Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
Voting on Ballot Measures in Oregon 2008
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: The important ballot measures to remember in Oregon 2008


Vote NO on Measure 61

Measure 61 would greatly expand the number of criminal defendants subject to mandatory minimums, this time for non-violent property and drug crimes. Under this measure, a sentence would have to be served in its entirety, and there would be no eligibility for reduction at any time during the sentence (good time credit).

ACLU opposes mandatory minimum prison sentences because they eliminate a judge’s ability to evaluate the facts of each case and consider the character and history of the defendant in determining the most appropriate sentence.

ACLU Opposes Measure 57, but…*

This measure requires judges to impose a minimum prison sentence, the length of which would depend only on the person’s criminal history. It would prohibit judges from ordering a lesser sentence which current law allows in exceptional situations based upon an individual’s particular circumstances. As a result, the new sentences are mandatory minimum sentences. They differ slightly from Oregon’s current mandatory minimum scheme in that Measure 57 would allow an inmate to receive credit for good behavior during incarceration.

Measure 57 also would increase access to drug treatment programs for those who are incarcerated or on post-prison supervision or probation. It would provide local counties with additional funding for drug courts, intensive supervision and jail beds to use as sanctions for those who fail to comply with conditions imposed by their treatment programs.

If Measure 57 receives more “yes” votes than Measure 61, it would supersede (and replace) Measure 61. (Likewise, if both measures receive a majority of votes cast, but this measure receives fewer “yes” votes than Measure 61, Measure 57 would not go into effect.)

* While in an ideal world we would hope that voters would reject both Measures 61 and 57, we are also well aware of current political realities in Oregon. Deciding how to vote on Measure 57 will be one of the most difficult decisions civil libertarians will face this year. Recommendation: The ACLU of Oregon Opposes Ballot Measure 57, but we urge ACLU members and supporters to be aware of its link to Ballot Measure 61 and make up your own minds.

Vote NO on Measure 58

Measure 58 would impose arbitrary limits on english language Instruction in public schools. The measure also runs the risk of being in conflict with federal equal education opportunity requirements and jeopardizing federal funding. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on “race, color or national origin.”  This is part of an ongoing nationwide “English-only” effort. Measure 58 would eliminate local control by school boards, educators and families and replace it with a one-size-fits-all approach that would hurt students who are not able to become completely fluent in English within a relatively short period of time.

VOTE NO on Measure 64

Measure 64 would  mandate that no “public resources” be used to collect or to help collect money used for “political purposes.”  This would basically restrict political speech and association rights of public employees and non-profit organizations. The definition of “public resources” is very broad and would include the use of “public buildings.”  Measure 64 would bar candidates and ballot measure-related events in those buildings while still allowing every other type of group to meet. That raises significant concerns under the Oregon and U.S. constitutions. In addition, Measure 64 would eliminate the ability of public employees to make decisions about their own payroll deductions including union dues and deductions made to non-profits who may speak out on ballot measures and legislative proposals.

Vote YES on Measure 56

Ballot Measure 56 would partially remove “double majority” requirement for property tax election. Currently, a property tax measure can be approved only if it has both a majority of “yes” votes and more than 50 percent of registered voters participate in the election (“double majority”). The ACLU of Oregon has always opposed the “double-majority” requirement because it runs counter to the principle of one-person/one-vote.  Under the current requirement, a tax measure would fail even if it receives a large majority of “yes” votes if fewer than 50 percent of registered voters participate in the election. That means that the “votes” of people who refuse to vote would have greater weight than the votes of people who return their ballots. While Measure 56 would not repeal the “double-majority” requirement altogether, it is an improvement.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:16 PM PDT
How the election could impact telecom and the FCC
Mood:  special
Now Playing: Presidents and telephone deregulation "to be or not to be"

 Hello Z3 Readers,

The following article is located here:


This is the first few paragraph regarding the FCC and The Telcom Industry with the aspect that a new president will be at the helm and what the outlook is shaping to be(come)

ORLANDO -- Whether the next president is John McCain or Barack Obama, the telecom industry can expect some policy changes, according to Washington insiders speaking at the Comptel fall trade show and convention here this week. But the extent of that change appears uncertain, with some experts predicting minor impact and others expecting bigger shifts.

Larry Irving, co-chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance, was heavily involved in the last major telecom reform effort as assistant secretary of commerce and head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration under Bill Clinton. Given all that will challenge the next administration, Irving believes extensive change in telecom regulation is unlikely, regardless of who wins the election.

“With two wars, the economic meltdown, healthcare issues and other problems, telecom won’t come to the fore,” Irving said as part of a panel on the impact of the election. Under Obama, to whom Irving is an adviser, the focus will be on encouraging competition to bring choices and reasonable prices to consumers and on promoting new technologies and innovations that solve old problems such as access to the last mile for competitors. (more)

Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:33 PM PDT
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Housing is a Human Right
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: INDY MEDIA ARTICLE by Theresa Mitchel

Housing is a Human Right

stop evictions

Since the Senate and House Demopublicans saw fit to rob 5% of the GDP for the rich, and would not hear the insistent pleas for a moratorium on foreclosures, We The People must enforce a moratorium on evictions. A cessation of evictions will not only aid working families, but will stop the hemorrhage of property values, as people stay in housing rather than leave it to decay. This popular action was necessary in the first Great Depression, and it returns now, with the international precedent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Here are some of the relevant sections (esp. sec. 25, emphasis mine):

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, HOUSING and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Note that economic rights are even more important in a multi-trillion-dollar economy.


Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:34 PM PDT
Updated: Saturday, 4 October 2008 2:40 PM PDT
Disruptive Technologies
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: biogerontechnology information

Well hello my fellow readers,

Here is a paragraph from this link HERE

It's about living longer and from what the writer calls:

 "Disruptive Technologies"

In ‘U.S. sees six disruptive technologies by 2025,’ Computerworld reports that the National Intelligence Council (NIC) is preparing a report about disruptive technologies expected to have a major impact on the world. The NIC defines as disruptive ‘a technology with the potential to cause a noticeable — even if temporary — degradation or enhancement in one of the elements of US national power (geopolitical, military, economic, or social cohesion).’ According to a preliminary version of this report, the list of these disruptive technologies should include biogerontechnology, energy storage materials, biofuels and bio-based chemicals or service robotics. But read more for more details about biogerontechnology… 

Z3 Readers you can read the full article at this link here:



Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:19 PM PDT
Friday, 3 October 2008
China using surveillance on Skype software users
Mood:  not sure
Now Playing: China spys big time on text messaging and Skype Phone users

Surveillance of Skype messages found in China

SanFranscio: A group of Canadian human-rights activists and computer security researchers has discovered a huge surveillance system in China that monitors and archives certain Internet text conversations that include politically charged words.

The system tracks text messages sent by customers of Tom-Skype, a joint venture between a Chinese wireless operator and eBay, the Web auctioneer that owns Skype, an online phone and text messaging service.

The discovery draws more attention to the Chinese government's Internet monitoring and filtering efforts, which created controversy this summer during the Beijing Olympics. Researchers in China have estimated that 30,000 or more "Internet police" monitor online traffic, Web sites and blogs for political and other offending content in what is called the Golden Shield Project or the Great Firewall of China.

The activists, who are based at Citizen Lab, a research group that focuses on politics and the Internet at the University of Toronto, discovered the surveillance operation last month. They said a cluster of eight message-logging computers in China contained more than a million censored messages. They examined the text messages and reconstructed a list of restricted words.

Read This Full Article HERE  http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/02/technology/02skype.php


Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:08 PM PDT
Thursday, 2 October 2008
700 billion.... hell how about 2.5 trillion that is missing from the Pentagon
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: Fraud - Theft - Coverup - Spin - Lies - Corruption = USA GREED

Hello my friendly Z3 Report Readers The Sky is Falling


...Quote below is from the:

"The Daily Reckoning" website (link above)

(quote) Paris, France
Thursday, October 2, 2008below this email)
(( “According to Bloomberg : ‘Senators attached a provision repealing a 39-cent excise tax on wooden arrows designed for children to an historic $700 billion bank rescue that is likely to pass tonight. The provision, originally proposed by Oregon senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith, will save manufacturers such as Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon, about $200,000 a year.’ )) (end quote)

Oh hey Z3 Readers, … I was reminded by an email from a friend, about how no one is talking about the 3 trillion dollars that went missing from the Pentagon a few years ago (ha ha)
How do you spell “dumb American” …oh wait what is that saying used once in a while ….The average American is a (you spell it) “G R A P E”
The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes. LINK IS HERE: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

So back to the 700 billion (forget the trillion for a minute ) (ha)
“A stack of 1,ooo dollar bills …..piled 63 miles high would equal one billion dollars
You would need to make 700 piles of 1,ooo dollar bills ….63 miles high to reach that amount !!!

Airplanes fly seven miles high (compared to 63 miles high)
LINK HERE: http://www.cjob.com/blogs/ExcuseMe/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10008510

Oh ya the missing trillion from the Pentagon budget is more like 2.5 trillion
It makes the 700 billion look like spare change
Read more “facts on the missing 2.5 trillion” LINK HERE: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091001defensebudget

A good forum on this topic is right here:

I say loudly & proudly:
Impeach Bush & Cheney
Vote Nader/Gonzales in 2008

Joe Anybody

Oh before I forget here is the YouTube video where Cynthia McKinney is jamming Rummy on a few topics ..this is priceless

McKinney takes on Donald Rumsfeld text from video is here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030105_mckinney_question.shtml

The video is here:


Posted by Joe Anybody at 7:10 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 3 October 2008 4:33 PM PDT
Lawmaker Revives Former KKK Leader's Sterilization Proposal
Mood:  don't ask
Now Playing: KKK idea is suggested by Rep John LaBruzo (New Orleans)
NEW ORLEANS -- A suburban New Orleans legislator has proposed revisiting an idea from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke: paying poor women to undergo sterilization as a way to shrink welfare rolls and government costs.


Rep. John LaBruzzo's suggestion prompted outrage Wednesday from several of his fellow lawmakers and advocacy groups. The Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called the idea mean-spirited and said it would discriminate against black Louisianians.


LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said the idea would involve the state giving $1,000 to women who rely on government support like welfare and food stamps if they agree to have their fallopian tubes tied. He said it was too early to say whether he would introduce such a bill during the 2009 legislative session, but he said he was researching it.

Full Article that I read on Sept 18 2008 is located here:



Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:20 AM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 2 October 2008 4:43 PM PDT
Friday, 26 September 2008
Clifton - Arrested - Assaulted - Tasered - re Arrested - Mockery of Justice -
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: Tazered Victim and his treatment by the Portland legal system

author: Joe Anybody (me)

e-mail: iam@joe-anybody.com

Z3 Readers this was posted on Portland Indy Media website by me,

The link is here:



A man who was assaulted on Belmont street as he was getting on a bus to go to work back in June 08
He calls for the police and waits ....only to get tasered and arrested.
Months latter while looking for his police report at the Central Precinct .... he is arrested again. Is this justice or a Mockery of Justice?

Mockery Of Justice - Stop Violence Now
Follow up two video set for man that was tasered by the police when he was the victim of an assault. After being tasered, arrested and then appearing in court for the charges, Clifton found out the case was not being pursued at the time.

This was first reported here on Indy Media in June 2008 found at this link:

For the next four months he repeatedly was going to the police station to get his police report
He was never provided a copy of any report, always denied, and continuously told it was not available nor could it be located, week after week this was how he was acknowledged.

Four months latter which was just recently, when Clifton was back down at the Central Prescient here in Portland, looking for his copy of the police report ... .he was told to go to the main lobby desk. Upon checking in he was then ""ARRESTED" for a warrant stemming from the tasering incident.

Obviously the charges were reinstated and he was taken into custody for a second time.
Don't ask how to explain this.
For it makes no sense.
Its not about Justice, it's a mockery of justice.

I re-interviewed Clifton on 9.25.08 two block from where he was tasered, months ago.
In the follow up 2 part video clip Clifton explains what he has been going through.

He now has a trial date on 10.10.08 at the city courthouse.
The fact he was a crime victim and then later tackled and tasered by the police, is not what the trial is about.
Listen to the update and see how ass backwards Justice is being served here in Portland Oregon

((1)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbhaR5EmDRA

((2)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KmXeD6DjlY

Previously recorded video 4 part set - filmed at the time of the tasering in June 08

tape <1> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cDRlvOCq5M

tape <2> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyGQ9Cqaf8o

tape <3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH2Ee_hZxGc

tape <4> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnBMPk-VAws

Points to consider:

>> Clifton was assaulted by two drunk men on a city street while boarding Trimet bus 15 
>>  A window was broken while the men attacked and fought with Clifton 
>>  Clifton called the police and waited there on the corner for them to show up 
>>  Clifton hit his hand on a nearby building, being stressed out and mad, he didn't realize it but his hand hit a mirror/window and it broke as he waited for the police 
>> In spite of the broken mirror/window Clifton still waited for the police 

>> When the police arrived they didn't ask him anything, nor get his statement 
>>  When the police arrived they took him "down to the ground and then tasered him" 
>>  Clifton never resisted nor threatened the police. He didn't even have a chance to speak 
>>  Clifton was thus assaulted by the police, tasered and arrested, and taken to jail 
>>  Clifton lost his job that night and had to walk home from downtown the next morning 
>>  The two men who jumped him have never been found nor their crime investigated 
>> Charges were not being pressed when Clifton went to court, the DA had "no charges" 
>>  He spent four months trying to get a copy of his police report, and it was never obtained 
>>  Recently when at the police station looking for his arrest information, he was arrested a second time, without warning and lacking any respect 
>>  Clifton was never notified of any change in his prosecution charges 
>>  Clifton was never asked to report in to the courts or the police, nor informed of the new charges 
>>  Clifton was finally given a lawyer and will speak with him/her with only 3 days before his trial comes up 
>>  Clifton is a quit, soft spoken, and has a very "un aggressive" demeanor. 
>>  Clifton is innocent and is being charged with a misdemeanor crimes 
>>  Clifton was an assault victim, harmed by two drunks, as well as the Portland police 
>>  Justice is not being served. This is a mockery and is shamefully disrespectful

My homepage:


Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:19 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 26 September 2008 5:34 PM PDT
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Cops, Laws and Videotape
Mood:  energetic

Cops, Laws and Videotape


[Posted by Catalina Vazquez on September 19, 2008]

LISTEN TO "Cops, Laws and Videotape"

(24MB MP3)

Seventeen years ago, a video of the arrest of a Los Angeles resident named Rodney King raised questions about recording police officers. Many of these legal and ethical questions still resonate in Oregon and elsewhere today. A Portlander who recently had his camera confiscated and received a citation for taping cops in action, intends to sue the Portland Police. The Oregon law used by officers to confiscate observers’ equipment is somewhat ambiguous. It’s unclear how the law applies differently to video than it does to audio recordings.

For now, police observers continue to use video as a tool, and police officers continue to decide how to address the practice one case at a time. The city of Beaverton, for example, just decided not to pursue charges against a man who was arrested for recording another arrest.

What are the benefits and drawbacks of recording audio and video of police officers? Have you ever observed an arrest or other police action? What did you see? If you’ve ever been stopped or arrested by police, how did you feel about being observed by your fellow citizens?



Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:30 AM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:33 AM PDT
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
Joe Anybody?s files tort claim for Police taking his camera
Mood:  caffeinated
Now Playing: My tort claims seeks "policy change"
Topic: MEDIA
This is an article I wrote and posted on Portland Indy Media 9/16/08http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/09/379622.shtmlor (it was double posted)http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/09/379620.shtmlAnd I sent it to Street Roots Blog 9/16/08 http://streetroots.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/joe-anybody%e2%80%99s-files-tort-claim-for-police-taking-his-camera/#more-420********************************************************

Joe Anybody Files A Tort Claim with Portland Police

An update on the situation where ( i ) an independent media videotographer (and average joe citizen) who filmed the police in downtown Portland, had his camera confiscated and was issued a ticket. The ticket based on ORS 165.540 was for illegally recording a conversation without consent. An hour later, they gave me back the camera complete with my tape. That was on March 25 2008


Portland Indy Media link regarding this is here: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/373979.shtml?discuss


It was weeks later at court that I was told: “The charges were not being pursued by the DA at this time.” They said I should “check back-in, in a couple weeks”

I did and they were not pursuing it.

The fact of “no charges” is great, of course. Only now, I have to worry for two years that they “might change their minds.”

That is real comforting. (not)


Let me explain a couple things that were interesting about what happened that day.

All I did was film two police officers (latter it became three) on a public sidewalk from a safe distance away. I never disturbed nor acted threatening to that police situation that I was filming. As an independent video / film documenter for peace and justice events that happen here in Portland, I felt I was acting perfectly within my rights to video tape this public happening.


I was never told to move back or turn off my video camera. But when for lack of better words “the shakedown” was over… the officer I first seen walking down the street from the beginning, came over to me… and I soon became the criminal. I was not worried at the time I filmed, nor concerned, for I was doing nothing wrong, and I knew that it is not against the law to film the police. Yet I was the one who was singled out and then told to “Hand over my camera.”


I think this public servant / police officer really didn’t like the fact I filmed him as he was hassling / questioning / shaking down / doing the … don’t I know you / kind of thing?

I also think he used on me as an excuse, the old “secret wire taping law.”  For when he says, “Are you recording my audio?” well …. “Yes” I say, “I am video-recording.!” The officer was setting the stage by this question to lead me into the setting that “He didn’t know I was recording his audio (communications) and that would be the crime.” At the same time, I also say, “That would be both, audio and video.” (For I can not even if I wanted to, turn off the audio on my cam recorder which is the same for most video common video recorders, camera phones, etc there are out in the publics hands, the video and audio are all one function.)


The irony of him referring to the fact that I am “audio recording him” is in that: the camera in my hand was significant knowledge that I was audio recording and video recording it was no secret and would have been obvious to anyone seeing me do this. This was not a microphone up my sleeve. The beat around the bush question “Are you audio recording me?” is pertaining to the hidden wire concept or the hidden tape recorder as when one surreptitiously records in a clandestine way without permission or a warrant.


This situation was far from that. In fact as he took the camera from me. I mentioned to inform him and his partner, “I am the media I am a journalist, I am documenting and reporting events for peace and justice.” He pretty much ignored me. His partner told me the name of their supervisor (I asked). And that was whom I was heading to see next just as soon as I was done with the media intimidation and shake down at hand at the moment.


I was shocked to see my camera in the officer’s hands.

As I stood there, watching, dumbfounded, I felt robbed and violated. I felt at that time, as if the constitution was being raped and I had to stand there watching it happen. How can the cops just take my camera from me? Was this all because I filmed him being a tough bully to two innocent people?


That decision, to take my camera by the officer was not about law and order. It was about intimidating the media and silencing anyone who wanted to document how the officer was treating citizens on the streets of Portland. (A side note is that the same officer was filmed by an Indy videotographer where he was caught on film (!) as he fired rubber bullets into a crowd of Bush protesters sometime around the late 90”s right here in Portland.) But I digress.  


Twenty minutes latter, I was walking briskly and directly to the city police station. It was when I was three blocks away that the same two cops roll up next to me and say “ You going to the station?” … I say “Yep!” They say, “Meet us in the lobby” …. Heck, … I think ... this all seems kind of hooky and unprofessional … now what?


What happens in the station lobby is basic, it is another twenty minutes of waiting before the one officer who took my camera comes out to talk to me. I tell him I didn’t know I was interfering and that I am sorry if I was. I tell him I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong by recording him in public. I let him know in all sincerity that I did not want to get in their way nor cause them a problem while I was documenting. I thought we both understood each other pretty well, after a 10-minute talk, but as I was handed my camera back, I also was handed a ticket for violating ORS 165.540.


He just couldn’t let it go, he was intent on leaving me with troubles for my filming.

The officer seemed like he wanted me to go away with a lesson.

And that would be … “Don’t film the police!”


It will end up costing you money in fines and your camera or you may be heading to jail…. For the maximum fine is one year in jail and a few thousand dollars. It seemed to me that was his message, and that he wanted me to remember it. If I ever planned on filming the police again, unless I was far away down the street (That was the officer suggestion of where I could safely film from, when I asked him what he recommended) or from across the street, otherwise I would be asking for trouble.


Now need I remind anyone about the Rodney King filming incident, where a citizen filmed the police and was able to share their account of what happened. By their right to  free speech and the ability to film the police without it (them) being considered illegal, citizens were preserving justice and making the police accountable for their public actions as well as expressing them selves as protected by The Bill of Rights.


And now we have the recent episodes of journalist in St Paul at the Republican Convention, who also seem to have very similar cases going on. The police there are arresting, taking cameras, and hurting journalist physically and intimidating them for being there and documenting (as the free press should be able to do.) The condition and atmosphere of this incident with me in Portland, was not quite the same, my case happened a quite street in downtown Portland, where I was getting my constitution of free speech and free press violated. (Let’s not forget the two innocent civilians I filmed, their freedoms were being violated as well) How do I know they were innocent … Well they were stopped, hassled, and searched …not sure what the probable cause was (if any) and then they were let go … for which I say “ they were innocent.”


The way the police were treating them is evident in my video, and I didn’t like how it was playing out. They both were not charged nor was anything found in the “shakedown.” The irony is there was no crime that warranted the two to three officers stopping these individuals in the first place. And ( i ) filming this charade irritated the officer, whereupon I, then became “The criminal” … So in reality all this resulted in was me (independent media) being the fall guy for a frustrated bully cop, who was using a vague outdated policy that suppresses freedom under the pretense I was illegally recording a public event. 


Let me mention a few more things.

The stop of these two men, if I may I point out, is that the one singled (and referred by the officer) out as a drug dealer was of darker skin, and for all purposes of constitutional freedom, seemed unwarranted and very unethically?

I also know that the from the beginning these two were being followed on foot, it looked serious from the determining actions of the peace officer as he strode beside me coming up from behind the two men on foot. The two civilians where were peacefully walking up the sidewalk 50 feet ahead, so I started filming. It just seemed out of place, and odd to see the officer on foot following the two men as he was doing when he walked past me.


The men from the very beginning, tell the officer “Hey look officer you are being filmed!” The first officer even informs officer two by saying on video “Looks like we are being filmed!” Officer number two say’s (also on camera) “I see that!”

So that in itself should have relieved the question or surprise to them that they were being recorded (yes audio & video) without their knowledge, for I was out in open view! 


Now all that leads us to the next part, of the here and now action I am taking.

I have just filed a tort claim with the city of Portland, here in the second week of September in 2008. It is filed in pursuant to ORS30.275

I am asking for three things. The first two are minor nominal money charges for the hassles of mine, camera confiscation, tickets, courts, etc. I am (only) asking for 100$.  And the other monetary demand is for my attorney who is representing me, his fee is for the time and efforts to pursue this and represent me. That said, that is the only monetary amounts we are asking for. Sadly both these monetary amounts will be paid, (If I win my case) out of city taxpayers’ money. The mistakes made with callous or reckless intent, is paid for by the citizens of this city in fines and lawsuits, making policy that explains the guidelines clarifies everyone’s boundaries, can only benefit all parties involved. Public accountability and upholding the constitution is one of the requirements I am sure that is required to work for our city in a public servant role. As well as having a legal policy regarding video recording would be just as prudent and expected in these days .


That is why the third and most poignant part of my tort claim will be for the city to develop a policy that honors the constitution, as well as my rights and others that are filming in the public arena, the police, or public servants while they are working or doing their jobs as public servants. My sole purpose here in this tort claim is to change the outdated policy that allows the city police to intimidate and tickets citizens or journalists who are filming them in the public arenas. This intent is to change the policy to respect the constitutional rights of free speech, free expression,  and reporting what happens in or on the public streets.


I am asking the city (police) by the means of a lawsuit to “Change your policy regarding videotographeres and independent journalist (or even just a joe citizen) who are filming the police in public”. The outdated law that is being “twisted” and manipulated to ensnare or to intimidate those who legally film, police on the streets, and are filming within their constitutional right, needs to be addressed as a sound, clear, and updated policy. Years ago in 1991, when Tom Potter was the police Chief there was a policy that he had enacted that covered this very issue. But years latter and a few new chiefs at the helm the chilling reality is that there are some police who are scaring and using their authority to miss represent the intention of a law (as in this wiretapping law) and use it to quell those who may be documenting their unethically behavior or what is happening, be it right or wrong. There may even be a few officers as well as videotographer’s who naively don’t know what the vague law of today really encompasses when it comes to filming and recording in public.


Now just as the video I made shows the police treating the two men with rather brass and callous intentions, it could also have served to document the civilians dong something bad or wrong at the time just as easily. Now obviously that is not even the facts, for this case, but …had something happened to the officers at that time, my video documenting would have collaborated and possibly helped the police see exactly what happened.


For as I mentioned near the beginning of this article, and as I told the police that day, “I am filming for peace and justice!” I am not out on the streets trying to cause trouble. I was documenting what happens with my video camera. I am concerned about media right, civil rights, honesty, peace, and justice is documented and shared with the community. As I also stated my intentions were not to get in the way or cause any disturbance.


My tort claim in pursuant to ORS .275  is to ask the city of Portland to change their outdated policy.


My final thoughts regarding the importance of filming and the ability to document the police while they are on duty in the public is that when you see my video then read the police report … it is two different stories. The police reports that the two men were  “suspected of buying drugs” …. Not sure how their suspected of that assumption?


The report says they became defensive and confrontational, in the video that scene is probably where you can see they (citizens) are being “accused of buying and selling drugs!” Also as you see in the video they deny that charge. They are vocal about “not doing that” in which the officer accuses them of doing. You can’t blame them, they are being accused with out provocation by the officer who is following them.


The report tells that the people watching (me and others next to me) from 30 feet away are threats …yet the video doesn’t show that they were in any way a threat at all. The officers report says he pushed the civilian because he wouldn’t move back (Yet in the video you see the man step back, as the officers steps “towards” him to push him) The report says the officer “Couldn’t move back because the trolley line passes behind him by just a few feet” (?) Yet in the video, the trolley is over to his right parallel and he could of “backed up for 20 blocks or more. For he was not blocked nor trapped by the trolley/ street” as he misinforms the readers in his report. As I said my video, show otherwise.


My point is that the video tells the story in real way that seems to not be explained nor reported in the police report correctly. The video is a way for me to document what ( i ) see and to convey it to others, which is my free speech. The reason I feel this is important to do is that as you watch this video it shows an interesting version that is very different that what the officer claims he was doing or what he says happened.


The fact that I didn’t like what seems unjust, and is in my video I captured, seems not right nor ethical, I should have the freedom to record and comment on it. My video is not manipulated; it is a real reproduction of the event at the time. It is an important and legal for me to have the freedom to film with out being threatened for my liberty or my property. My video was seized and watched which is a violation of my rights to privacy of my persons, papers, and affects guaranteed by The Bill Of Rights.

I gave no permission for my equipment and specifically my tape to be looked at.


I can see why this officer didn’t want me to film. But now its time to ask: “Was that right for that officer to do that to me.” Or we can develop policy that is respectful of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights especially regarding my free speech and move along?

Simply that can be done by the city just contacting my attorney to work out the details. If for example they don’t want to work out a policy on this, we mention in our tort claim that we will be filing a federal claim under 42 USC 1983, but as I mentioned that would be only if the city is unwilling to address this. My sincere hope is that we can work together on this.


I have a good feeling they will want to address this. I had at one point introduced my self to the police chief when I (out on the sidewalk) ran across her at peace protest, standing  outside of city hall (a month latter after the camera issue) and ( i ) introduced myself as the guy who had his camera taken by one of her officers. She (Chief Rosie) affirmed that she thought the law for video recording and the use of the audio wiretapping law as it was applied to me should be revised and modified to the current times at hand with so many cameras in public. (Those are my words regarding quoting her comment to me)


So I hope in that vain this ends with progressive change and respect.

My intention is to get the city to make a policy change, regarding filming the police while on duty and in public, that is respectful of the constitution, and the citizens of Portland. A policy that affords free speech and free press protections as one would expect based on the constitution. As well as allowing for a policy change that promotes open, honest, and transparent public service, to we the people of Portland.


The Portland Independent Media Readers will be first to know the outcome.


The original video of me filming the police stop and having my camera seized is here:



Archived links and a variety of related videos clips of this issue are on my website here:



Posted by Joe Anybody at 3:23 PM PDT

Newer | Latest | Older

« October 2008 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Ben Waiting for it ? Well Look Here!
Robert Lindsay Blog
Old Blogs Go to Joe's Home Web Site
Media Underground
Joe's 911 Truth Report

Alex Ansary