Aug 14 2013

Man assaulted by Boston police sergeant for taking video

Dr. Q

It’s been more than a year since the City of Boston paid out over $200,000 in settlements to people falsely arrested for video-recording cops, but Boston police still haven’t learned their lesson.

Last year, the taxpayers of Boston were forced to pay $170,000 to Simon Glik and $33,000 to Maury Paulino. Both men were arrested — Glik in 2007 and Paulino in 2009 — by Boston police officers for openly video-recording cops making arrests in public.

During Glik’s legal odyssey, the First Circuit federal appeals court explained in a ruling that recording the police in public is a well-established, constitutionally protected right and police can be sued for violating this right.

Despite these rulings and hefty settlements, a Boston police sergeant showed yesterday that he felt perfectly comfortable physically assaulting someone for video-recording, threatening him with arrest, and forcing him to cross the street against his will.

Boston-resident Jay Kelly was walking down the sidewalk of Adams Street in Dorchester, just a few blocks away from where he lives, when he noticed a group of police detaining several people. He walked past the police, took out his cellphone, and began recording out of concern for the people who had been detained.

"Sarge"

“Sarge”

It wasn’t long before Kelly was approached by a pudgy, balding thug in a blue shirt who asked him why he was “taking pictures” of “undercover” — no — “plainclothes police officers.”

“You’ve got guns on the street,” Kelly said, expressing the appropriate skepticism one should have for a group of armed strangers.

The cop told Kelly that he could record, but said that he was somehow “putting plainclothes officers’ safety at risk.”

The officer showed Kelly his badge, but promptly covered it up and walked away after Kelly attempted to record it. Kelly was able to read that the officer’s badge number was 362.

“What’s your name, officer?” Kelly asked.

“Actually, it’s sergeant,” the cop petulantly replied. The cop never told Kelly his name, so we’ll refer to him as “Sarge” for the purposes of this article.

Sarge and a red-shirted cop (later identified as “Fabiano”) began telling Kelly that he would have to move down the street.

“You guys like shooting it out with people,” Kelly told the cops, expressing his anger at their ridiculous orders.

Sarge became enraged by Kelly’s comment and began walking toward him menacingly and assaulted him by grabbing at his camera.

Sarge continued walking toward Kelly, forcing him to back up the length of two parked cars. At one point, Sarge walked into Kelly and threatened to arrest him for assaulting and battering a police officer if they came into physical contact again. “I was threatened with arrest for pushing him when in the video I am clearly moving back,” Kelly told me.

Sarge ordered Kelly to cross the street. When Kelly pointed out that it would be jaywalking to do so, the cop walked into the street and began blocking off traffic.

After Kelly crossed the street, he continued recording the police for several minutes.

Sarge yelled at Kelly from across the street that the people the police were detaining did not want to be recorded. “They can tell me that if they want,” Kelly said. None of the individuals told Kelly to stop recording.

Kelly doesn’t record police very often, “but if something seems amiss, I would stop and observe [the police] any time,” he told me. He said he recorded police a number of times during his involvement with Occupy Boston. He also mentioned that he was pushed around by a State Police Captain for video-recording at the State House last year in April.

Kelly said he has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union about yesterday’s incident. He also contacted Deputy Superintendent John J. Daley of the Boston Police Department in order to file a complaint. He said he was interested in pressing assault charges against Sarge.

Kelly pointed out to me that the Boston Police Department sometimes uses its Twitter account to ask for witnesses of shootings to come forward, but in this case, the police were trying to stop him from witnessing what was happening. “They only want witnesses when convenient to them,” he said. “Fuck that bullshit.”

“They’re all bastards,” Kelly said of police. He said he suffers from PTSD because of his past interactions with police officers and his experience spending several years in jail.

Nevertheless, Kelly said that after yesterday’s incident, he is probably more likely to record police he sees in the future.


Jul 23 2013

Millbury police officer’s firing reversed by arbitrator

Dr. Q

The Telegram & Gazette reports:

A police officer fired last summer on charges of harassment will return to her job after an arbitrator overturned the Board of Selectmen’s decision.

On Aug. 29, the board terminated Detective Kimberly Brothers from the Police Department during an executive session. According to Selectman E. Bernard Plante, board chairman, Detective Brothers was dismissed after an outside hearing officer found credible the charges of citizens who alleged they were harassed by her while she was on duty.

Mr. Plante said late Monday that the town received the decision from arbitrator Timothy J. Buckalew of Westboro on Friday afternoon.

“The arbitrator did not sustain the charges against her,” Mr. Plante said.

He did not know yet when Ms. Brothers would return to the department.

David Packman of the National Police Misconduct Reporting Project explains why allowing arbitrators to overturn disciplinary action against police is a bad idea here.

And check here to read about a Boston cop with a history of brutality who was rehired twice thanks to arbitrators.


Jul 6 2013

Cops harass photographer for taking pictures of airplanes

Dr. Q

modica-airplane

On July 3rd, Matt Modica went to Bayswater Street Park in East Boston where he hoped to take some photographs of planes at Logan Airport. He was able to take some pictures, but not as many as he wanted. He ended up having to leave the park after being accosted by two bullies with badges.

“There are a lot of people that do aviation photography in and around Boston and the park I was at is a very popular place to go for good pictures when certain runways are in use like they were yesterday,” Modica explained to me during an interview the following day. “It isn’t uncommon to see people there with cameras and big lenses. I’m relatively new to aviation photography, but even after going to various areas around Logan, I had never had any issues until yesterday.”

Modica, a Chelmsford resident, works full-time at a camera store, does some freelance photography work, and also enjoys taking photographs and videos as a hobby — especially of trains. Modica has a Facebook page and YouTube channel where he shares his countless pictures and videos of trains.

When I asked Modica why he is so interested in trains, he said “I grew up in North Chelmsford right next to the line that the Bow Coal trains run on. I saw trains all the time as I child. Maybe that’s why. It has been a hobby for a long time for me.”

Modica had been taking pictures at Bayswater Street Park for about half an hour when he was approached by a corpulent bully wearing the colors of the Massachusetts State Police.

“I was just sitting there taking pictures for a while,” Modica recounted. “After shooting a couple planes, I looked up from my viewfinder and saw the first cop approach me.”

“He asked what I was doing. I told him I was taking pictures of the planes. He asked why. I said it was a hobby. He asked for ID. I asked why. He said I needed to be identified. I asked what crime I was being investigated for and then he started raising his voice, just repeating that he needed to identify me, and that’s when I grabbed the camera.”

When he took out his video camera, the cop told Modica that it was illegal to record him under the state’s wiretapping statute which is false. Modica told the cop about the recent court decision in Glik v. Cunniffe — a case where a federal court ruled that openly recording the police in public is a well-established right — and began recording him anyway.

Modica estimates that about a minute and a half passed before he turned his video camera on and began recording the cop.

After Modica began recording the cop, whom he identified as Officer Doucette, a second cop, later identified as Officer Chan, arrived at the scene and the two began conferring with one another.

Doucette approached Modica for a second time and puzzlingly told told him that while he was not being detained, he was not free to leave. He told Modica that he was “investigating a crime.” When Modica asked what that crime was, the officer answered with a made-up crime: “suspicious person in a private park.”

Incredulous, Modica asked him what statute “suspicious person in a private park” was listed under. The cop was unable to answer the question, but he began pestering Modica to identify himself again.

Modica approached Officer Chan and asked why he was being detained. “Uh, this private property,” he stammered. “This is owned by Massport, did you know that?” Massport — short for the Massachusetts Port Authority — is a government agency, which means that the park is actually public property.

Modica knew the park was public property, but offered a diplomatic response. He told Chan that if Doucette had simply told him he was on private property in the first place and asked him to leave, he would have done so. This wasn’t good enough for the cops. They wanted Modica, for whatever reason, to identify himself. Modica again asked what crime he was suspected of and the cops finally decided that he was trespassing. The officers then continued bullying Modica, demanding that he identify myself.

Finally, Modica called their bluff. “I’m gonna be honest, sir. If you required my ID and you had the legal right to take it, you would’ve arrested me by now,” he said. Modica asked the officers to call a supervisor to the scene.

Officer Chan went off to call a supervisor while Doucette continued to stand by and harass Modica. When the supervisor arrived several minutes later, he first spoke with Doucette and Chan, then approached Modica and told him he was free to leave.

Modica left the park and headed to a Dunkin Donuts. He had been detained by the police for about 20 minutes and he hadn’t done anything wrong.

I asked Modica if this was the first time he had been harassed over his hobby. “Oh no, not at all,” he replied.

Modica said he was once harassed by an MBTA employee who told him he needed a permit to shoot video of a train. This incident was discussed by journalist Carlos Miller on his Photography is Not a Crime blog.

Although he was not completely sure, Modica believes the police who harassed him at Bayswater Street Park were probably called by an overly suspicious man. This man is seen in the video glaring at Modica while standing with his arms crossed. Modica said many of these incidents of harassment begin the same way. “When doing my railroad videos, I’ve gotten called in on a number of occasions,” he said. “People just seem to think that as soon as you point a camera at a plane, train, or bus that you’re a terrorist.”

Modica is not against police, but said he is concerned about abusive police officers and the lack of accountability they face.

“In principle, the police are necessary for a society that maintains order, however, the police, being law enforcement officers, not only should be following the law, but I think should be held to an even higher standard. They should be role models for citizens,” he told me.

“The sad fact is there are so many crimes that police can get away with just because they are the police. Obviously there are a lot of good, law abiding cops out there, but unfortunately there are also a lot of dirty cops out there.”

Modica said he wasn’t planning on filing a complaint or taking any other action against the cops who harassed him at the moment because he is “dealing with a bunch of other legal stuff including a pending lawsuit against the NYPD.”

Modica said he is suing the New York City Police Department because he was wrongfully stopped and detained by a police officer while driving in the city. “I wasn’t officially arrested,” he told me, “but the cop was all mad at me and made me sit in handcuffs for a half hour while he tried to figure out a crime to charge me with. But, in the end, he didn’t have anything on me.” Modica said he’s currently working on a lawsuit against the NYPD over this incident.

I asked Modica if he felt deterred from taking pictures by police harassment.

“Nope,” he said. “If anything, it makes for great video footage. I want the world to see what happens. I don’t post my opinions or anything, I just let people see what the police are doing and draw their own conclusions.”

Correction (same day as the original post): When I originally posted this article, I reported that Modica was detained by the NYPD for his photography. He informed me that I misunderstood him and that he was actually pulled over while driving. The post has been slightly altered to reflect this.

modica-airplane2


Jun 28 2013

New Bedford drafting curfew law: a “tool” to “manage” certain neighborhoods

Dr. Q

The Standard-Times reports that city councilors in New Bedford are working on a new city ordinance that will allow police to arrest people simply for leaving their homes after dark. This law will not apply to all areas of New Bedford, however. Only people in areas the city government labels as “hot spots” will be subject to arrest.

The City Council voted Thursday night to draft an ordinance allowing police to enforce curfews in high-crime “hot spots,” even as some expressed reservations about whether the policy would be constitutional.

“I do question the constitutionality of this motion. We are creating a curfew, but for whom? For what neighborhood? What defines what a hot spot is?” asked Councilor-At-Large Debora Coelho.

Councilor-At-Large Brian K. Gomes proposed drafting the ordinance, which would create curfews in specific parts of the city. The curfews Gomes has described would run from dusk until dawn in “hot spots” where criminal activity has affected the quality of life for residents. The curfews would be implemented throughout the city as police need them and would not blanket all of New Bedford.

Gomes did not specify where those hot spots are but said “several areas from north to south” struggle with high crime.

So, the busybodies in the city government believe the best way to increase peoples’ “quality of life” is subjecting them to arbitrary harassment and arrest by the police simply for leaving their homes at night. After all, what possible reason could a person have for wanting to do that?

“I don’t support standing on the corner in the neighborhood, disrupting the neighborhood, making people feel unsafe “¦ nearly taking the neighborhood hostage,” Gomes said. “I want to give (police) a tool that can manage these areas.”

Gomes doesn’t want people “nearly taking the neighborhood hostage” by standing on street corners in the neighborhoods where they live and work. He would much rather that the police take these neighborhoods hostage, so he wants to give them “tools” to “manage” the lives of those people.

The council voted unanimously to have the Ordinance Committee draft the curfew ordinance, although two councilors acknowledged they doubted the proposal’s legality.

Coelho and Ward 5 Councilor Jane Gonsalves raised concerns about potential discrimination that could ensue if certain neighborhoods are forced to live under a curfew. Both, however, voted to have the Ordinance Committee draft the proposed curfew rule, saying it deserved to be discussed despite their reservations.

“I’m concerned about discriminating against certain groups of people, certain neighborhoods,” Gonsalves said, adding that meeting with neighbors to hear their concerns could provide authorities with other ways to tackle high-crime areas.

“Some may say constitutional, I say unconstitutional is what you’re doing to those neighborhoods. Unconstitutional is what you’re doing to those people,” Gomes said, later adding that “There will be no discrimination, there will be good neighborhoods.”

Coelho said the curfew zones could disproportionately fall on low-income, inner-city neighborhoods. Drug dealing, lewdness and other issues plague some of those neighborhoods but residents there need to work with police in keeping communities safe, she said.

“We have all that, there’s no question about it, but we also have a police system in place. “¦ You should be dialing 911 “¦” Coelho said. “I do not want New Bedford to be a police state. “¦ I don’t want the heavy hand coming down on these inner-city neighborhoods who will clearly be discriminated upon.”

Other councilors, however, said the curfews would not create a police state but would keep safe law-abiding residents fearful to leave their homes after dark.

“This is not to cause a police state but to preserve the happiness in those neighborhoods,” Council President Bruce Duarte Jr., who supported creating the curfews, said.

“Important to send a message and send it early to those factions that are disrupting quality of life in those neighborhoods,” Ward 1 Councilor James D. Oliveira said.

Gomes invited anyone who doubted the need for curfews to go out into the city with him at night. Pushing crime out of neighborhoods would give residents some peace of mind, he said.

“If they’re not (out), they’re not selling their drugs, they’re not doing their criminal activity,” he said. “I want those people out of our neighborhoods.”

The purpose of this “curfew” ordinance is not to stop any real crimes or make anyone safer. The purpose of this ordinance is to give police a green light to use arbitrary violence (their “tool”) against anyone they want from populations of low income people that the privileged members of the city government believe need to be “managed.”

These city councilors can’t bear the thought that one person in these “hot spots” might get away with a consensual “crime” like selling drugs, so they’re taking away everyone’s right to so much as stand on a street corner of the street where they live and have a conversation with someone — everyone except for the police, of course — in order to “send a message.”

Sure, it’s sad that these people have to give up basic liberties, the busybodies tell us, but they need to “work with” the police if they want to increase their “quality of life.”


May 23 2013

Salem police harass free speech activists

Dr. Q

You may have already heard about the case of Cameron D’Ambrosio (or “Cammy Dee”). D’Ambrosio, an 18-year old student, was arrested by police in Methuen after he posted some rap lyrics he had written that referenced the Boston marathon bombings on his Facebook page. He has been charged as a terrorist and held without bail.

These are the lyrics Cameron posted:

All you haters keep my fuckin’ name outcha mouths, got it? what the fuck I gotta do to get some props and shit huh? Ya’ll wanme to fucking kill somebody? What the fuck do these fucking demons want from me? Fucking bastards I ain’t no longer a person, I’m not in reality. So when u see me fucking go insane and make the news, the paper, and the fuckin federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t fucking cry or be worried because all YOU people fucking caused this shit. Fuck a boston bominb wait till u see the shit I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!”

It should be pretty obvious that these lyrics were not intended to be a threat. As Tim Cushing of the blog Techdirt observes:

When I reread his words, I don’t find him threatening to kill anyone. He says he’ll “go insane” and make “the news, the paper, the (expletive) federal house of horror the White House.” “Go insane” is not the same thing as threatening violence and its takes a lot of willingness to see something that’s not actually there to believe it does. Sure, D’Ambrosio mentions both the White House and the Boston bombing, but simply throwing those words into a sentence (and filling the rest out with expletives) doesn’t turn this into a credible threat, or at least not one that should result in a 20-year sentence.

By all means, the police should be willing to investigate perceived threats, but putting this into context (your average profane, overdramatic, attention-seeking, rap fan teenager) should have resulted in little more than a discussion about the possibility that word dumps like this could have negative consequences or legal repercussions.

Earlier today, D’Ambrosio was finally given a court hearing to determine whether or not he could post bail and be freed from jail.

Several free speech advocates went to the courthouse where D’Ambrosio’s hearing was taking place to stage a small protest. They were asked to leave even though they had every right to be there. They complied anyway, but were then harassed again by officers of the Salem Police Department. You can see video here:

If you’d like to contact the Salem Police Department to demand that they stop harassing free speech activists, I’ve included their contact information below:

  • Business 978-744-0171
  • Non-Emergency Request for Police 978-744-1212

You should also click here and sign the petition to get Cameron D’Ambrosio’s ridiculous charges dropped.

Update (same day as the original post): I just got the following additional information from the person who uploaded the videos (via Twitter): “there were only 2 activists present w/ only 1 of whom stood on the forbidden sidewalk vs 6 pd & the Sargent returned to complain about being filmed w/o consent & threatened to take the camera.” Apparently the Sergeant has never heard of Simon Glik.

Update (5/24/2013): Here’s a small update on Cameron D’Ambrosio’s hearing from the Eagle-Tribune:

The Methuen High School student who has held been in jail for three weeks on charges related to a threatening post on his Facebook page, was in Salem Superior Court yesterday morning to ask again for his release, while civil liberties groups ratcheted up pressure to free him on First Amendment grounds.

Cameron D’Ambrosio, 18, asked Superior Court Judge John Lu to be released with conditions, such as a GPS monitoring bracelet, a prohibition on using computers, and checking in regularly with probation.

Judge Lu did not issue a ruling yesterday.

Geoffrey DuBosque, D’Ambrosio’s attorney, said yesterday D’Ambrosio is not a threat and is willing to submit to court-imposed restrictions for his release.

“My argument is, one, he’s not a danger, but if the court were to find he is a danger, there are conditions the court could impose,” DuBosque said.

D’Ambrosio on May 1 wrote on his Facebook page a profanity-laden post that said he would outdo the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, “be famous for rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!”

Students at Methuen High School, where D’Ambrosio is a senior, reported the post immediately to administrators, who alerted the school’s police officer. D’Ambrosio was arrested later that afternoon on Pleasant Street in Methuen.

Police searched D’Ambrosio, his book bag and his parent’s home, finding no weapons, manifestos or specific plans or threats to commit violence, DuBosque said.

“His house was searched and they found absolutely nothing in his house that was indicative of someone who is a danger,” he said. “They searched his book bag and his person when they arrested him and found nothing indicative of someone who is a danger.”

Update (5/24/2013): Apparently there was more video of the protesters interacting with the court employees that I missed the first time around. I’ve updated the post so that it now includes the entire video.

Update (5/27/2013): Somehow I missed this news, but the judge for D’Ambrosio’s case denied him bail on Friday, the day after the hearing. Very shameful.

Also, the activist who recorded the Salem police harassment has posted a video here where she explains what happened in a little more detail. The discussion of the protest and police harassment occurs at about the 7 minute mark.

Update ((5/28/2013): Techdirt has some good commentary on the judge’s decision to deny D’Ambrosio bail here. Also, I updated the post with a more complete version of D’Ambrosio’s rap.


Jan 25 2012

Report describes investigation of abusive UMass Lowell officer

Dr. Q

In October of last year, UMass Lowell student Brendan Brown was threatened by a campus police officer for video-recording a group of police officers who were responding to a fight that had taken place outside an apartment. Brown was approached by UMass Lowell Police Officer Noberto Melendez who told him to “Shut that fucking thing off before I slap you.” Brown decided he’d rather not be arrested, so he left the area, but he did upload his video to YouTube and later shared it on my Facebook wall.

After I saw the video, I brought it to the attention of Police Chief Randolph Brashears. Chief Brashears subsequently launched an investigation which resulted allegations of misconduct being sustained against Officer Melendez. As you may remember, I was able to get the University to agree to disclose their investigation report by making a public records request, however, the University told me I needed to pay a $235 fee to have a copy made. Luckily, some generous Cop Block readers donated the money.

After I sent in the money to the University, they engaged in a long and unlawful delay before sending the documents out to me. On January 6, about 3 weeks after the University received my payment, I still had not received the report, so I called to complain. I contacted Jack Giarusso, the head of Human Resources at UMass Lowell, and asked him why it was taking so long for the documents to be mailed to me. He told me that he was just about to send them out. I pointed out to him that he was violating the law because the Massachusetts Public Records Law requires that records custodians comply with requests within 10 days without any unreasonable delays and it had already been more than a month. Giarusso gave me an excuse about how he hadn’t been able to mail the records on time because he had to move to a different office, but I told him that the Public Records Law does not mention this as a legitimate reason for taking so long to comply with a request.

I finally received a copy of the investigation about a week later. Unfortunately, I’ve been having problems with my scanner, so I wasn’t able to scan the report until several days ago when I found time to go to the local public library. You can find a copy of the report at the bottom of this post.

I don’t want to discuss everything about the report in detail. After all, you can read the entire thing yourself. But there are a few aspects of the report that I wanted to draw some attention to.

One of the first sections of the report describes how Chief Brashears interviewed Officer Noberto Melendez, the police officer who threatened Brendan Brown. Chief Brashears describes how he called Officer Melendez to his office and advised him that he could have a union representative there to officer guidance. Melendez returned with an Officer Soucey. According to the report:

Officer Soucy asked if there were any criminal charges being considered against Officer Melendez and if so would “Garrity Rights” be used. I advised both of them that there criminal charges are not being considered in this incident but to ease their concern I advised that nothing said during this process could be used against Officer Melendez in any criminal proceedings.

So, we learn here that criminal charges were never considered against Officer Melendez. It didn’t matter that Officer Melendez threatened to physically assault Brendan Brown. It didn’t matter that he deprived Brown of his constitutional right to observe and record police activity. Criminal charges were just never even on the table. But what do you expect when cops are “investigated” by other cops?

Next, Chief Brashears informed Melendez that he watched Brown’s YouTube video and asked him to describe what happened that night from his own perspective. Officer Melendez told Brashears that he was responding to a call from other officers. When he arrived at the scene, he witnessed a large crowd.

Officer Melendez states that when he got out of his cruiser he immediately tried to move the crowds by giving commands to leave the area. Officer Melendez stated that he could hear the sirens of the Lowell police department’s cruisers that were responding to this incident.

Officer Melendez stated that it was at this point that “I became very frustrated” because of the lack of response from the crowd. I observed the subject videotaping the event; he was standing on the sidewalk. I went over to him and stated, “Turn that fucking thing off before I slap you”, he further states that “I never had any intention to strike the person but was only trying to get this persons attention; I then immediately went over to another crowd down the street to disperse them”.

The above quote is where Melendez offers a ridiculous explanation for his thuggish behavior. Melended was just trying to get Brown’s attention, so he threatened to assault him? Huh? Usually when I’m trying to get a stranger’s attention, I opt for an “excuse me, sir” or something along those lines. If the roles were reversed — if Brown had threatened to assault Melendez — would he buy the “I was just trying to get his attention” excuse?

And if Officer Melendez was trying to get Brown’s attention, why did he walk away “immediately” (his own word choice) after threatening him without saying anything else? What was he trying to get Brown’s attention for? Apparently nothing.

Let’s read on:

Officer Melendez stated that he regrets saying what he said to the student and knows that some type of discipline will result from this incident. He further said that this is not at all like him, that he always treats the students and public with respect. Officer Melendez further stated that he remembers the Chief either talking about this type of issue or remembers an email from the Chief. Officer Melendez realizes that the public has the right to videotape police activity and that he has no excuse for his behavior, but didn’t remember if this was covered in in-service training.

The above passage is worth taking notice of because it shows that Officer Melendez was already aware that people have the right to video-record the police. There was no confusion about the law on his part. He was not only acting unlawfully, he knew damn well that he was acting unlawfully.

And yet, even though Officer Melendez admitted to knowingly breaking the law, he expects us to believe “this is not at all like him, that he always treats the students and public with respect.” Officer Melendez will have have to forgive me for being skeptical.

At the end of the investigation, Deputy Police Chief Dickerson writes that he sustained all the allegations against Officer Melendez. This means Melendez was found to have used profane and abusive language, engaged in conduct unbecoming of an officer, and violated the civil rights of Brendan Brown.

Unfortunately, we still do not know what punishment Melendez has been subjected to for his behavior. As I explained in an earlier post, the University claims that information is confidential and has refused to disclose it to me. I have exchanged several emails with Deirdre Heatwole, the lawyer who represents the University of Massachusetts system, but I have been unable to convince her to release the information and do not think that I will ever be able to.

In any case, I want to again thank the donors who helped get this report released. I think it’s important that information like this is available to the public and I think it’s a crime that the government makes us jump through so many hoops to get it.

Documents (.pdf format)