Valley Club President Explains

Facing domestic, international and political criticism over his decision to expel Black and Hispanic kids from swimming at the Valley Swim Club in Huntingdon Valley, a suburb of Philadelphia, Pa., the club president John G. Duesler Jr. faced the cameras in an effort to explain his actions.

"We deeply regret this whole situation," John Duesler, president of the board of directors of The Valley Club, told reporters Friday afternoon at the entrance to the club in the leafy suburb of Huntingdon Valley.

Duesler said the number of children in the shallow section of the pool, many of them unable to swim, convinced officials that there was a problem. "It was definitely an unsafe situation," he said. Asked about his previous statement in which he was quoted as saying:

"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club."

Duesler admitted that he used "a terrible choice of words" but nonetheless denied that there was any racial context to his statement.

"It was never my intention to imply anything in terms of racial makeup," he said.

Duesler said meant that having so many children greatly altered the atmosphere of the pool and created an unsafe situation. He said he was uncomfortable with the ratio of children to lifeguards - which was 10-1 when all the children were swimming at once. "It was just too many kids on top of each other," Duesler told reporters. "Many of them couldn't swim."

"This is just a terrible misrepresentation of what I said," he said, with local news media and CNN recording. "This is just so wrong."

Duesler's wife, Bernice, who also attended the press conference said:

"Our home has been inundated with thousands of hateful emails, hundreds of horrible phone calls, saying horrible things about my husband and he's just trying to help out and he is the type of person that takes people for who they are, feels everything can be worked out, and was so thrilled to have these kids come here that it broke our heart that they couldn't come here, and that's scary and we don't know what to say because after the first couple days such horrible things were being said and everything was so one-sided we were afraid to even to say something that we wouldn't be...."

Despite the news conference, the controversy over the club's action has been growing more intense. Protesters have been gathering at the swim club daily. Police have been standing by at the scene. One pool member did become confrontational and the protesters say they have endured name-calling and hand gestures -- even adults sticking out their tongues to show they aren't welcome here.

At the request of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (HRC) said they would immediately open an investigation into the actions of The Valley Club in Huntingdon Valley.

"The rule of law in Pennsylvania is equal opportunity for all, regardless of race," , chairman Stephen A. Glassman said Thursday in a written statement released by his office.

"Allegedly, this group was denied the use of a pool based on their race," Glassman said. "If the allegations prove to be true, this is illegal discrimination in Pennsylvania."

Speaking for the Pennsylvania HRC, which has vowed to expedite an investigation after being inundated with calls from all over the country, Shannon Powers said: "It got bumped to the top of the priority list, so were devoting an extraordinary amount of resources to investigating it," she said. "It's a matter we would like to see resolved quickly."

A lawsuit has also been filed against the Valley Swim Club in federal court. One of the mothers on the scene told Action News that her angry words aren't fit for TV, but she is among those who plan to join a class action lawsuit filed Saturday by another mother of four.

Follow me on Twitter

Dymond Milburn - A Victim of Police Brutality

The night of August 22, 2006 would change the life of Dymond Milburn, 12, and her family forever. Before the night was over Dymond, an honor student attending advanced classes at Austin Middle School, would be falsely accused of being a prostitute and assaulted by 4 undercover Galveston police officers - while hanging unto a tree limb, yelling "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy" -  requiring that she be hospitalized. According to the lawsuit:

The examining physician found that Dymond suffered injuries from multiple blows to the head, face, neck, lower back, left shoulder, and left hip/waist area. She suffered a contusion to the back of the head (where she was struck with a flashlight). There were abrasions on her arm and wrist. Her throat was swollen; she had difficulty swallowing, nausea and vomiting, and hoarseness of voice due to being struck in the throat. She had black eyes, scalp lacerations, tenderness of the vertebrae. She was experiencing double vision and loss of hearing. Dymond’s ear drum and nose were also injured (blood in ear, bruised nasal septum, and nose bleed).

This 12-year-old black girl, not yet a teenager, was mistaken for a prostitute because, according to the police, she was dressed in "tight shorts". The police were investigating a report of 3 white prostitutes and a drug dealer who were supposed to be located two blocks away from where they encountered Dymond, who was in front of her parents house.

Still not content to leave the family alone, three weeks after this unfortunate event, the police showed up at Dymond's school to arrest her, in front of the entire class, for assaulting a public servant! They claim that she was arrested because she fought back against the plain-clothed police officers who were trying to arrest her in front of her own home. It didn't matter that she was innocent and they, the police officers, were at the wrong address.

It all began around 8pm when the breaker went out at the Milburn home. Dymond's mother, Emily, asked her daughter to go outside and turn the switch back on. Emily was busy preparing her kids for school the next day. So Dymond went outside to find the breaker. As she was heading towards the switch, a blue van pulled up to her and 4 undercover police officers jumped out.

Without identifying themselves as police officers one of them grabbed Dymond saying: "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me." Dymond did not go quietly. She grabbed a tree and started sceaming "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy" so loudly that she could be heard by the neighbors. The police reacted by covering her mouth and beating her about the head and throat. The officers involved were: Sergeant Gilbert Gomez, Officers David Roark, Justin Popovich and Sean Stewart.

Wilfred Milburn, Dymond’s father, was on the balcony when he heard his daughter’s cries for help and came outside. Emily Milburn also heard the cries and ran outside. When they arrived outside, Dymond was hysterical and holding on to the tree with one arm; two officers were striking Dymond in the head, face and throat. At no time did the supervising officer (Gomez) on the scene intervene and stop the illegal seizure and assault. Officer Roark hit Dymond in the back of head with a flashlight, hit her neck, throat, slapped her across the face, and told her to get off the tree.

Wilfred Milburn told the officer “that’s our daughter. She’s twelve.” The officer responded, “I don’t care if she’s twenty-two, thirty-two, or forty-six. Tell her to calm down.”

As a result of the Officers’ assault, Dymond suffered from pain in the back of the head, lower back pain, a sprained wrist with abrasions, and throat, neck and face pain. Her parents took her to the University of Texas Medical Branch for treatment. They arrived at the emergency room at 9:24 p.m. on August 22, 2006. Dymond was treated for head injuries and multiple contusions.

On Friday, September 15, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., twelve (12) year old Dymond Milburn was arrested for assaulting a public servant. The arrest took place while Dymond was at school.

This incident so traumatized Dymond that she had to seek professional help.

Since the incident, Dymond has had regular nightmares in which police officers are raping her, beating her, and cutting off her fingers. Her fear prevented her from participating in normal activities (going outside to play) which she no longer considered safe. Dymond sought psychological treatment, and on October 31, 2006, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder due to the incident which is the subject of this lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, Dymond claims that she has also experienced: Loss of appetite, loss of normal functioning, and negative effect on school grades due to trouble concentrating in class, all associated with the beating suffered at the hands of the law enforcement officers.

The police version of the story is, of course, not quite the same. The following is a statement from the lawyer for the officers, William Helfand:

Both the daughter and the father were arrested for assaulting a peace officer. "The father basically attacked police officers as they were trying to take the daughter into custody after she ran off."

Also, "The city has investigated the matter and found that the conduct of the police officers was appropriate under the circumstances," Helfand says. "It's unfortunate that sometimes police officers have to use force against people who are using force against them. And the evidence will show that both these folks violated the law and forcefully resisted arrest."

The charge of assaulting a public servant, brought against Dymond Milburn, was taken to trial, but the judge declared it a mistrial on the first day. A new trial is set for February.

"I think we'll be okay," says Anthony Griffin, Dymond's defense lawyer. "I don't think a jury will find a 12-year-old girl guilty who's just sitting outside her house. Any 12-year-old attacked by three men and told that she's a prostitute is going to scream and yell for Daddy and hit back and do whatever she can. She's scared to death."

Griffin says he expects to enter mediation with the officers in early 2009 to resolve the lawsuit.

State Charges Dropped in Hope Steffey Case

According to a grand jury, Stark County deputies committed no criminal acts while arresting Hope Steffey two years ago. Nancy H. Rogers, Ohio attorney general, issued a statement saying that a Stark County grand jury did not hand down any indictments after reviewing the evidence presented by the state's Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation Special Prosecution Sections.

The Steffey case was investigtated by Paul Scarsella, the Chief of the Special Prosecutions Section for the Attorney General’s Office where he manages 4 attorneys and support staff. He was assisted by Bridget Carty, Public Integrity Unit Coordinator, and an Assistant Attorney General in the Special Prosecutions Section.

The Special prosecutors, Paul Scarsella and Bridget Carty, said the incident, in which male and female deputies forcibly removed Steffey's clothes at the Stark County jail, was a suicide precaution. They said the deputies were only following a medical order given by a doctor on duty to remove her clothes. Though the jail has suicide suits for inmates to wear, prosecutor Scarscella said Steffey was not immediately given one because even the suit was deemed too dangerous for her to have.

The Special prosecutors presented the results of their investigation to the grand jury without interviewing Hope Steffey. They said they were unwilling to interview her with her lawyers present, as she requested. Steffey did however appear before the grand jury. The grand jury declined to indict the deputies involved.

Steffey denied that she was suicidal or was given the opportunity to remove her clothes herself. There is no policy that prevents men from removing a female inmate's clothes during a suicide precaution situation. Men are however prevented from strip-searching a female inmate.

However, the findings of this grand jury will have no bearing on the federal lawsuit that Hope Steffey filed on Oct. 2007, accusing Stark County deputies of violating her civil rights by assaulting, strip-searching and leaving her injured and naked for six hours in a Stark County jail cell. She had to use toilet paper to cover herself. Defendants in the case are Swanson, Deputy Sheriff Richard T. Gurlea Jr. and one to 15 other "John and Jane Does" employed at the Stark County Jail, and the Stark County commissioners. That case is scheduled to go to trial in December.

Below is the video (in 2 parts) which documents Hope’s experience at the hands of the Stark County Sheriff’s Dept. The video is graphic (you’ve been warned!!)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daYBjfvEjfQ&eurl=http://shadmia.com/2008/02/14/innocent-woman-strip-searched/]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDuuo0k9xXw&eurl=http://shadmia.com/2008/02/14/innocent-woman-strip-searched/]

Whether or not the videotape was presented to the state grand jury will probably never be known, since the deliberations of grand juries are held in secret. But it is certain to be part of the civil case to be heard in federal court. Steffey's attorneys are now under federal court order to not discuss the case. But they have argued that the force used by deputies, and seen on the videotape, was brutal and unnecessary.

JetBlue Sued Over Toilet Seat

Gokhan Mutlu, of Manhattan is suing the airline JetBlue for $2 million. He claims the pilot forced him to give up his seat and sit on the toilet seat in the bathroom for over three hours while on a flight from California to New York.

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=f6vzcPYy9cI&feature=related]

On Feb. 23 2008 Gokhan Mutlu was returning from San Diego to New York on a "buddy pass" ticket. This is a free voucher that JetBlue employees give to friends and family who are willing to fly on a stand-b y basis. Initially, Mutlu was told a flight attendant had taken the last available seat on the plane, but she had agreed to sit in the "jump seat" which is a seat reserved for JetBlue employees only. This meant that Mutlu could catch the flight and use the seat the flight attendant had given up.

About 90 mins into the 5 hour flight the pilot approached Mutlu and told him that the attendant was uncomfortable in the "jump seat" and he would have to relinquish his seat to her. He also told Mutlu that he could not use the "jump seat" because it was only for JetBlue employees. The pilot suggested that Mutlu "go hang out" in the bathroom.

When Mutlu objected to having to sit in the bathroom the pilot said:

"He was the pilot, that this was his plane, under his command that (Mutlu) should be grateful for being on board,"

When the aircraft hit turbulence passengers were directed to return to their seats and Gokhan Mutlu had no choice but to sit on the toilet seat, with no seat belts to use. It was hours later when a male attendant knocked on the toilet door and informed Mutlu that he could return to his original seat.

Mutlu's lawsuit, filed in Manhattan's State Supreme Court, says JetBlue negligently endangered him by not providing him with a seat with a safety belt or harness, in violation of federal law.

P.S.

I would like to know if anyone tried to use the bathroom during the three hours Gokhan Mutlu was in there!!