of these attorneys take on cases for which they will never see any money.
There was a good article in the Sacramento Bee last August about Stewart Katz, a civil rights attorney in Sacramento who often practices law in Yolo County, as well.
Wrote Denny Walsh of the Sacramento Bee: “If there were no Stewart Katz , many of those he represents would have no attorney. Among his clients are down-and-outers, dopers, boozers, street people, ex-convicts, petty crooks and others with grievances and nowhere else to take them.”
The article continues: “They are the dispossessed, with no money and no way to get any. Katz takes their cases, knowing he won’t get paid and will be out expenses when he doesn’t prevail.”
That is the life of most of these attorneys – they take these cases because they believe in them.
Now, in the story that Mr. Walsh wrote about, Stewart Katz was awarded attorney fees.
Writes Mr. Walsh: “But earlier this month, in a case tried last winter in federal court, Katz got a welcome pat on the back. It was a typical Katz case, with the client, Drake Jones, claiming he had been brutalized by deputies while an inmate at the Sacramento County Main Jail.”
He continues, “The jury found excessive force had been used and that each of four deputies and a sergeant “acted maliciously, oppressively or in reckless disregard” of Jones’ constitutional rights, but it voted only token compensatory damages of $31,000.”
What was different about this case is that the US Magistrate “ordered the county to pay fees, costs and expenses totaling $331,225 to Katz; an associate in his office, Guy Danilowitz; and Joseph George Jr., an attorney he sometimes works with.”
To me, that is a telling story because one might have the tendency to think that Mr. Katz got rich off that case. But the award was split three ways, the costs and expenses which Mr. Katz and his office had to bear probably soaked up a good portion of that money and it might have been the only payment Mr. Katz received last year.
It is easy to get cynical about lawyers, but to me the Stewart Katzes and the Mark Merins of the world are the good guys, they are the heroes fighting for the underdogs, even when they are unlikely to ever see a dime for their efforts. And if it were not for the ACLU, a lot of the rights that we take for granted in this society would have been encroached, eroded, or worse yet, never even recognized to begin with. I understand those who disagree with the ACLU, but they are true believers, for better or for worse.
Instead of being cynical about their efforts, we should be thankful that there are people like them willing to fight for the rights of the little guys, in the name of social justice.
As for the actions of these attorneys costing taxpayers and UC students additional money in legal expenses – I put the blame on the police who used excessive force and the university who decided to clear the quad rather than allow a few students to voice their disapproval of the process by camping out.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
….”For the other two, any compensation would be commensurate on the number of billable hours that they work. Split six ways at least, we are likely not talking about a huge amount of hours.”
lol, the vanguard shoots itself in the foot with this statement…… no point in arguing against a political opponent who is hanging himself…. just let him take as much rope as he needs…
Of the six attorneys listed on the suit, I have worked in the past with at least four of them, and I doubt any of them got even a dime for the work that they have done on those matters.
in other words, you are very close to your sources, which brings up credibility issues….
I understand those who disagree with the ACLU, but they are true believers for better or for worse.
lol, no they’re not.. they came out in favor of marijuana legalization…… quite a stretch to claim marijuana a “civil right”…..
” Most of these attorneys take on cases for which they will never see any money.”
in the hopes of beefing up their resume, to take on cases that will….
“in other words, you are very close to your sources, which brings up credibility issues….”
Where did I say I’m very close to my sources? All I said was I was familiar with their work.
“in the hopes of beefing up their resume, to take on cases that will…. “
This speaks to your ignorance of who people like Mark Merin are. You really just do not know what you are talking about.
David
I appreciate your choosing to post this clarification. It is not a waste of time to do so. I was not familiar with the work of Mark Merin as you are and appreciate the information.
I don’t think it takes much to understand why this is a difficult concept for some to understand. If you define the world in terms of the “good guys” defined as “everyone who thinks as I do” and “the bad guys” as “everyone else”, then of course all motives of “bad guys” must be selfish or in some way reprehensible.
This is not about ideas or concepts, it is about “are you with us or are you against us”. And that is not very difficult
to understand, just a very limited way to see the world.
Two cited posts, admittedly cynical, does not necessarily reflect the attitude of the larger society.
The University system will never go to court to fight this suit. UC Administrators’ greatest fear is having about 3-4 key figures in the pepper spray incident giving depositions under oath. They will settle, as they always do, and the sum will be well above the $1,000,000 suggested in this story.
All that aside, ACLU attorneys do not chose this profession option to make the Big Bucks. Corporate law and tort liability is where those attorneys aspire. One might criticize the ACLU priorities, politics, and ulterior motives, but nobody can say they are a cash cow.
[quote]Four of the attorneys on the suit are ACLU staff attorneys, who do not stand to make anything on this suit. Attorney’s fees would go to the ACLU and the attorneys are on salary. For the other two, any compensation would be commensurate to the number of billable hours that they work. Split six ways at least, we are likely not talking about a huge amount of hours.[/quote]
The ACLU stands to make the money, and that money will in turn go to pay the salaries of the ACLU attorneys. Without money coming into the ACLU, its attorneys do not get paid. Thus the ACLU had every financial reason to take on cases like this. (That doesn’t mean they are not doing it for a “good cause”, altho that term is in the eye of the beholder – some would say this particular lawsuit is not a “good cause”). For the two non-ACLU attorneys, they will be paid for billable hours, which is not inconsiderable. Attorneys bill anywhere from $200 per hour to $450 an hour, which is nice work if you can get it. Especially these days, when lawyers are having a more difficult time finding work.
[quote]They are not standing to make big bucks and if they are, then it will be based on getting paid for the work they do. The big bucks for attorneys do not come in compensation for billable hours, but rather the huge award settlements that tort attorneys bring in, which they get a sizable cut on.[/quote]
While this case may not generate huge billion dollar settlements, it will generate in the millions, and the Vanguard concedes. That is not chump change. And the fact of the matter is these attorneys will get adequately (some would argue more than adequately) paid for the time and effort they put in, at a time when legal work is difficult to find…
[quote]This speaks to your ignorance of who people like Mark Merin are.[/quote]Would this be the same Mark Merin who ostensibly violated state law and the Davis Municipal Code for personal gain?
[quote]The bigger concern was that the university be held accountable, that they change their policies so that it never happens again, and we get to the bottom of what happened.[/quote]
It would seem to me if that were the real concern, the ACLU lawyers would have waited until the results of the Cruz Reynoso investigation came out. But instead they have jumped the gun, which in my opinion gives the perception they are in it for the money, like it or not…
Moderator please remove my post… it may be true, but it was out-of -line in this discussion… my apologies…
[quote]We will see, but right now I think we will be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.[/quote]
If you have guarded optimism about the investigation, you are undermining your own argument that the ACLU has purely altruistic motives in filing the lawsuit before giving the investigation a chance to come out with its findings. Won’t the ACLU have egg on its face if you are correct?
[quote]Back to the cynicism. The statement, “it’s always the money with these people,” particularly galls me. Of the six attorneys listed on the suit, I have in the past worked at least four of them, and I doubt any of them got even a dime for the work that they have done on those matters.[/quote]
I doubt you are correct. Did these attorneys not get paid a salary for the work they do? That is still getting paid in anybody’s book…
[quote]In general when you are thinking about all of the attorneys who make great livings and are getting rich, you are not thinking about public advocacy and civil rights attorneys. Most of these attorneys take on cases for which they will never see any money.[/quote]
They may not get paid the big bucks that a tort litigator makes, but they get paid an adequate salary by the ACLU itself, no? I very much doubt they are starving on the streets, or are not able to pay all their bills on time. And taking on celebrated causes brings with it “free advertising”.
[quote]In general when you are thinking about all of the attorneys who make great livings and are getting rich, you are not thinking about public advocacy and civil rights attorneys. Most of these attorneys take on cases for which they will never see any money.[/quote]
These attorneys are paid by the non-profit or public agency that hires them to do such cases. Some non-profits and public agencies pay better than others. But these attorneys to earn a living that pays their bills…
[quote]To me, that is a telling story because one might have the tendency to think that Mr. Katz got rich off that case. But the award was split three ways, the costs and expenses which Mr. Katz and his office had to bear probably soaked up a good portion of that money and it might have been the only payment Mr. Katz received last year.[/quote]
Then Mr. Katz did not truly work “for free”, did he? It paid his expenses to keep his office open for other paying cases, no?
If it was all about altruism and ideology then why is monetary compensation part of the lawsuit? I would have had a lot more respect for the students if they had left that out.
[quote]It is easy to get cynical about lawyers, but to me the Stewart Katzes and the Mark Merins of the world are the good guys, they are the heroes fighting for the underdogs, even when they are unlikely to ever see a dime for their efforts. And if it were not for the ACLU, a lot of the rights that we take for granted in this society would have been encroached, eroded, or worse yet, never even recognized to begin with. I understand those who disagree with the ACLU, but they are true believers, for better or for worse.[/quote]
To say that these attorneys do not get paid is misleading. The ACLU pays them a salary, no? Secondly, you may feel the causes taken up by the ACLU are “righteous”, but many citizens of this country/state do not have the same view. And particularly about the students who were pepper-sprayed…
Medwoman: While I understand your point, I actually did not mean it as you took it.
I made this point early on: “It is one thing to argue that the police acted appropriately, and therefore you think the lawsuit is unjustified. It is another to imply that the attorneys were doing this because they would be making big money.”
By good guys, I meant people who are willing to fight for what they believe without doing it strictly to line their pockets. And yes, there are people whose causes I do not believe in but I don’t view those people as “bad” or “evil.” I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Elaine has said on DACHA, but I respect her representing Mr. Ireland in his case.
Hpierce: I’m curious as to what you are referring to?
Elaine: “If you have guarded optimism about the investigation, you are undermining your own argument that the ACLU has purely altruistic motives in filing the lawsuit before giving the investigation a chance to come out with its findings. Won’t the ACLU have egg on its face if you are correct?”
I base my guarded optimism on calculations that the ACLU didn’t have access to. Even if Reynoso does come out with favorable findings, that does not mean that the university will act on them appropriately. Risher said that some people thought they were jumping the gun, some people wondered why they waited so long. I don’t see the monetary portion of this being that big and I don’t see much incentive for anyone to do it for monetary reasons.
“Did these attorneys not get paid a salary for the work they do?”
My only point is that their pay will not be impacted by them taking or not taking this case.
Don’t at least acknowledge that someone who believes that this was an horrific action by the university and the police would be interested in helping a lawsuit to get to the truth of what happened? And that that motive stands above and beyond their drive to make a living? And BTW, when did it become bad to earn money for work performed?
To DMG: Don’t you need to ask yourself: Would the ACLU have filed this case if there was absolutely no chance of remuneration for their services? Or decided to wait a bit, until the results of the investigation came out first, before filing such a lawsuit?
And btw, additionally, the fact that everyone here assumes that the payout will be higher than $1 million is tacitly acknowledging that in fact huge mistakes were made by the university. Which leads to question why you would impugn the motives of the attorneys to begin with if you believe that it is a justified lawsuit.
“If it was all about altruism and ideology then why is monetary compensation part of the lawsuit?”
A lot of reasons. One it is a bargaining chip if there is to be a settlement that can be used as leverage. Two money talks which means that the university will take having to make changes in the future more seriously if it costs them money and there is a threat that it will cost them money in the future.
I’ve been party to a lawsuit and in that lawsuit, I asked for monetary damages and had I won, I would donated the money for charitable purposes, but it was important to ask for it for a lot of reasons.
[quote]And btw, additionally, the fact that everyone here assumes that the payout will be higher than $1 million is tacitly acknowledging that in fact huge mistakes were made by the university. Which leads to question why you would impugn the motives of the attorneys to begin with if you believe that it is a justified lawsuit.[/quote]
A payout of more than $1 million only assumes the cost of litigation may not be worth the price that will be paid to fight the lawsuit to the bitter end. Legal expenses can get very steep very quickly…
“Don’t you need to ask yourself: Would the ACLU have filed this case if there was absolutely no chance of remuneration for their services?”
I believe they would. Mark Merin defended gang injunction defendants when he had zero chance for remuneration for his services. One thing you may not know is that the original gang injunction that was thrown out was challenged by the ACLU led by Alan Schlosser. And again, no remuneration. So yes, I tend to believe that is the case.
[quote]rusty49: “If it was all about altruism and ideology then why is monetary compensation part of the lawsuit?”
DMG: A lot of reasons. One it is a bargaining chip if there is to be a settlement that can be used as leverage. Two money talks which means that the university will take having to make changes in the future more seriously if it costs them money and there is a threat that it will cost them money in the future. [/quote]
Monetary compensation is being asked for bc lawyers need to get paid, just like everyone else. This is their bread and butter…
David….. what is an “off-line” e-mail I can use to discuss… I’d like both of my previous posts deleted.
hpierce: I will delete your messages per your request. Please email me: info@davisvanguard.org . If you prefer unanimity go through the contract form on our site and you can use “hpierce” as your name.
“Monetary compensation is being asked for bc lawyers need to get paid, just like everyone else. This is their bread and butter… “
You are now confusing attorney fees which is separate from the monetary damages of which the attorney get $0 from.
[quote]I believe they would. Mark Merin defended gang injunction defendants when he had zero chance for remuneration for his services. One thing you may not know is that the original gang injunction that was thrown out was challenged by the ACLU led by Alan Schlosser. And again, no remuneration. So yes, I tend to believe that is the case.[/quote]
What you believe and what they would do are two different things. Secondly, you don’t take into account the “free advertising” such a case inherently brings with it…
IMHO, this lawsuit was premature, and should have been filed after the Reynoso investigation, assuming the Reynoso investigation did not drag on so long that statute of limitation concerns would arise… just my opinion…
“What you believe and what they would do are two different things.”
At least I provided evidence to support my belief.
“Secondly, you don’t take into account the “free advertising” such a case inherently brings with it…”
I don’t think either Mark Merin or the ACLU needs free advertising. Merin is about to retire anyway, but his record stands for itself within his field.
“IMHO, this lawsuit was premature, and should have been filed after the Reynoso investigation, assuming the Reynoso investigation did not drag on so long that statute of limitation concerns would arise… just my opinion…”
They have six months to file a government claim and then I believe three years to file the suit. Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not evidence that they have done this for money. I do think it seems odd that you think they should not file a lawsuit if Reynoso’s investigation turns up pointing blame at the university – if anything a lawsuit would be more needed at that point imo because it will force the university to take actions they may not want to take otherwise.
Why assume the university would not cooperate with the recommendations of the Reynoso investigation? Did not Yudoff specifically call for this investigation?
“Why assume the university would not cooperate with the recommendations of the Reynoso investigation?”
More importantly why assume that they will particularly if you were one of the kids who was pepper sprayed? And aren’t they more likely to do so if they are facing a lawsuit?
[quote]I don’t think either Mark Merin or the ACLU needs free advertising.[/quote]
Sure they do – like any good business, “free advertsing” is essential to their business model. High profile cases can make or break non-profits. The ACLU is known for taking on high profile cases, and this is certainly a high profile case. There really was no good reason for jumping the gun here, as it appears there was plenty of time yet to file a suit once the Reynoso investigation was finished. But let’s face it, to wait would have stolen the ACLU’s thunder…
David
I have to apologize for the confusion my remarks caused. I only addressed my comment to you because I was starting out with my thanks which was directly to you for the coverage.
The remainder of my comment was directed towards those who were labeling the attorneys as acting only out of greed. I believe that the truth is that attorneys, like the rest of us, probably have multiple motives behind our actions which include the imperative of making a living, supporting those causes that we believe in, and outright altruism. Stating that it is “always about the money for these people” is a simplistic and unnecessarily derogatory statement in my view and that was the target of my comment.
Elaine,
“IMHO, this lawsuit was premature, and should have been filed after the Reynoso investigation, assuming the Reynoso investigation did not drag on so long that statute of limitation concerns would arise… just my opinion…”
I understand your point, and have mixed feelings on this. We know, from Reynoso’s statements that the investigation is likely to have substantial limitations based on the inability to subpoena. This factor alone would make me think that a lawsuit is basically inevitable. So, I am not sure what benefit is to be gained by delay.
Also, delay has a potential downside if the goal is to prevent further such actions on the part of campus police departments. From the point of view of the students, could it not be at the next protest, or any kind of large campus event for that matter, that things get out of hand, events spiral, someone chooses to use what at some point becomes excessive force and someone is killed or seriously injured ? This to me is, or should be the real goal here, and if that is the case, I do not see a benefit to delay. Your thoughts?
It’s still a free country, and people are allowed to believe in whatever they choose. They can believe in Santa Claus. They can believe in the Easter Bunny. They can believe that autism is caused by vaccinations. They can believe that we have wise and benevolent stewards running our government. And they can believe that ACLU lawyers work not for the money or to push their political agenda, but for the good of society.
These beliefs are naive, in my opinion, but they don’t rub me the wrong way. I find them sort of charming.
“And they can believe that ACLU lawyers work not for the money or to push their political agenda, but for the good of society.”
This is really a distortion of what has been posted here and the tone of your comment is actually pretty insulting.
1. Never said that the ACLU lawyers did not work for money, I said that they did not file this lawsuit merely for money
2. I certainly never said that they were not attempting to push their political agenda, but I think they believe that their political agenda is for the good of society. I agree with that, you are free to disagree with that.
I hope UCD doesn’t settle out of court. I’d like to see them fight this all the way. After the full video came out and people saw the whole story many changed their minds as to who was at fault. Sure in this little liberal enclave of Davis a majority will see it the students way, but I believe once you get out of town America sees it differently.
One of the problems here is the fact that too many people are unaware of the extent and frequency of law enforcement brutality and misconduct.
Lawsuits are, in part, an attempt to expose the problem.
Katz and Merin are inundated with potential clients seeking their help, and must turn away far more clients, with excellent cases, than they accept.
Most news media focus on CRIME! and keep us ignorant of law enforcement’s own criminal misconduct.
The Glenn County DA is currently attempting to put a stop to the Sacramento Valley Mirror’s (an independent newspaper) expose of law
enforcement misbehavior. The Mirror frequently prints interviews and
research and photographs of innocent people, and arrestees, who have been
badly beaten and permanently injured.
The DA claims the real news will contaminate the jury pool; the paper
maintains that its readers have a right to know what’s going on in their
community.
The right wing continually bashes the ACLU: It is not to the advantage of government agencies, or corporations, to be held accountable.
Right wing “Rusty” forgets that people around the world saw the video
and were appalled. People who approve Pike’s behavior would approve the
Nazi’s too.
rusty49
“…
I hope UCD doesn’t settle out of court. I’d like to see them fight this all the way. After the full video came out and people saw the whole story many changed their minds as to who was at fault. Sure in this little liberal enclave of Davis a majority will see it the students way, but I believe once you get out of town America sees it differently.”
The somewhat longer, annotated clip to which you have repeatedly referred to as “the whole story” was anything but complete. It was heavily edited and annotated to present an anti-demonstrator point of view. Taken concurrently were literally hours of footage taken from many different vantage points and interpretable from many different points of view. Just picking the clip that comes the closest to your philosophic point of view
And calling it “the whole strory” does not make that true. Obviously it is not “the whole story” since it does not include any conversation with or orders from the chancellor or the police chief, both of which would need to be considered before one claims to know, ” the whole story”.
[quote] I certainly never said that they were not attempting to push their political agenda, but I think they believe that their political agenda is for the good of society. I agree with that, you are free to disagree with that.[/quote]
I actually do not disagree with that.
My experience is that lawyers, whether they represent mortgage brokers or the indigent or the downtrodden or oil firms or insurance companies or rapists or pornographers, all feel that what they are doing is for the overall good of society.
It’s human nature to come to believe that what you are doing is for the overall good.
Nonetheless, as Woodward and Bernstein reported, if you want to understand why seemingly strange things happen in society, it s a good idea to [quote]follow the money.[/quote]
The cost of this type of lawsuit to the university is immense, far more than the reported settlement which the spineless administrators will likely make. There are a host of senior UC administrators getting big salaries who are running around dealing with these types of lawsuits and trying to head off others. The same is true at every large university, and it is viewed as an unavoidable cost of operating an institution in a litigious society. The cost per student is not minor, but rather a sizable fraction of the large increase in tuition that they have been paying. The beneficiaries of this large expenditure are the many administrators and the lawyers involved. The payers are the students who pay higher fees, the faculty who don’t get pay raises and teach larger classes, and the taxpayers who pay for it all but have declining chances to send their kids to UC.
The cost is immense but in a lot of ways it should be. It should cost a lot of money when the university police screw up and hopefully that acts as a deterrent next time.
The bad publicity and internal turmoil that have consumed vast amounts of time, money and attention, are a pretty strong deterrent to the university to not have their police screw up again.
JR
“…
The bad publicity and internal turmoil that have consumed vast amounts of time, money and attention, are a pretty strong deterrent to the university to not have their police screw up again.”
one would think so….but perhaps not given that the UC Berkeley and UCD episodes happened within weeks of each other.
DG does it again….[quote]the [b]fact[/b] that [u]everyone[/u] here [i]assumes [/i][/quote]
ROFLMAO…………………………
eagle, when can I expect you to [please] post the total number of arrests in CA annually and the percentage of same where no law suits have been filed.
[quote]Also, delay has a potential downside if the goal is to prevent further such actions on the part of campus police departments. From the point of view of the students, could it not be at the next protest, or any kind of large campus event for that matter, that things get out of hand, events spiral, someone chooses to use what at some point becomes excessive force and someone is killed or seriously injured ? This to me is, or should be the real goal here, and if that is the case, I do not see a benefit to delay. Your thoughts?[/quote]
I’m not following your point here… a lawsuit is only going to embolden students all the more to do stupid things in the name of a “just cause”. After all the negative publicity of the pepper-spraying incident, if that didn’t deter police, I doubt anything would – certainly not a lawsuit. Police don’t pay for the lawsuit – the students themselves will end up paying for that lawsuit.
Frankly, I don’t think it takes subpoena power or rocket science to make reasonable recommendations to the University on how it should proceed in the future in regard to student demonstrations. My guess is Cruz Reynoso will come up with some pretty straight forward sensible approaches that will satisfy everyone. And then there would have been no need for a lawsuit and its attendant costs, which will ultimate be borne by the students.
[quote]DMG:Never said that the ACLU lawyers did not work for money… [/quote]
You could have fooled me:
[quote]“it shows that mind set of people like Katz, they don’t expect to get paid, they do this because they believe in what they are doing.”
“And again, no remuneration.”
“Four of the attorneys on the suit are ACLU staff attorneys, who do not stand to make anything on this suit.”
“Second, the attorneys are not working on contingency and therefore will not receive a portion of the damages.”
“I doubt any of them got even a dime for the work that they have done on those matters.”
“Most of these attorneys take on cases for which they will never see any money.”
“they are the heroes fighting for the underdogs, even when they are unlikely to ever see a dime for their efforts”[/quote]