Rob: So, we've got the G20 in Pittsburgh, there are two locations where they've basically done exactly what you've described. Do these protesters have the right to go somewhere else and if they don't abide by what the police tell them to do and they get arrested do they have something defensible and if they went all the way up to the Supreme Court with the Neanderthal 5 that are there now would they have any chance of getting those free speech rights?
Paul: Excellent question and let me address it in the following manner. And I'll address it with what has been essentially an attempt to preempt much of this by the lawyers representing the protest groups in Pittsburgh. Lawyers went into federal court requesting that the illegal conduct by the police which they had searched illegally according to the reports that I have heard and read, searched illegally several organizations that were there to create a fair, an environmental fair, to demonstrate the alternatives to the environmental policies that have been embraced by the G20. Well, the location for that particular fair was in dispute and they sought a permit and they also sought an injunction from the federal judge to stop the harassment, the intimidation, the illegal searches of the individuals that were going to organize this fair and those supporters who came to attend it. They were shot down by a federal judge so the question of whether or not ...
Rob: I have to throw in a couple of weeks ago I had Cyril Wecht on, he's a world famous medical examiner who was a victim of one of the Rove directed Bush appointed DOJ prosecutors who worked with a Bush appointed judge who was so unbelievably inappropriate that he was pulled off the case and the decisions reversed. This is the Pittsburgh we're talking about here and it could be the same kind of judge couldnt' it?
Paul: I know a little about the Wecht case just from newspaper accounts, I can't comment on the particular judge that made the ruling in this case, but what I can say is this is that the hope of these lawyers is that they would find refuge, that the first amendment would find refuge within the walls of that particular judge's court room and what they found was that they found no refuge so the question of whether or not the first amendment will find protection within the courts is an open one.
The law is a rationalization for power. The only limitations are the limitations that we find in the document that we know as the Bill of Rights. So the protection that we have for freedom of association, for freedom of expression, for the protection of privacy zones whether it be in communication or in thoughts that are communicated privately through telephone, or Internet. All of these issues are I believe in the battleground of this new frontier which the Internet has essentially opened up for all of us and that new frontier is really the battleground over our freedom of our first amendment rights whether on the street or in our expressive modes through telephone communication or Internet communication is what we are battling right now. And, it's an open question whether we are going to find sanctuary in the courts or whether we are essentially going to be shot down, but that doesn't stop the struggle.
So, when a court says it's illegal to stand on a street corner and bark out your proclamation against the government because you're disrupting someone else or when a court says we consider this particular organization to be a threat to national security therefore we are going to allow the federal government to investigate, infiltrate, intimidate that particular organization we have relinquished a zone of freedom that we may never get back without something much greater happening. Whether that will happen in the courts or not remains to be seen. I do not have a lot of faith in this Supreme Court. I can be honest with you. Now over the years if Obama's appointments change the composition of this court we'll see.
Rob: [station break] I'm talking with Paul Hetznecker. He is a defense attorney who does a lot of pro bono work with protesters and people who are fighting for our rights and our freedoms and Paul we don't have that much time left and I have a couple of things I want to go over with you.
One is this idea of civil disobedience as part of the fight for health care for everyone. What do you think about that idea?
Paul: I think it's a fascinating idea. I think the notion that health care is a civil right, that health care is a human right I think is an important concept that we must embrace. You know, if we look at the way resources are disseminated for health care, obviously there is a huge disparity between those who have access to adequate health care and those who have no health care at all and don't have access to the channels of power that allow them to have access.
So, I think health care as a human right is absolutely essential in our dialogue over this issue of changing modes of health care and whether or not this particular bill or a new bill is passed or this country changes its view on health care, I think fundamentally, the dialogue has to change and the concept of health care as a human right is an essential part of that change.
Rob: And the civil disobedience, is there a way that you would envision protesters engaging in it that would be directly relevant to health care? Would they block health insurance company doorways, would they go to hospitals. I'm just trying to envision how civil disobedience would apply. Rosa Parks went to a bus. Somebody else went to a lunch counter. How would people fighting for the human right of health care engage in metaphoric actions that would basically get the attention of the media and force the elected people to do their job?
Paul: It's a good question. I think it's only based on the limit of the imagination of those activists who are conducting that particular battle and struggle. You mention Rosa Parks, civil disobedience has been a core part of social change in this country for two centuries and if you look at the fundamental changes in our laws whether they be the labor laws, civil rights laws, the laws that allowed for equal protection and the laws that permitted women the right to vote, they are all really fundamentally motivated by social movements and social movements engaged in all kinds of tactics one of which is civil disobedience so I certainly wouldn't be surprised if civil disobedience became a part of the social movement around this core issue of health care as a human right.
Rob: Another question, you just got some good findings and facts from a judge regarding a case that you were working on regarding some protesters who were responding to a supposed KKK march. What did you come up with. I know you were pretty pleased with the results and the success. What was that about?
Paul: It's an interesting case. It's a case in which what was announced...
Rob: We have three minutes.
Paul: There was an anti-racist network that routinely confronts the Klan and Skinheads whenever they are conducting public rallies. Two years ago what was announced as a rally sponsored by the KKK was apparently supposed to take place at Love Park in Philadelphia at noon on a summer day.
This anti-racist network caught wind of this either through the Internet or other sources and they went as a group, not a large group, but as a group I think in large part in disbelief. Well, there was no rally. It was the KKK rally that never was. The people that showed up were anti-racist protesters along with two undercover police officers posing as Skinheads. Those two individuals eventually left the park after a verbal confrontation, got into a black sedan driven by FBI terrorism task force members. What happened as a result is the back window of that vehicle was broken apparently by one of the protesters. That is what they are alleging. Arrests were made.
As a result of those arrests police reports were generated and unfortunately for the protesters who were arrested, the information about those undercover officers was never revealed. We filed motions requesting the release of that information because we had information that there were confidential informants, it turns out they were undercover police officers. What the judge ordered was that in fact the Commonwealth, the District Attorney's office, had to reveal the identity of those undercover police officers because they were material witnesses to the event and the DA's office appealed that ruling and it was sent back to the municipal court judge who had made the initial ruling for findings of fact and conclusions of law that were issued today again reaffirming the order, her original order, to release the information about who these two undercover police officers were as material witnesses.
Rob: This has been great. This is the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show. We've been talking to Paul Hetznecker, a lion of a defense attorney. L-I-O-N...Paul, amazing work you're doing. Thank you so much for doing it and for being on the show and I'd love to have you back.
Paul: Thank you very much. I'd be honored to be back again in the future. Thank you very much for having me.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
