The Guild has been part of Occupy Boston (OB) since its very first planning meeting on Boston Common in September.  This month’s Mass Dissent showcases a range of perspectives on the movement.  All of the stories reflect the common thread of self-determination and the Guild’s respect for OB.

This month’s writers are just a small sample of the many, many Guild members who have put in long hours training legal observers and participants; legal observing at marches, arrests, and rallies; staying overnight at Dewey Square; occasionally, being arrested; visiting jail and police stations at all hours to bail protesters out; representing Occupiers in criminal court; filing for, and briefly receiving, an injunction; establishing an NLG Hotline to take phone calls with legal questions at all hours of the day, night, and holidays; preparing a mass defense strategy; and so much more. We tip our (bright green!) hats to all of you.

In the following pages, Bradford Adams, a Guild student at Harvard Law School, tells about his experience as a legal observer and as part of OB’s Legal Working Group. He describes the spontaneity of marches and the roles he took on in solidarity with the movement.

Una Spenser, Occupier and active blogger on the Daily Kos, provides a firsthand account of the night the Boston Police “arrested” the OB kitchen sink. (Read more on www.dailykos. com/user/UnaSpenser)

Is there some 1% corruption within the Occupy Movement? Gregory Murphy, a member of the Financial Accountability Working Group, deals with the betrayal of OB by some of its founding members, and tells about how the group resolved this issue.

Public defenders and Guild members Chris and Carl Williams answer questions about their personal involvement with OB, the Guild’s connection to the movement, and discuss how OB has made the Guild stronger.

Chapter Board Member Makis Antzoulatos draws historical parallels to the Occupy movement in Hoovervilles and Boston’s Tent City.  He describes the common power generated by a group of people just by existing in a certain place.

This is history in the making, and the Guild is proud to play an important role in and for the Occupy Movement.

- Stephanie Young -
Editor

NLG HAPPY HOURS

We hope you will join us this month for our monthly NLG Happy Hour.  On the second Wednesday of each month, we rotate “Mentorship” Happy Hour with “NLG Presents…”. Please see the boxes below for details about February and March events.  If you have questions, please call the Guild office at 617-227-7335.

NLG ANNUAL MEETING

This year’s Chapter Annual Meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 20, 5:30pm (14 Beacon St., Conference Room, 1st Fl.).  At the meeting, we will conduct elections of the Chapter Board of Directors and Chapter Officers.  We are accepting nominations for the Board until March 6th.  If you would like to serve on the Board or nominate another Guild member, please call the Guild office (617-227-7335) or go to our website (www.nlgmass.org).
We will also have a presentation given by our guest speakers on the status of Occupy Boston and the next phase of the movement.  Rachel Plattus and Brian Kwoba have been active in Occupy Boston since day one and will give us their understanding of the future of the Occupy Movement.  And yes, we’ll have tasty treats and great wine!  Hope to see you there.

Street Law Clinic Report

The following clinics and trainings were conducted for members of Boston area community organizations and agencies:

December 16: Legal Observer  training for Occupy Somerville, by Melinda Drew.

Mentorship Happy Hour…

Careers in Criminal Defense Law

An evening with

Laura Alfring, Makis Antzoulatos, Susan Church, & Hillary Farber

Wednesday, February 8, 2012
6:00 – 8:00 pm
Red Hat Cafe
9 Bowdoin St. (upper level), Boston

This month’s Mentorship Happy Hour is for law students and new lawyers who are interested in criminal defense. Guild attorneys who specialize in criminal defense law will speak and answer questions:  Laura Alfring (CPCS Youth Advocacy Department), Makis Antzoulatos (public defender with CPCS), Susan Church (private practitioner), and Hillary Farber (criminal law professor).

Join us!

SAVE THE DATE

“NLG Presents…” Happy Hour

Massachusetts’ New “Three Strikes” Sentencing Laws

An evening with
BARB DOUGAN & TATUM PRITCHARD

Wednesday, March 14, 2012, 6:00 – 8:00 pm
Red Hat Cafe, 9 Bowdoin St., Boston

As many states are easing prison overcrowding with policies that promote treatment and re-entry, Massachusetts is set to move in the opposite direction with tougher “three strikes” legislation. Barb Dougan (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) and Tatum Pritchard (Prisoners Legal Services) will report on how we got to this point, how activists – led by communities of color – organized against the bills, and (perhaps by March) what a final bill says.

Holiday Party happy participants enjoying a wonderful spread, wine, raffle drawing, and each others’ company.

Kids’ Corner - Next generation of the Guild!

NLG Holiday Party in Pictures

What a night!!!  Once again, we had a blast at the NLG Holiday Party in December.  Huge “Thank you!” goes to everyone who attended and to our friends at Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin for opening their doors to us!

Northeastern School of Law contingent. Photos by Daniel Werner.

NLG New Year’s Party

Our first ever NLG New Year’s Party at Jillian’s in Boston was a wonderful event, attended mostly by new Guild members.  We enjoyed free appetizers, refreshing beverages, inspiring chats, and, obviously, pool tables!

Northeastern law students and a friend enjoying a conversation. (l.-r.) Yohana Valdez, Elizabeth Chandler, Maddie Thomson, and Erin Meyer-O'Day.

Engaging in an exciting and almost-professional game of billiards (we don’t know who won, though). (l.-r.) law students Daniel Werner (New England) and Charles Flewelling (Northeastern). Photos by Urszula Masny-Latos.

by Bradford Adams

The best moment that I have “legally observed,” so far:
At Suffolk County Superior Court, December 1, 2011

CITY ATTORNEY:    Who speaks for Occupy Boston?
ERIC MARTIN, ON WITNESS STAND:    Our democracy speaks for itself.
OCCUPIERS IN THE GALLERY:    [sparkle fingers]
JUDGE MCINTYRE:    Observers will refrain from making any
gestures or they will be removed.
JOHN FORD, IN THE GALLERY, TO JUDGE MCINTYRE:   What?

I’ve been on the Occupy Boston Legal Working Group since October.  I got involved as an NLG Legal Observer (LO).  The first demonstration I LOed at was a union-led event – very well organized, very energetic. After it was over and most people left, a group of Occupiers grabbed some signs and flags and set out again.  A couple LOs were still around, so we took hats and notebooks and followed.  This demonstration had a different feel than the first one – spontaneous and unorganized, but also energetic.  Unlike the first event, this march wasn’t cleared with the police.  There was a lot of tension between protesters and the BPD, and one protester was arrested.  That has been typical of my experience with Occupy: there is a lot of organized political action, but unexpected things happen all the time if you just stick around for a while.

The Legal Working Group has two main activities: legal observing and jail support for people who get arrested.  There were lots of demonstrations starting from Dewey Square, and I LOed for a few each week.  Graduate student Kat Johnston and law student Stefanie Grindle seemed to be at every one (let’s hope they passed their exams!).  When enough LOs showed up, some of us joined the march as participants – Erica Bushell always seemed to be the first one to drop the hat and pick up a sign, which is awesome because getting people to join is the whole point.  We also LOed at Occupy Somerville, Occupy Harvard, and Occupy Worcester.

Instead of providing jail support, I tracked our bail fund – we received about $13,000 in donations online to cover bail, bail fees, and fines – and spent a few days at court, but I never went to bail people out.  We have a bunch of awesome people who are willing to go to jail any time of the night: Katie Sheldon, Peter “madhettie,” Chris and Carl Williams, and others. It has been an inspiring group of people to work with and learn from. Once or twice we had to ask ourselves how to respond to an arrest that looked less “political” – a drug arrest, for example – but our policy was clear and steady: everything is political, and everybody gets out.

The encampment phase of Occupy Boston was a 24/7 protest, and plenty of work happened between marches and demonstrations.  Peter Drake and I each slept at camp sometimes, and often there would be nighttime interaction with police that called for legal observers.  Most of what I saw didn’t end in arrests.  Plainclothes detectives would come into camp to question someone, for example. Someone would shout “Legal!” and I would just get the Occupier’s name and observe.  “Spider Webb” didn’t spend nights at camp but probably spent more hours at Dewey than anyone else.  Chris and Carl  seemed to have some sort of spidey sense about when legal help was needed (or maybe just Twitter accounts), because they showed up at just about every incident.

Some of the best things the legal working group did, however, were the things it didn’t do.  We turned down requests to negotiate with police, or to resolve disputes between Occupiers.  Once, MBTA police tried to break up a General Assembly held inside the South Station T stop.  We didn’t step in to “answer” whether it was legal to assemble there.  Instead, the GA debated and reached a consensus about whether to stay or leave, and then followed its decision.  The group spoke with a political voice rather than yielding to a legal voice, and was more powerful because of it.  They decided to move and fight other battles, but we were there with hats, notebooks, and cash, and we would have bailed them out if they had decided to stay and resist.

I first learned about Occupy Boston on September 29, at the NLG Legal Observer training for the City Life protest against Bank of America.  There was an announcement that some people would be camping out in Dewey Square that weekend in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, which was about a week old then.  Nobody was sure if this thing would stick.  It did.  Now we are at some point that is either the end of the beginning or the beginning of the beginning.  It definitely isn’t the end.  The movement is developing new actions for its next phase, and I can’t wait to see what they come up with.

Bradford Adams is a 3rd year law student at Harvard and an intern with the NLG Litigation Committee.

by Una Spenser

It’s official: they’ll take everything, including the kitchen sink.

You may have heard about the kerfuffle at Dewey Square. Google “Occupy Boston sink” and you’ll see that the story has gone a bit viral.  Yes, they took the kitchen sink.

During the hearing on our injunction to block the city from evicting us, it became clear that the city’s main case against the ongoing encampment was an argument that the site had safety and sanitation issues.
What they didn’t say, of course, was how the City thwarted every attempt OB made to bring in the things needed to ensure safety and sanitation.  The City had a Fire Marshall state that the nylon tents and tarps are a fire hazard.  It didn’t have him say that the police randomly labeled any other kind of tent as “contraband” and  confiscated less hazardous, winterized tents we tried to erect.

So, tents are okay. Yes, go ahead and sleep here, but we deny you a tent that could actually protect you from the elements and from fire hazard. And then we’re going to evict you because you don’t have a tent which will protect you from the elements and fire hazard.

Having heard their absurd case in court, next day we decided to make the point. The City had gone on about sanitation in our kitchen area. We haul in bottled water and wash dishes in plastic tubs in a multi-stage setup which includes bleach dips. Still, there were complaints that we didn’t have a sink.  So, we had one delivered. A rather large – so large it wouldn’t fit in the paddy wagon – multi-section, industrial sink.

It arrived during the General Assembly, so there were lots of people around. When a few policemen came over and stated that the sink was “contraband” and they were going to remove it, about 60 or 70 people surrounded the sink, and the police officers, and sat down.

You know how dangerous those sitters are. They even violently linked arms. Then they went into full escalation by talking to the police! They asked questions! “What law are we breaking?” “Why are you taking the sink?”

“Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!” The alarm was sounded and backups were called in.  Within minutes – hey, who knew the police could respond so quickly?  Maybe it happened so quickly that we missed them swarming the criminal bankers – Menino’s army arrived. The streets surrounding Dewey were filled with law enforcement.

It’s unclear whether the original police officers picked up the very heavy metal sink and walked over the protesters with it before or after the enforcements arrived. I think it must have been after because, they had to have a paddy wagon to load it into.  The poor forlorn sink was thoughtlessly tossed in.

The Occupy Boston community could not understand why their beloved sink was being so vilified. In solidarity – some may say foolishness – they got up from their menacing seated positions, de-escalated their violently locked arms and filled the street to block the paddy wagon from driving off.

Chaos ensued. Not all aspects of what unfolded here are clearly understood. We do know that police dispersed the roadblock with some force and people were shoved to the ground. There were several injuries, including one woman who had to be taken by ambulance to the hospital. There were, apparently, also confrontations between members of Occupy Boston. I gather this was over differing opinions about how far to go with resisting the sink’s arrest. We have some internal healing and growing to do.

In the end, all this kerfuffle was for nothing. I was standing next to one of our police liaisons as she spoke with a Superintendent. There was no legal justification for taking the sink. It’s not as though it was to be plumbed for permanent installation. And there is this small thing that the police are supposed to be abiding by right now – a judge’s order, I think they call it a “TRO.” We were given the name and number of a person to call for authorization to have the sink returned.  Next day, an NLG attorney called and had the heroic sink returned to its designer.
Many of us would like to thank the police for attempting to protect us from dish duty.  It is, indeed, an onerous task.  We appreciate their compassion for us, however misguided.  Sink or no, the dishes must be done.  We must soldier on with these mundane tasks, even as we continue to do the more exotic work of peacefully assembling and redressing our grievances to our government.  We can fully understand their anxiety over the logistical tension.  We all want our system to be fixed now.  We all want to end the fears over our futures.  We all want to live in a principled, just, and sustainable society.
Still, officers, we all have to get the dishes done. We promise, we won’t forget the big issues. We’ll talk about them together as we’re washing, rinsing, and drying. Scout’s honor.

Una Spenser is a writer and an activists involved in OB.

by Gregory Murphy

When I joined the revolution, on September 30th, 2011, in Dewey Square, little did I know that a couple of months later I would find myself in court.  My misfortune was not due to a principled act of civil disobedience. Nor was I in court because Mayor Menino did not agree with my First Amendment right to freedom of assembly. I found myself at Suffolk Superior Court as a defendant in a case brought by two Occupiers who accused me and two other members of Occupy Boston’s Financial Accountability Working Group (FAWG) of “breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G. L. Chapter 93A.”

It would take more words than I am allotted in this article to explain all the twists and turns which led to the plaintiff’s suit. After much frustration, FAWG issued an Occupy Boston resolution (read aloud at General Assembly), to remove a member “due to his lack of accountability, transparency, access to information to both the FAWG and GA.” Two days later, having fielded many telephone calls by members of Occupy Boston seeking guidance, and fearing that a strong media backlash could cause significant harm to the nascent movement, the National Lawyers Guild arranged for mediation services.

My FAWG colleagues and I spent two full days in mediation. We made clear that we only represented FAWG, and not the entire OB community. The sessions were quite frustrating yet illuminating: frustrating because the removed members felt they were the wronged parties and that their names had been slandered when all they were trying to do was help Occupy Boston by giving money to people who needed it, illuminating because they explained fully their intentions and goals, which they had previously not shared with us in the FAWG.

Eventually, all parties signed an Agreement drawn by the mediator, with the final result pending the General Assembly’s approval. We announced the terms of the Agreement at the next General Assembly. Our announcement was met with both relief and outrage. The next day, the removed members appeared at the Dewey Square encampment distributing a PR piece stating that they were back in the good graces of Occupy Boston and were ready to move forward, together.

This flyer triggered an ad-hoc group of Occupiers to forge a proposal to ban them. It earned consent from the General Assembly and was immediately posted on the website.  Within a week, the removed members filed the Complaint. To give readers a sense of my day in court, I will simply draw attention to some comments the judge made. During the proceedings, the judge commented that their endeavor seemed antithetical to the Occupy Movement, and seemed to be representative of the 1%. She made no ruling that day, basically telling everyone to try to resolve our problems out of court.

At the root of this were two people acting recklessly with Occupy Boston’s finances, completely disregarding the tenets of accountability, transparency and access to information. The behaviors they exhibited mirror the very Wall Street behaviors which gave rise to the Occupy Movement: greed, secrecy, a sense of entitlement, and a modus operandi that benefitted the few, rather than the many.  Though I share the outrage of my fellow Occupiers, I also understand the culture which brews this behavior.

Was banning and shunning the plaintiffs the most appropriate measure to take, to resolve this conflict? I think so.  Several times, as events unfolded, one of the plaintiffs clearly stated he would not abide by the consensus of the General Assembly, the horizontal decision-making process which is at the core of the global democracy movement. What carried the day was the community’s desire for accountability, transparency and access to information. FAWG embodied those principles and the OB community demanded them.  These two people chose not to embrace these principles and eventually succumbed to community pressure to leave.  This situation reinforces that if one chooses not to abide by the community standards, one should not belong to that community.

Is there an OB life lesson gained from this incident to be transferred to Wall Street? Could the power brokers abide by the Holy Trinity of accountability, transparency, and access to information? I do not think so. The Occupation’s world view exists in a different universe than Wall Street’s, where lack of accountability to the populace, hidden deals, and stifling the flow of information are standard business practices, if not goals. I do not see Occupations reaching mediated agreements with the Wall Street crowd – the cultures are too different, and there is no common language or shared values from which to build a relationship. I hold out hope that the revolution I joined is real, and that we are not out to simply adjust and tinker with the existing systems and power structures, but rather help them crumble and build a new world order, based not on a representative democracy, but a horizontal one which allows each voice to be heard and champions shared values. I truly believe that this same outcome will play out in the years ahead. We will see that the power brokers and bought politicians will succumb to the will of the people and relinquish their stranglehold on this country, and step aside.

Gregory Murphy is an activist with Occupy Boston and he serves on the OB Financial Accountability Working Group.

Stephanie Young sat down with Carl and Chris Williams, members of the NLG Mass Defense Committee and “life-time” (sort of) members of the Guild, to discuss their involvement in Occupy Boston and their thoughts on the future of the Movement.

Bradford Adams (left, in back) legal observing at the December OB Women’s March. Photos by Urszula Masny-Latos.

How did you first get involved with Occupy?

CARL:  Someone told me about a meeting at the bandstand in Boston Common. I don’t remember who’s to blame for that! I knew it had something to do with this Occupy Wall Street, which was less than 10 days old then. I knew there was protesting going on, but at that time I was confused by the “occupy” thing, so I wasn’t particularly following it. I decided to check it out… I found a lot of energy there, youthful exuberance. It was interesting because there were a lot of people I’ve never seen before, people new to activism, new to organizing… I was excited to see where that was going to be taken.

Why was it important for the Guild to be involved?

CHRIS: The Guild has a lot of seasoned activists that bring a lot to the table, real activism experience, not just legal work. [Many Occupiers] were very new to activism and organizing.  People were contemplating doing things, whether they’re illegal or not, that they could be arrested for.  A lot of people haven’t done that stuff before—so having the Guild involved, people with experience, who have done direct action, can kind of demystify the experience and help solidarity.

CARL: I would say immediately it went beyond the stuff the Guild is traditionally used to. We usually provide a certain “menu of options,” so to speak, and from the start it was clear this wasn’t going to be the case.  At some point there was 24-hour legal support, we were there for 24 hours straight.  The interesting thing was how people came to depend on that, and when they saw us they would say “The lawyer’s here,” “The legal people’re here.” It shifted from a more traditional Guild role, to almost… what one would expect from a legal department at a major corporation. People would come by and say something like, “Well, we have this music licensing question, we want to know what could happen.”   Complicated corporate contracts, copyright, property, administrative, family law, criminal law, we got it all.

Grabbing lunch with OB activist at the Dewey Square camp before legal observing at Women’s march. Daniel Beck (far left), Urszula Masny-Latos (center), Carl Williams (right), and Jeff Feuer (far right). Photo by Jonathan Messinger.

How did the Guild help?

CHRIS:   The perspective of the Guild has been that the movement should make its own decisions regarding how to use the legal system.  This was a fundamental part in the discussion of Mass Defense committee and of the OB Legal Working Group. People came to us and they wanted our imprimatur, as in, “Legal said this was right.” We’re not saying anything should be done. People came to us for recommendations. We resisted the temptation to seize power, to say that just because we have legal skills we’re going to tell you what to do. Instead, we described what could happen if things went down this path—not recommending anything, just explaining what’s going to happen. We got pulled into so many disputes. Whether you had to call the cops if someone looks high, whether you can ban someone from camp—we tried to back out of it, and strictly provide legal resources rather than lobby one way or another.

Was there tension between using the established legal system to resolve disputes, and the decision-making process in the new society of Occupy?

CHRIS:   You use the arrows you have in your quiver.  You have to use the existing legal system. It’s hard to work completely outside of that.  That’s a decision people can make if they want.  They can refuse to give their names and participate. But… I was surprised how some people were saying we should never have gone the civil route, with requesting the injunction. We would have been gone sooner if we didn’t request injunction. It gave a modicum of protection.  But then it kind of legitimized the eviction, because it was done with court approval.

Legal Observing at an Occupy Boston march in November. (l.-r.) Kat Johnson and Jeff Feuer. Photo by Tim Plenk.

CARL:   We have to wait and see what’s going to happen with Occupy.  One, a lot of organizing and movement building.  I think of the gym analogy of working out, building your muscles and strength.  A lot of what happened before was just stretching, getting ready for the workout. We’re more flexible, limber, responsive.  People know how to get in touch with us.    We’ve built an enormous amount of trust bailing 200-some people out of jail and police stations.  New activists are coming to the movement.  Those people are going to organize in different spheres, environmental justice, communities of color, they’ll be allies.  People in all those communities are going to recognize the Guild as the green hats, the people who do the training. They’ll have that connection and the Guild will seem a natural piece of organizing. That has made us, as the movement, stronger and better able to serve the people we want to serve, to organize for change, to make human rights far more important than property rights, to fight sexist and homophobic government actions in society.

Stephanie Young serves on the Chapter Board of Directors and works at Prisoners Legal Services.

by Makis Antzoulatos

The Occupy Movement has captivated our attention and imagination.  For the first time in many years we saw thousands of people speaking out publicly against wealth disparity and corporate greed, demanding that we begin the process of rebuilding a society with more transparency, equity, and freedom.  One of the most encouraging aspects of the movement was witnessing how people all over the country were organizing themselves into intentional autonomous communities, attempting to show the world that individuals can control their own communities, and that the best form of democracy starts at the bottom.

The idea of reclaiming public space as an act of protest is nothing new, and it is important to see the Occupy Movement through this lens. Moving politics out of the private sphere and making it a public spectacle forces society as whole, and the powers that be in particular, to take notice.  Colin Asher, in a piece he wrote for The Progressive, likened the Occupy Wall Street Camp in Zucotti Park with the Hoovervilles that sprouted up throughout America during the first Great Depression.  In Seattle, Washington, one of the largest Hoovervilles stood for over a decade, and housed a population of up to 1,200 people. Left-wing organizations and labor unions offered protection to the camp, ensuring that it was not evicted.  Notably, the Hoovervilles created an autonomous government within the camps. The Mayor of Seattle’s Hooverville, Jesse Jackson, stated, “My salary is nothing. I do not feel I am serving the city or state in any capacity. I am serving a bunch of fellows…same as I.”

On October 23, 2006, Take Back the Land reclaimed an abandoned city lot in the Liberty City Section of Miami, and erected Umoja Village. This shantytown was a public protest against gentrification in the city, and a housing policy that had repeatably failed homeless and low income people. Umoja Village thrived for six months, with residents having direct democratic control over the community.  Just as the Occupy Movement has sought inspiration from the Arab Spring, Take Back the City sought inspiration from the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil.

In 1968, community activists  in Boston embarked on a different type of land reclamation. On the corner of Dartmouth St. and Columbus Ave. in the South End, the people in power thought the best use of land was to build a parking garage. The community thought differently, and they occupied the land. For three days hundreds of people lived in makeshift shanties, eating food, playing music, and telling the world that the land belonged to the people. After a long battle the Tent City activists won, and in 1984 over two-hundred mixed income housing units were built on the site of the 1968 protest.

All of these struggles are very different in many ways. Often we get caught up in those differences. We draw lines between taking over land with a specific demand for its use, and taking over land to promote a larger vision of how we want society to look. Likewise, we often make the mistake of differentiating between the person who takes over land out of necessity, and  the “activist” who does so as a form of political protest. However, the three examples of land takeovers here, and the thousands more that have taken place throughout history, share one very important thing in common – they represent the vision that poor and working people have the right to determine how to use the land around them. Furthermore, they represent direct challenges to a capitalist system that depends on strict control of property and public space to maintain social order. That, more than anything, is why the National Lawyers Guild should be so proud of the work it has done as part of the Occupy Movement.

This historical moment is part of larger tradition in which oppressed people stop asking those in power for access, and instead take control of public space to create the community in which they want to take part.

Makis Antzoulatos is a public defender at the CPCS; he also serves on the NLG Massachustts Chapter Board of Directors.

The Occupy Movement in New England is grateful for the amazing work of the NLG Mass Defense Committee that includes:

• training hundreds of legal observers in Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Bristol (RI), Providence (RI), and Brattleboro (VT);
• providing NLG legal observers;
• staffing the NLG 24-hour Hotline;
• providing legal advice to Occupy Boston, Occupy Harvard, and Occupy Worcester;
• filing a TRO lawsuit;
• representing hundreds of activists arrested for participation in the Occupy Movement in Boston, Worcester, and Amherst.

Thank you to:
Bradford Adams, Astrid af Klinteberg, Makis Antzoulatos, Doug Babcock, Kevin Barron, Daniel Beck, Beverly Chorbajian, Susan Church, Howard Cooper, Kenneth Diesenhof, Melinda Drew, Benjamin Evans, Stefanie Grindle, Hillary Farber, Jeff Feuer, Andrew Fischer, Lee Goldstein, Benjie Hiller, Myong Joun, David Kelston, Matthew Lallier, Urszula Masny-Latos, Dave Nathanson, Grainne O’Neill, Jeff Petrucelly, Josh Raisler Cohn, Mara Stewart, Carl Williams, Chris Williams, and Stephanie Young.