We reported earlier that the first Bruce Fealk hearing was expected today. Either through misinformation or error on our part, or rescheduling we weren't aware of, the March 12 date was actually heard March 11.
But it was quite irrelevant anyway. A review of the court records by one of our observers showed that all March 11th really was was a "scheduling" hearing. April 7, 830am is the next substantive date, and that's a "pre-trial" hearing in the 52-4 court (520 Big Beaver, Troy, MI). Case 08-001014-OM is Fealk's trespass case. His Hindering, Obstructing, and Resisting a police officer case (001015) and Assault and Batter case (001016) are scheduled for the same time.
It is not likely that a major event will occur at the pre-trial, unless some kind of settlement/plea occurs. Judge Dennis Drury will preside. At this point, the court documents aren't much more than notices to appear and similar service-type of documents.
Bruce Fealk's hearing is set for March 12 at 8:30 a.m. in the Troy District Court, 520 W. Big Beaver, Troy, Michigan.
I'm familiar with the court based on work I've done for clients and its proximity to my home. There's an irony to be had. Don't bring a videocamera (or camera-phone), as the court generally prohibits them without prior approval.
Nonetheless, Fealk has made a call to the liberal blogosphere to attend the hearing, so if you're interested in this from either side, show up to show your support for Troy Police or for Bruce Fealk.
Sandy Armbruster of the Troy Eccentric reports on more details of the arrest and charges possibly to be brought against Bruce Fealk following his refusal to stop videotaping at a Republican event.
Notably, the article notes a resisting arrest charge was also made, which I consider to be the more serious charge and the reason Fealk's actions were over the top.
Also note that not only was Fealk asked to not videotape - so was I and everyone else. I complied with that request, just as I complied with a Troy Democratic Club request not to tape in September 2007 in the very same room (when real candidates for public office were debating, and the Club allowed other TV to videotape). Fealk may have a legitimate (or not) beef with the Troy Community Center policy, but the right way to raise that issue is to comply with authorities when present and to use civil litigation to challenge the policy if it is unlawful.
If the link above expires, I've included the whole article below (a rarity, but given the issue and the closeness to the issues this site covers, I'm going to make a fair use argument - visit http://www.hometownlife.com for recent news).
I hate that it is dominating the recent news on this site - I promise to not report on anything Fealk for several weeks unless it is imminently relevant to the issues this site covers (which is possible).
I've promised readers an explanation for the recent freezing of an item on OP, due to comments by Bruce Fealk.
With the advice of a liberal blogger - Christine Barry at http://www.ChristineBarry.com - I'm leaving the freeze in effect. Below the fold I quote extensively from e-mails from Christine where she analyzes my policy both for practical application and whether it is consistent with our principles of openness, etc.
She concurs with the brunt of what I concluded independently. The twist is that she believes "if true" the allegations made by Fealk would be of at least mild public interest, but that it is clear Fealk, by his own admission, relied on "rumor", and that, as such, my policy disallows the comment and the policy provides a legitimate protection (my readers and my own legal and political interests) against possible libel and that it is not inconsistent with free speech principles.
While I make no judgment as to the importance of the allegations Fealk made, or whether they are relevant to the political debate, Christine's conclusion is in all the important respects aligned with mine. I would note that she makes valid points that this wasn't as bad as some other attacks out there in the blogosphere, and that it is unclear whether this is a "personal attack" or not (suggesting that I clarify my policy slightly on that, which I'll do by changing it to something like allegations of a personal nature) largely because its unclear whether its true or not. Nonetheless, those portions of her reasoning do not excuse the unsourced allegation.
It is legitimate for me to block personal allegations where there is no evidence. My decision is not based on political content - its based on a jouralistic and common-sense standard. I'll be issuing Fealk a letter by e-mail warning him - a luxury (along with any explanation for reasons) I'd note not granted to me by other bloxes which plainly censor for political content. I'd note however that my interpretation of Fealk's behavior is harsh, and while I'm lenient this one time, repeated misuse is something that will result in less forgiveness.
Ok. Some time has passed and I've given the Fealk situation some thought.
First, Fealk has been awfully quiet. A google news and google blog engine search reveals that Fealk is out of jail but that he's only commenting on mortgages. This is probably as it should be. A good lawyer would advise him to keep his trap shut - and maybe if he thinks about the mistakes he made in the process of testing the police, he'll understand why this one is not one he'll maneuver into some kind of PR victory.
And the arrest is not something the right should be happy about or gloat over. Having watched it personally, and from other experiences, arrests are not a pleasant thing to watch.
There comes a few obvious questions.
Was the arrest justified?
I believe so. Here's the situation - Fealk shows up at a Troy-Clawson Republican Club event with tripod and camera. Glenn Clark is a well-known member of the club. Guess who Fealk had just attempted to libel with irrelevant personal allegations just a week earlier right here on OP? Obviously, there would be little reason to trust Fealk and whether he would try to do something unethical with whatever tape he developed.
The event was in a public building, but the room was rented and paid for through the lawfully created process of the building management. Hence, the Club owned the space for the time they rented it. The Club leader asked everyone - myself included - prior to event, to not video-record. I complied with this request. There are quiet simply more times when not recording something is the socially right thing to do rather than recording it (indeed, you'll recall a run in I had with the Troy Democratic Club in September in the same building, and I complied with their request not to record - more on that below). Indeed, I've complied with other Republican requests not to record certain events or individuals who are not public figures. It's simple courtesy. So Bruce ignored the request of the Club leader. The Club leader informed building management. The building manager came to the room and informed Fealk it was privately rented and to cease recording. Fealk refused this request. At this point, the police were called. After a wait - perhaps 15 minutes - police arrived. They told Fealk to remove the camera and Fealk demanded to see the policy. He continued to refuse to turn the camera off, and at some point the officers secured his arm behind his back. While I hesitate to use the word resistance as it has a legal implication, and I could not hear the exact exchange of words, it was clear that Fealk was not cooperative and that he tensed up. Officers at this point removed Fealk from the room forcibly, and handcuffed him in the hallway. There was considerable yelling and complaining by Fealk, and after a while he was escorted away along with his equipment.
Where Fealk went wrong was not in cooperating with the requests of the officers immediately, which are presumed lawful until otherwise proven. If Fealk wanted to investigate the building policy, the time for that was after complying with the officers requests and by politely inquiring with the building managers. Is it possible that their is a question as to whether the building policy is appropriate or Constitutional. Sure. But resisting (no legal conclusion intended) was the huge misstep by Fealk.
A second question - one I've personally wrestled with over the last the few days. Am I being consistent? You'll recall I complained when the Troy Democrats refused to allow me to videotape a Troy City Council debate in the very same building. I also taped just a week before the Fealk arrest a Troy Democrat Club presentation of an anti-Right-to-Work presentation by AFL-CIO leader Mark Gaffney - but for editorial reasons I didn't publish it because it wasn't sufficiently newsworthy. Indeed, it is that discretion, and some reasonableness even in my complaints, that may explain why the TDC has allowed me to tape since the first event and is another difference between Fealk and I. And finally, I recently taped this Peters-Skinner debate (see the google video inset) in the Oakland County Commissioners auditorum, hosted by the Troy Dems, and attended and taped also by Fealk (indeed, Fealk referred to this I believe in telling some of the Republican Club members he should be allowed to tape).
I believe I am being consistent. Here's why. First, the people speaking this week were not running for public office. Second, the Troy Democrats allowed another news outlet to tape, and misrepresented a "contract" they claimed the studio had which granted it an exclusive. And finally, and most important, I acknowledged the nuances of trespass law, and whether the Troy Dem Club (TDC) had rented the room for the City Council candidate debate or not. Here's what I wrote on that theme:
A second male explained to me that this was their decision and that it was based on the fact that Community Media Network (CMN) was present and tapes would be available to the public later. I noted that I was there in my capacity as media and strongly objected to the disparate treatment, and that the Troy Community Center was a public building operated under public rules and this was advertised as a public forum, although I admitted that as a matter of legality it was uncertain whether the Club as lessees of the room had the right to restrict public access or media coverage and that I wouldn't resist their decision.
In that acknowledgement, I also didn't challenge the TDC request - for both social reasons and because I wasn't 100% on the legality or morality (if rented, the ownership question becomes philosophically important, although I'm not sure that weighs against public access when actual candidates for office are involved).
The bottom line is Fealk both brazenly challenged the police without knowing the law first, and the social custom of following your hosts requests, within reason. A better course of action would have simply been for Fealk to leave and report it on his blog. When you push the limits to get a story or make news, as Fealk has constantly done, sometimes you cross the line and have to pay the price. It is unclear whether Fealk will or should be prosecuted, or will try to counter-prosecute on some civil liberties claim, but the whole scenario should, in reality, be a lesson. Hopefully Fealk learns from it.
Bruce Fealk was arrested hours ago by the Troy Police for failing to comply with police orders to turn off his camera equipment in a room rented by the Troy-Clawson and Oakland County Republican Forum.
OaklandPolitics was as also covering the event and I was there at the time of the event, and as a result plan to report on both the event and arrest, but want to do so with extreme precision. I have no editorial position at this hour.
Look for a follow-up - the upshot is that Fealk wanted to videotape at a Republican event and the organizers offered him (and all others were asked not to videotape at the beginning of the event - we didn't videotape either) an opportunity to stay and listen but not to tape. Fealk refused their request, refused the request of the Troy Community Center director after he explained the room was rented, and continued taping for several minutes when the director called the police. Fealk then argued with police and attempted to continue taping, and was promptly handcuffed and detained.
In other news, this weekend, OaklandPolitics received word from Christine Barry of ChristineBarry.com that our actions in freezing certain comments by Fealk citing rumors of a personal nature were consistent with our policy. While Ms. Barry agrees with Fealk that the allegations he made, "if true", would be of some political relevance, she agrees both that OP handled it correctly and that there was not sufficient evidence to allow the comments to remain in place. I plan on updating the community on the exact nature of her decision and how I've incorporated that advice into a warning against Fealk. That event alone will not in itself be justification for completely censoring or removing Fealk, but a second violation would result in more serious action.
Obviously, events are transpiring at a fast pace here though and more will follow.
