portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

alternative media | police / legal oregon elections 2004

9 a.m. KBOO interview today with Paul Richmond correcting Tom Potter's record

Paul Richmond will be talking with Per Fargren on KBOO today, Friday October 29 at 9:00 a.m. PST about Mayoral Candidate Tom Potter's past record, and current campaign. Paul was here in Portland during Potter's reign of terror, and knows the intimate details of how the current militarization of the PPD under Potter's reign, began. He may also share some of the other things he discovered while digging into Portland's inner workings, and exposing them on Cable Access as well as in the publications, In Xcess (sp??) and The Portlandian.

This show can be listened to via live-stream by going to www.kboo.fm. Paul can be contacted via email at: paulrichmond_attorney@yahoo.com

Some of Paul's Contributions to this site include:

"Mayoral Candidate Tom Potter has positioned himself as a progressive with a vision. The truth is under his watch the number of paramilitarized police added to the force rose almost 3000% as patrol officers declined. Additionally police spied on demonstrators, and had a record number of killings..."
Full Story at the article called: Potter's Record, Reconsidered

More from Paul Richmond, written in the mid-90's during his muck-raking days in Portland, about corporate control and complicity by lawmakers over our social, political, and economic systems at: NW Laboratory

Paul reprimanded me when I did article on PDX CopWatch 29.Oct.2004 08:01

kirsten anderberg kirstena@resist.ca

Just for the record, I posted an article which was a feature here on PDX IMC re the Worst Cop Card Deck and CopWatches around the country, including PDX. Paul Richmond sent me a scathing email telling me what a piece of crap I was for promoting the Portland CopWatch!! He said something like...nice job promoting the enemy...Not sure what that was all about...but for a person who publicizes himself as being against cops, I could not figure out why he was reaming me for promoting CopWatches!

And I am still waiting for an attorney, such as him, to file law suits against the City of Seattle for police brutality on Mar 22, 2003 and June 2, 2003 on protesters' behalf...


You bore me 29.Oct.2004 12:16

blah de blah

You're an attorney; why don't you do it?

Facts? 29.Oct.2004 12:28

sigh.

Do you mean the "Portland Police Bureau"? (There's no such thing as the "PPD".)

Do you mean "PDXS"? (Richmond may have written for something called "In Xcess" but I've never heard of it.)

Re: A purported animosity towards Portland Copwatch: There are lots of police accountability organizations in town; Richmond may have conflated them. Or, perhaps he feels that a focus on city policy and internal complaint systems (Ptld Copwatch's specialty) is anti-revolutionary. If so, fine -- perhaps he can support the community-organizing efforts, ballot-measure drives, or on-the-street copwatching that other organizations do in this town.

We also touched on disinformation in the interview 29.Oct.2004 12:35

Paul Richmond

I guess with comments like the above I must be being effective.

For those who don't know me, I spent this week, (and many unpaid hours proceeding) defending Anwar Peace, a Seattle activist who is being hounded by police, in criminal court. Because of my work, the charges I was defending him on were dismissed.
See:  http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0337/news-dawdy.php

Earlier this month I was able to get all charges dropped against Raymond Nix, a 65 year old native who was nearly killed by the police in Seattle.
See:  http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0422/040602_news_cops.php,
And second entry at  http://www.realchangenews.org/pastissuesupgrade/2004_06_10/issue/current/features/news_you_can_use.html
This case involved easily 4-500 hours of volunteer work

The month before that I dragged the Secret Service into federal court to get demonstrators closer to a Bush fundraiser, and stopped the police from bothering demonstrators who were bannering over highways.

As for LEIU, ( http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0325/news-dawdy.php) and the March 2003 demos in Seattle every person I defended had their charges dropped. Further we are working on civil suits on these matters and have at least one of the lawyers involved in the Portland A-22 suits working with us. (BTW I also provided information on less lethal weapons to the attorneys on A-22.)

Please also note that the person making these claims about me offers nothing to substantiate their claims.

I accuse the police of dirty tricks, and dirty tricks start being used against me. Funny how that works.

Francesconi 29.Oct.2004 13:20

is a known corporate lackey

I would much rather have Potter. Neither man is the perfect mayor, there is no such thing. But, choosing between FRancesconi's ties to corporate money and influence from the likes of Clear Channel, I pick Potter.

kudos to Paul Richmond 29.Oct.2004 13:28

Potter Voter

I voted for Potter, simply because I didn't think Francesconi would be likely to be any better on the issues that Paul raises -- and because of Francesconi's big business associations and disdain for community organizing initiatives as attested by Mark Lakeman, a person whom I admire. Nonetheless, Paul's work seems to be pretty meticulous. I haven't seen anyone offering a decent point-by-point rebuttal of his highly detailed (footnoted!) article on Potter's legacy as police chief. I thank Paul for putting us on notice and hopefully raising our guards against any potential ugliness that may await us under a Potter administration.

Thanks Paul - 29.Oct.2004 13:59

sorry, but

we already had a huge, hash-out discussion of the Potter vs. FascistPhony *****RUNOFF***** (remember??) election vote here . . .

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/299886.shtml

re: misinformation 29.Oct.2004 14:35

clamydia

Uhhh, Paul, why didn't you respond to the CopWatch thing? That was the main complaint made by Kirsten Anderberg (who happens to be a known public entity and not a likely spreader of disinformation (purposely, anyway). Instead, you decided to make a vague allegation of disinformation and then go on and on about how awesome you are. This is standard politician behavior, and god knows we have enough of those without one more. She says you sent her a nasty email about CopWatch. Do you confirm or deny this? If what she says is true, then what do you think is so wrong with copwatch?

I get sick of people shouting DISINFORMATION every fucking time someone questions them. I think it's great that you've done so much awesome work, but I've never heard of you, and neither have a lot of people here, so if you're expecting unquestioning loyalty, you're going to have to wait in line with the rest of the heirarchists.

paul richmond 29.Oct.2004 15:10

----

Paul Richmond was actually one of the founders of Indymedia in Seattle in 1999. I guess he used to live in Portland. I dealt with him many times in Seattle. He is usually cool and always seems to mean well, but sometimes he gets confused and unloads on somebody with a minor disagreement as if we're enemies. He has admitted as much verbally but may not wish to in writing in a forum like this.

On the other hand, "Paul Richmond" is probably a common name, and it could've been somebody else hatin' on Kirsten. Who knows. I guess we'll see if either one of them wanna keep up the debate here.

Unh wasn't this about Potter... 29.Oct.2004 18:56

Paul Richmond

This seems to me a variation of the flame game. Get people talking about anything but the matter at hand and burn out anyone who's listening.

I'd presume if I had sent an email that Kirsten found so offensive she'd have called me on it then, as opposed to posting comments about what I may or may not have said, without anything to back it up substantially later. Here's a hint: if you're trying to get someone to volunteer thousands of hours, and several years of work for you - this isn't the best way to do it.

My email and phone number were given in the first feature (as well as the fact that I lived in Portland for about a decade.) If people genuinely feel that they need to sort out any of these issues as to who said what to whom about what when, please contact me directly.

If people want to get into discussing the issues I raised in the article where I condensed several years of articles into a single piece in order to critique a fairly fascistic candidate (Potter) who's being hailed as progressive. Let's please get back to it.

WORD----------------- I respect kristin anderberg 29.Oct.2004 20:43

Heck

Jim Francisconi brags about his corperate partnerships. I see zero degree of seperation between green washing corperations and appropriating public moneys for un-accountable corperate subsidy projects, like building a ball park.
Francisconi of his own initiative rushed to buddy up with the portland police department after the Brutal slaying of James Jahar Perez. His declaration of support for the cops that murdered perez is an un-retractable admitance of his true intentions and character. Francisconi cannot be counted on to represent the real change this city needs. How any man could watch as enron stole our electricity and sold it back to our cold, hungry, grandparents and declair "I will not support public ownership of Portland general electric." is beyond me. I sincerly hope it is beyond you.

I have never voted before. I seriously examined the issue on the advice of my comrads at indy media. What I found is that sucessfull revolutionary struggles all implemented a diversity of tactics. I do not feel that any single tactic or absense of tactics is a strategy, or encompases what it means to struggle in revolution. I think that one person in this race is smpathetic to what I view as popular struggle. Another is a corperate liberal that will engeneer yet more back room deals, more enrons, continue support for the pjttf.

This is my attempt at peacefull tactics.

Not singularly, or without context, not without support of forcefull community defence. But an avid admittance that reformist struggle can be used to sharpen the contradictions.

In love and war,
Heck

Utterly Astounded 29.Oct.2004 23:05

Paul Richmond

Posted a response several hours ago and it's not up, so assuming something isn't working.

I'm utterly astounded at the amount of energy that's gone into this thread, when it's got nothing to do with what I wrote about. At the Seattle IMC, where I was a founder, (and eventually helped set up this one) I was astounded at the amount of energy that went into discussions of process and personality, at the expense of substantive issues. Or actual work. In Seattle, our IMC became known as the Independent Meeting Center because of this tendency to blather over work. I watched multiple projects that could have had an impact get torpedoed through process as a few folks hid behind process, and nothing seemed to be done. Of course that's not unique. One cliche is that the thing the left is best at is
spliting amongst itself. Another is that when it forms a firing squad it forms into a circle and turns its guns inward. Then there's Clarence Darrow's observation that most of what separated the disenfranchised he represented from the hooligans in power was opportunity. If the unnamed person who knows me well, but didn't know I spent eight years in this city wants to take that as a confession, so be it. If the person who thinks I sound like a politician wants to call that a politicians answer, so be that to.

My limited experience with Ms. Anneberg has mostly been negative. I've seen her in action in Seattle trashing and alienating folks who were on our side, misreporting facts on cases I've worked on (LEIU, Anwar Peace), and sending me long rambling emails. I have made it clear to her that I won't represent her legally because of this and her tendency to send out attack grams like the one at the top of this thread. Other members of our legal team have told me the same. Occassionally I get some obnoxious unsolicited reply from ms. Annenberg when I send something to a list, or put up a post like this. Given that history, I don't feel the need to reply.

If anyone seriously feels the need to ask me anything about any of this crap that has nothing to do with the article I submitted, my email and phone number were on the original post about Potter. I'm not going to indulge in this version of the flame game anymore.

Oh please Paul...I am LOL! 30.Oct.2004 02:30

kirsten anderberg kirstena@resist.ca

"I'd presume if I had sent an email that Kirsten found so offensive she'd have called me on it then, as opposed to posting comments about what I may or may not have said, without anything to back it up substantially later."

Um, Paul, I am pretty sure I still have the email from you re that. And my response I sent you *at that time* calling you on it. I also cc'd it to a few people who may still have it as well...You specifically said that whoever the guy is who runs Portland Copwatch is, that he is an enemy and not to be trusted and then you said "good job" on supporting someone who was not safe, that was the gist of the email in response to me sending you the copwatch article I wrote...And I have avoided you ever since. Would you like me to find those emails and post them here? I can post those two emails here if you would like.

"Here's a hint: if you're trying to get someone to volunteer thousands of hours, and several years of work for you - this isn't the best way to do it."

Um, get in line Paul. WE ALL volunteer thousands of hours and DECADES of work, you are no different than me or others...Yes, I am also struggling with not wanting to work for free while abused on some imcs, it is a struggle for us all...

"My email and phone number were given in the first feature (as well as the fact that I lived in Portland for about a decade.) If people genuinely feel that they need to sort out any of these issues as to who said what to whom about what when, please contact me directly."

YOu do not want us to talk re this in public? WHY?
I said I will post the personal email reaming me for copwatch if I can find it...but I remember the gist of it was that I was supporting someone who is an enemy to paul, he said he fought with whoever is the head of portland copwatch and thus did not support it and condemned me for supporting it. That *is* what you said Paul. Are you denying that now? So tell us Paul... HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT PORTLAND COPWATCH?? Let us start THERE... tell us NOW how you FEEL about Portland Copwatch so we can clear up this "disinformation." And not privately by phone, announce this here now, if your nose is so clean...and I am so full of it.

"If people want to get into discussing the issues I raised in the article where I condensed several years of articles into a single piece in order to critique a fairly fascistic candidate (Potter) who's being hailed as progressive. Let's please get back to it.Posted a response several hours ago and it's not up, so assuming something isn't working."

We are trying to figure out your angle, Paul. You condemn Portland Copwatch yet exalt your self as Mr. Copwatch...we are just trying to figure your stand out!

"I'm utterly astounded at the amount of energy that's gone into this thread, when it's got nothing to do with what I wrote about."

Again, just trying to get a handle on what YOUR angle IS!~ You hate Portland Copwatch yet want others to fall in line in total unquestioning support of *your* copwatching?

"At the Seattle IMC, where I was a founder, (and eventually helped set up this one) I was astounded at the amount of energy that went into discussions of process and personality, at the expense of substantive issues. Or actual work."

Seattle's IMC is defunct. It is the worst one in the entire system in my opinion. Everyone in Seattle uses Portland IMC for that reason...

"In Seattle, our IMC became known as..."

You cannot live on your past laurels, Paul. I, too, have been an active activist for 25 years...and in the NW too. I have done cutting edge feminist work for over 25 years in this region.

"If the unnamed person who knows me well, but didn't know I spent eight years in this city wants to take that as a confession, so be it."

I have been here 25 years or more Paul. I was a Patches Pal!

"My limited experience with Ms. Anneberg has mostly been negative. I've seen her in action in Seattle trashing and alienating folks who were on our side, misreporting facts on cases I've worked on (LEIU, Anwar Peace), and sending me long rambling emails."

Hmmm. Yeah, alright Paul. Remember, I have friends in Seattle for 25 years now...so alienating YOUR friends may not be a bad thing for me...I have seen Paul doing just what he reports me doing here, so oh well. I remember him asking all of the LEIU people to give up their speaking time at the public safety commission hearing in Seattle so he could show video footage, then us all waiting as he was late, and we decided to start testifying even tho we gave our time up for him as he showed late, and we were not sure what was going on, and then he could not get the video to work, etc...and I have seen Paul alienate as many, if not more, folks than me...Paul is not a successful attorney from where I sit, in any way shape or form. I would not let him represent me at this point, suffice it to say. And for all his exalted claims of helping one or two folks from LEIU, what about the bulk of us? Why is this exceptional lawyer not filing a lawsuit on behalf of US ALL that were violated at LEIU? Hmmm? As a class action?

Also, I have never misreported facts on cases he has worked on as I got the info for the articles straight from Paul and ANwar themselves!!! Please elaborate Paul. When have I EVER misreported FACTS on Anwar or LEIU cases. And who gave me those "facts" if not you? And I have quit covering the Anwar case because I cannot trust you. Or your "facts."

"I have made it clear to her that I won't represent her legally because of this and her tendency to send out attack grams like the one at the top of this thread."

LMAO! No, you have never ever said you would not rep me...in fact, you solicited two city claim cards from me at leiu and re march 22, 2004 which could even be construed as illegal lawyer behavior! Look, Paul, all I said was the truth. You do not support Copwatch. What was so attacking about that? Sounds like you are the one on attack!

"Other members of our legal team have told me the same."

Again, LMAO! Your "legal team?" You mean you and Larry Hildes and your new girlfriend? LOL! Oh come on Paul! Didn't you NEED Larry to do those first LEIU cases cuz you had never actually tried and won a case at that point?! Please...I saw that courtroom, and it was not YOU arguing the case, it was Larry because Larry had courtroom experience! And you have very very limited courtroom experience, if any.

"Occassionally I get some obnoxious unsolicited reply from ms. Annenberg when I send something to a list, or put up a post like this. Given that history, I don't feel the need to reply."

Oh please Paul...I have not written you since your hating Copwatch email, that I can recall except to ask YOU to STOP SPAMMING ME with your green party crap and your running for attorney general crap!!! YOU are the spammer and no, I do not reply to you personally at all anymore! Oh, and I asked you to stop spamming the LEIU list with your campaign crap too...

"If anyone seriously feels the need to ask me anything about any of this crap that has nothing to do with the article I submitted, my email and phone number were on the original post about Potter. I'm not going to indulge in this version of the flame game anymore."

Yeah, good hiding technique Paul.

The reality is Paul is in a fight with the head of Portland's Copwatch from what I can gather. ANd he is avoiding it quite nicely here and I am not sure why.


edit thyself 30.Oct.2004 11:21

kirsten

Paul, sometimes you piss me off. Can you tell?
I apologize for that rant!
I need an editor at all times on my ass!!

Kirsten

jeez, kirsten 30.Oct.2004 11:57

freak much?

this local anarchist happens to remember Paul Richmond from his days in Portland... he was odd, certainly, and various people had issues with him

having said that, kirsten's comments come off as freakish and very obnoxious. do you really need to get in these pissing matches all the time kirsten? on a public web site? i hope i never have the displeasure of having to work closely with you, that's for sure.

damn! where's that re-do button? 30.Oct.2004 23:10

this is great stuff!

thanks.

Potter and "Exhibitionism, Trolls and Indy Media" 30.Oct.2004 23:26

Just watching

Thanks, Paul Richmond. The election of Potter is probably certain. But it is far better for people, including the readers here, to have some sense of what they are actually getting stuck with. It continually amazes me that events of only a decade ago are treated as though they were ancient history. Perhaps Mark Kroeker will be returning in ten years or so to run for mayor here.

The analogy to Dick Cheney is not exact, since Potter, at least, has been open about his support of his lesbian daughter. It may be the only reason to support the man. But, as one lesbian told me just last week, "He's still a cop."

In other cities and countries where voters are faced with the same situation, i.e., only two bad choices, they find creative solutions. I did not want to mutilate my ballot - voting on Measure 36 is important to me - but that doesn't mean that individuals could not abstain on voting for mayor or write-in. Winning by a diminished majority is much less of a mandate.

And, as we all know, the issues that are important to us are not going to be settled at the ballot box anyway.


****************************

Now, with apologies to Paul Richmond, who I don't know, for going off-topic, let me say a little about Kirsten Anderberg. Go to the features of about a week ago, when Ms. Anderberg posted a complaint here titled: "Exhibitionism, Trolls and Indy Media". How ironic.

The first post after the article about Paul Richmond's research on Tom Potter is by Ms. Anderberg. It is an ad hominem attack on Richmond (that means that she attacks him personally while not speaking to his research or conclusions on Potter). Its title begins "Paul reprimanded me...."

Exhibitionism, anyone?

Is there anything in the original article about Kirsten Anderberg? Is there a single word attacking Portland Copwatch?

What do you call it when someone posts repeated, lengthy attacks on the original writer/researcher which have nothing to do with the subject at hand? What did Anderberg contribute to our understanding about Potter or the mayoral race in Portland? Did she say a single thing that challenged Richmond's research? And, further, since Richmond's name, email address and phone number were available, why did she air her complaint about him on the thread to this article?

Trolls, anyone?

I urge people to go read Anderberg's complaint of a week or so ago (I cannot call it an article). The solutions that she proposed there, if implemented, would have led to her entire rant on this thread being composted.

Open dialogue, anyone?

I oppose her solutions, but it certainly would be tempting to enforce censorship on someone who first issued the call for it.

GO PAUL ! 31.Oct.2004 16:23

and kirsten's OK too

Paul! Thanks for reminding everybody what a pig Potter is. It's just hard to know what to do about it in a run-off election where none of "us" like the other guy any either. I didn't vote for either one of them. I think most of us appreciate your work. If people criticize you for trivialities, in some sense it's a validation of all the big stuff.