U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 21, 2005 09:00 AM UTC

Guess Who's Back...Back Again...

  • 46 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Like that rash you got at the pool last summer, the “Denver Three” just keep coming back to life. The ACLU has now taken up their cause. From The Rocky Mountain News:

The American Civil Liberties Union is taking up the case of two of the three people ejected from a presidential appearance in Denver over a bumper sticker and has named a federal bureaucrat in Denver as the mystery man who ousted them.

The ACLU is filing suit today in federal court in Denver, alleging violation of the pair’s civil rights. The suit identifies the man who ejected them as Michael Casper, a building manager in the General Services Administration in Denver. Casper has worked as a volunteer at several White House events since 1996.

The Rocky Mountain News has asked Casper several times if he is the man who forcibly removed the three. He has denied it, made jokes about it and, for some time, avoided being seen and identified by the three. He has acknowledged that he worked the event as a White House volunteer.

ACLU attorney Chris Hansen said the suit is being filed because “the government should not be in the business of silencing Americans who are perceived to be critical of certain policy decisions.”

President Bush came to Denver March 21 to speak about Social Security at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum. Alex Young, 26, Leslie Weise, 39, and Karen Bauer, 38, say they were ejected from the event even though they had done nothing disruptive. Young and Weise are suing. All three had tickets to the public event, which was sponsored by the White House and paid for by taxpayers.

The man who forced them to leave was wearing a radio earpiece and a lapel pin that functioned as a security badge. The three say he was identified to them as working for the Secret Service. He was investigated for possible charges of impersonating a Secret Service agent, but the U.S. attorney in Denver declined to prosecute, saying the man never identified himself as a federal officer.

His identity is known to the Secret Service and the White House, but both have repeatedly refused to reveal it. The three say they were told by the Secret Service later that the man admitted ejecting them because they arrived in a car with a bumper sticker that read, “No more blood for oil.”

Casper has denied that. He has been reported in the media as saying the three were asked to leave “because they were picked out by about 50 people inside the event as being troublemakers.” He was quoted as saying he was told “they regularly come to events and disrupt them.” He also said they had been heard talking about protesting as they stood in line. The three have denied saying anything of the kind.

Casper now works in the Byron Rogers Federal Building in downtown Denver. Last spring, he was the building manager of the Skaggs Research Laboratory in Boulder.

ACLU spokesman Paul Silva said his organization hired a private investigator, and then the plaintiffs were able to identify him.

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “Guess Who’s Back…Back Again…”

  1. Obviously I’m not very impartial on this subject, but isn’t this suit by the ACLU a dead end that can only serve as a publicity stunt?

    I thought the Three went to a Denver Metro YR function a few months ago and accused that kid from Adams County of being the mean man who asked them to leave…

    Now the ACLU is suing a completely different guy than the one the actual members of the Denver 3 already fingered (face to face with the press right there mind you).

    I’m no lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but haven’t the “victims” here already cast reasonable doubt on who actually did the horrendous crime of, um, asking them to leave?

  2. Wow, “ymaewk”, what a great point for a different discussion.

    Let’s all bear in mind that the good ol’ ACLU has not targeted our government, or any elected official here.. Nor is this a criminal proceeding they instituted. Rather they targeted a regular guy of pretty modest means. Dare to say, one of ?the little guys?.

    So they are going to ruin the life of a regular guy, who volunteers his time to public activism, just so they can get their lump of flesh. Great! Our founding fathers would be so proud!

    The ACLU is showing how cowardly and bankrupt of principle they are. “No, let’s not take on the White House or a sitting Congressman, they might get angry and hurt us. Let’s find a guy of modest means to blame this on and ruin his life financially! Why if we don?t ruin his life for this political sin the terrorists win! Brilliant!”

  3. Iron Mike,

    A slight correction – they accused the head of the Young Republicans of being the guy who said they’d be evicted by the Secret Service, not of being the guy who removed them.

    This guy is the one who purportedly did the evicting.

  6. Well now Phoenix, that changes everything! Now that I know that I think we should garnish his wages and take his house. Why that is the only thing that can make up for such a crime. Oh wait, it wasn’t a crime was it? If it was, this wouldn’t be handled in civil court.

    It was the use of bad manners, resulting in hurt feelings… Yeah, everyone deserves to be ruined by lawsuits when they hurt other people’s feelings.

  8. But to answer your question more directly Phoenix…

    I propose the ACLU sue no one. There was no crime here. Sure, we can invoke a Tort violation, but the ACLU (not a little mom and pop law shop) taking on a civil servant from Colorado just to proove a point (a point no one is quite sure of yet by the way)…

    Is that the right thing to do Phoenix? Is that a noble and worthy pursuit? Come on buddy, we’ve read your stuff for the last few months, you like sticking up for the “little guy”.

    Is the ACLU sticking up for the “little guy” or sticking it to the “little guy”?

  9. The ACLU, of which I am a proud member, is going out of its way here to find out what happened in an Administration that seems bent on burying anything resembling an investigation – on any topic whatsoever.  I don’t agree that there’s “no crime” – I think that what the President has been doing in his “public audiences” is a laughable mockery of the words “public” and “audiences”, and furthermore a blatant rip-off of taxpayer dollars to promote the GOP as a party.

    I’m all for bypassing this guy and heading after a White House policy, but I’d say they had little choice.

  10. So it sounds to me like you agree this law suit is wrong, but you still condone the action because of where it MIGHT lead.

    The ACLU is acting like a terrorist with a gun to the head of a hostage. If the Administration doesn’t mea culpa promptly and properly, then the ACLU is going to pull the trigger on Mr. Casper, grab someone else and keep doing it until the GOP begins negotiations.

    So Phoenix, you’re saying it doesn’t matter how many lives get ruined, as long as the ACLU gets their man in the end?

  12. I’m just a dumbass here but my question is who is paying for these law suits? Who is paying the ACLU’s lawyers and who id paying the guys being singled out?

  13. The ACLU is funded by people with an interest in an organization that fights for civil rights – aka me and millions of other members.  The ACLU doesn’t usually take up cases without merit, though they do frequently take up cases which push the boundaries of decided law (see the Rush Limbaugh case, or this one…).

    The guys “being singled out” work, either in a paid or unpaid fashion, for the White House and the GOP, helping to organize these events.  My guess is that the other, unnamed-in-these-stories Denver resident would be the Young Republican who was named by the News previously as the man who singled out the Denver Three.  Three White House staffers work for, one would presume, the President.

    PS – Plumber, I know you’re trying to be a partisan advocate here, but don’t put words into my mouth.  The guy we’ve been talking about isn’t innocent, he’s an integral part of the action that’s been questioned here.  Civil suits have to follow the rule of law; if the statute the ACLU is using requires a background of “person or persons acting together”, they need to go after “person or persons”, not the White House in general.  I don’t know the legal details of the case, but presume that the ACLU has been at this long enough to know what the correct steps in addressing the problem of taxpayer-funded discrimination at a public event might be.

  14. This discussion is largely missing the critical point that this White House has kept political dissenters from attending and participating in so-called public events with the President.  The ACLU’s lawsuit is critical to reaffirm the First Amendment principle that individuals cannot be barred from functions seemingly open to the public based on the content of their speech.  This is not a criminal case; it is a civil rights case brought to vindicate important constitutional rights.

    If the Republican flunky and other individuals who kicked the “Denver three” out of the event with Bush are found to have violated the Constitutional rights of the “Denver three,” then they should be forced to pay damages as recompense for their violations of the law.  Or are Republican “little guys” now immune from legal liability, so long as they support George W. Bush?  (The Gestapo was made up of “little guys” too.)

    Too bad the Republicans have tried so hard to insulate Bush from any opposing viewpoints that they forgot we have a First Amendment in this country.  Or is trampling constitutional rights now only “bad manners” in Bushland.

    The ACLU deserves support (and financial contributions) for sticking up for the First Amendment in the face of Republican bullies like “Iron Mike.”

  15. I figured that the ACLU was funded by donations of sorts but what about the guys they are suing? Who is going to pay their fees? Who is going to pay for the judges time and court time if the ACLU loses? I heard all the comotion on AM Denver radio when this went down. Didn’t sound like a big deal to me. Why is something like this even going to court? Don’t they have better things to do than that?
    I’m not trying to be a smart ass, just think some things shouldn’t waste the courts time.

  16. The ACLU works with volunteer lawyers who donate their time on constitutional cases.

    The defendants will need to pay their own legal fees — I suspect that a Republican political group or “public interest” group will fund defense counsel’s expenses.

    I don’t think that standing up for the First Amendment is a waste of a court’s time.  That’s why we have a judicial system.

  18. This is not a local isolated event involving a few Colorado Republican volunteers.  The Bush White House made a concerted effort — nationwide — to keep dissenters out of Bush’s “public meetings.”  There is a need to get to the bottom of this.

    This is from the ACLU’s press release about the case:

    The ACLU said that similar incidents have occurred at presidential visits across the country. According to news reports, individuals considered to have critical viewpoints were removed or excluded from Social Security town hall meetings in Arizona, North Dakota and New Hampshire.

  19. “then they should be forced to pay damages as recompense”
    How’s $2 for gas sound? Remember it was a year ago and gas was cheaper then.
    Other than that, what damages?

  20. Hugo,

    Under the law, a court may award nominal damages and attorneys’ fees to a party who proves a constitutional violation.

    The purpose of these types of suits is not to win large damage awards, but to win a judicial vindication of constitutional rights and to send a message that the conduct at issue will not be tolerated.

  21. And if the ACLU fails to prove a violation of constitutional rights, can they be held liable for the defendants’ attorney fees and nominal damages to send a message that baseless lawsuits will not be tolerated?

  22. Other interesting thing here, is that this guy is a federal employee, and while this was ‘nominally’ an official function, it could be argued that if the lawsuit is successful and he was shown to be acting in a partisan political manner in concert with Republican party operatives, then he will have violated the Hatch act.

  23. Hugo,

    If the lawsuit is found to be without merit and filed maliciously, then I believe civil courts have the ability to assign judicial fees to the plaintiff.  However, since the named defendants have been identified by the plaintiffs, it is unlikely that a judge would assign said penalty.

  24. Phoenix,

    Good comments!  I note that it is very, very difficult for a prevailing defendant to win attorneys’ fees in a civil rights case.  The case must be found to have been filed in bad faith for fees to be awardable.  Given the substantive nature of the allegations in the “Denver three” case, I would be shocked if the defendants in such case could win attorneys’ fees even if they were to prevail.

  25. GECKO Said, ?Why is something like this even going to court? Don’t they have better things to do than that? I’m not trying to be a smart ass, just think some things shouldn’t waste the courts time.?
    ANTONNIO agrees with Gecko. What is big deal here.  Can not find in America Constitution or Bill of Rights, ?OK Mr. or Ms. Smarty Pants, you can say WHAT EVER you want to El Presidente Bush. You can speak your mind and tell El Grande what you are thinking about America Political Policy.? Not finding anywhere it says 3 Hippies get to talk back to Fantastic Mr. Bush. You show Antonio where it says that, hah, you can not, gotcha. What kind of country allows everyday, normal, lowly citizens to speak up to glorious leader? What would happen to country if just any lowly citizen could question fantastic elected leaders? Antonio will tell you what would happen, RUIN, ANARCHY, dissolution of Western Civilization, country would be in total CHAOS. This can not happen to America the Beautiful. To speak to Presidente would be reprehensible, dishonest, and bad manners. Is one thing American peoples know is good manners and be polite to President and Vice, because they have good manners and are nice to YOU.
    OH yes, and WHEN did American Courts ever say, ?You can say whatever you want at public meeting?? You tell Antonio THAT, hah, you can not.
    Antonio knows honorable Gecko is not ?smart ass.? So there.
    Many countries where people can not stand up to Honest, Honorable, Elected Officials and speak your mind. China, Libya, Iran, North Korea. See Antonio gives you examples.
    Antonio may only be Italian Giornaliste (Journalist), but as guest in this fabuloso country he knows to be good manners and be nice to Elected Peoples.

  26. Phoenix, no problem.

    This suit is just something for the ACLU to do till Christmas when somebody tries to put a manger on public property.

    Or until some public official says that Jesus Christ has something to do with Christmas.

  27. Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas, Plumber.  The Dec. 25 date was actually celebrated by the Romans as the birth date of Mithras as part of their Saturnalia festival.  Early church leaders cooped it.  The scriptures give no date for the birth of Jesus but their evidence does rule out mid-winter.  Modern Christmas exists for the sole purpose of selling goods and services and pandering to materialism.  Sad, but true.

  29. So win or lose, those 2 will get the shaft, right? Sounds fair. BTW, reading the text of the suit, sounds like the only thing Klinkerman is guilty of is babysitting 3 people while Dark Suit and others did their thing. I say give him the chair and just get it over with.

  30. Plumber,

    Contrary to your snide comments, the Constitution clearly specifies that the government may not establish a state religion.

    Please keep your mangers on church property.

    Have a happy Christmas, but please don’t try to make Christianity a state religion.

  31. voyageur, I know about the date thing and Constantine’s role in establishing Christ’s b-day near winter solstice.  Christ has nothing to do with Christmas?  Now that’s news to me.

    bluestate, I’ve been an agnostic for twenty-five years.  It almost sounds like you believe your own rhetoric.

    Don’t worry, the ACLU will make sure that the name of Jesus Christ will only be mentioned in candle-lit basements.

  33. Oh, Jesus won’t be limited to basements.  He’ll be in Wal-Mart ads, every ticky tacky promotion you can think of and a thousand other manifestations of that commercial festival X-mas.  It’s just that he and his sentiments will play no role in this festival of greed.  And if you really are an agnostic, plumber, then call him Jesus, his name, not “Christ,” a title that means “messiah.”  There was a historical jesus, but apparently neither you nor I regard him as The Christ.  As far as him being the prince of peace, the bible quotes him saying “I come not to bring peace, but the sword.”
    Matt. 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
    Whether judged by the saccharine pacifism wrongly attributed to him or the crass commercialism of our modern sales marathon, I think it’s fair to say there is no Jesus in Christmas.  If you’re Christian, maybe there’s Jesus in the midnight mass.  For everything else, there’s MasterCard.

  35. Yeah – what ever happened to that?

    Plumber, you might check out The ACLU’s recent religious liberty history before griping so much about them; among the items you might not have suspected them of:

    September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader?s right to sing ?Awesome God? at a talent show.

    December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

    November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

  37. I would sure like to hear their reasoning for that Plumber. Why do they deny the Minutemen their rights but protect the illegal aliens?
    More than not I have heard bad things about the ACLU. I know they have done some good but it appears they only fight for rights if it fits their far left agenda.

  38. I agree Gecko.

    As far as I am concerned, the ACLU exists only to sue, especially when they believe that there is money to be had in the suit.

    This has got to be the stupidest lawsuit imaginable.  Three knuckleheads got tossed before they could cause a problem and are crying about it to the ACLU.  I love the way that they are re-writing their actions repeatedly now.  They previously admitted that it was their attempt to cause a disruption, but now that they are filing suit, they want everyone to believe that they were not intending to do so.

  39. “As far as I am concerned, the ACLU exists only to sue, especially when they believe that there is money to be had in the suit.”

    Well the ACLU does use the court’s to protect the civil liberties of all American’s – so you’ve got that part right. As for making money, I assure you that the staff attorney’s at the ACLU are not rich, the entire operation is financed through donations.

    “Three knuckleheads got tossed before they could cause a problem and are crying about it to the ACLU. I love the way that they are re-writing their actions repeatedly now. They previously admitted that it was their attempt to cause a disruption, but now that they are filing suit, they want everyone to believe that they were not intending to do so.”

    I don’t have the time to explain this to you so I suggest you go to Google and FindLaw.com and look up “prior restraint”. It might help to brush up on the 1st Amendment too.

  40. So I take it you are the third knucklehead?

    Prior restraint is a legal term referring to a government’s actions that prevent materials from being published.  Since this is not a publication issue, I think you are trying to invent your own version of the law.

    And as far as the 1st amendment goes, people do have the right of freedom of speech, but not the freedom to disrupt a proceeding that is being held legally. This is the same arguement that happens each year when protestors disrupt a legal parade and get arrested.

    The key issue here is that the Denver 3 intended to disrupt a presidential event, the fact that they did not get the chance to do so seems irrelevant.  Next time they decide to do something along these lines, it would probably behoove them to stay quiet about the situation ahead of time so their intentions are not generally known.  They are now trying to change that position since they know it won’t sit well in the court of public opinion.

    My personal opinion is that they are all idiots, the Denver 3, Kilinkerman, Casper, et al.  The Secret Service was in charge of security for the event and since they are a law enforcement agency, all issues should have been left up to them.

  41. GR:

    Prior restraint does not apply exclusively to publication of materials.  It applies to many areas including all forms of protected speech.  As a matter of fact, the courts, including the US Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that political speech is one of the highest forms of speech to be protected.

  43. Gecko,

    It’s interesting re. the Minutemen.  I know several of the MM volunteers.  Many MM have provided water and food to these criminals (illegals) before they are arrested by BP.  Hardly the actions of vigilantes, as the ACLU and the racist organization, La Raza (The Race) like to portray them.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

199 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!