You are on page 1of 3

The timeline of evidence concerning the enforcement policy change indicates that the defendants are engaged in a conspiracy

to get the court to accept a false explanation for when and why they decided to unequally enforce the park rules. 1. The defendants did not make the slightest indication to the court of the Skyline ruling or of the enforcement policy change until I raised the issue. Then they invented completely different explanations for the court, for the media and for the artists. Their motivation for engaging in this deception is clear; their summary judgment motion was awaiting the courts decision and if the court were to become aware of the policy change, the defendants could have lost the motion and most likely lost the entire lawsuit. If we accept the interpretation that the Skyline rulings relevance to this lawsuit is that the medallions are a license, then the policy change proves the plaintiffs most basic claim, that the revised park rules were a licensing scheme. This is likely the reason that the defendants hid Skyline from the court. Moreover, the defendants lost their appeal of the Skyline ruling on 8/30/2012. Until 9/24/12 they did not notify either the court or the plaintiffs of this important fact that directly impacts on the Summary Judgment motion now pending. Their losing the appeal has direct relevance to the courts decision. At the same time they selectively enforced against me and Jack Nesbitt at the Met Museum on 9/20/2012. 2. The logical question is, why did the defendants make this sudden enforcement policy change knowing that if discovered it would jeopardize their summary judgment motion? The real reason for the enforcement policy change can be deducted from examining the extensive media coverage of it. 3. The defendants were trying to avoid a high profile lawsuit brought by Mr. Siegel and Mr. Kuby on behalf of performers in NYC Parks, which the defendants correctly reasoned they would lose. Secondly the Mayor, whose carefully crafted public image is that of a patron of the arts, was taken aback by public expressions of outrage when the defendants tried to eliminate performers from such world famous traditional busking locations as Central Park, Washington Sq Park and Union Square Park, particularly when this got high profile coverage in the NY Times, Daily News, in a Villager editorial, on TV news shows and elsewhere. 4. Newspaper reports from the Daily News, The Villager and detailed reports from a park advocacy website, A Walk In The Park, document that the City was negotiating with Norm Siegel and Ron Kuby, the lawyers who were representing the park performers in an effort to end the performer summonses, as much as 3 months before the Skyline ruling and that summonses for violating the 2010 rule revision had completely stopped being issued to performers and were being dismissed by Commissioner Dockett long before the Skyline ruling came out. This January 1st Daily News article describes the summonses policy being changed almost 2 months before the Skyline appeals court ruling, which was February 23, 2012. It also quotes the Manhattan Borough Parks Commissioner Williams Castro hinting that the city may be re-considering the rules as they apply to performers. Daily News 1/1/2012 Street artists say theyre performing again without fear of big fines in Washington Square Park - Rule barring tip performances within 50 feet of a monuments under fire It may be curtains for the controversial crackdown on street performers in city parks. Artists who had been slapped with huge fines for performing in Washington Square Park say the rule is no longer being enforced and many of their outstanding tickets were suddenly dismissedAt a recent community board meeting, Manhattan Borough Parks Commissioner Williams Castro hinted the city may be re-considering the rules. We are mindful of the concerns raised by some park patrons and we are further reviewing the impact of these rules in Washington Square Park, Castro said. In this detailed Villager article on the performer summonses dated December 22, 2011, the Assistant Parks Commissioner for Manhattan states that the City was considering exempting the performers in December 2011, months before the Skyline ruling. This was due to widespread public outcry and pressure from the media, lawyers for the performers, City Council members and Community Boards. The performer summonses were being universally attacked in the media. A symphony of nos on Parks musician rules at speak-out The Villager December 22, 2011 The department seeks to regulate and accommodate a variety of activities and uses, Castro added, but he promised that the department would review and reconsider the enforcement policy that began in the park around May. This article from A Walk In the Park blog notes negotiations that were secretly conducted between the City and the performers lawyers since December, months before the Skyline ruling. EXCERPT: The city had been in negotiations with Civil Rights attorneys Ron Kuby and Norman Siegel after a December 4, 2011 press conference. These 2 articles give further background details: A Reprieve for Performers in Washington Square Park, NY Times May 17, 2012 A fine time for city park performers Daily News December 03, 2011