Article Image
News Link • Free Speech

Catherine Bleish detained in Maplewood MO (Update) Catherine is Free!

(Update From Facebook and Twitter)
 
I'm free! Was arrested after cop said he would "make up charges to arrest me"- tazer pointed at bystander, 10 witnesses signed statement.
 
Oh, and ps: I had so much fun. I gave them HEEEELLLLLL. Every single one of them will forever remember the term "oathkeepers.org"
 
Oh, I did cry at one point, they made me rip my nose ring out - it bled. Told me if I didn't, they would "cut it out" by force. No Joke.
 
You can see the post on Catherine's Face book and twitter page
 
http://www.facebook.com/DontTreadOnMe
http://twitter.com/donttreadoncat
 
Originalpost from www.libertyrestorationproject.org
 
Catherine Bleish detained in Maplewood MO Please Help.

Catherine Bleish arrested in first amendment related issue, I just recieved a text asking concerned patriots to contact Maplewood Missouri PD for details and demand they respect first amendment rights.

Maplewood Police Department (314) 645-4880

These are the only details we have at this time, due to a brief text message from someone on the scene. More will come as this story develops.

Update——-

Catherine was standing outside of a courtroom repeatedly mentioning how the citizens should not be forced to stand in the cold at a public office when a police officer told her to either shut up or go to jail and mentioned that she needed to be on a leash if anyone had one. She asked why she had to choose either and was subsequently arrested.

 Catherine is a brave one! LRP is the group that broke the MIAC report wide open.
 
 

18 Comments in Response to

Comment by Jason N
Entered on:

 

 Mr. Carter-

I appreciate the civility of your response to me as well.

I had written a rather lengthy reply to your most recent post, and clicked on "add comment" but unfortunately had overlooked the fact that I was not logged in and had not added my name, so it was lost to cyberoblivion due to my clumsiness.  I will rewrite the main points here.

I did not attempt to make implications based on fault for disruption of what you refer to as "routine functions", but I will now.  First, I happen to agree with you that peace officers and their support staff ought to fall into that category of people that we hold to a higher standard, and most police officers (I am not a police officer) would probably actually agree with that statement as well. But it is also self-contradicting to cause a distruption and simultaneously act as the individual who says the disruption should not affect anyone's performance.  Imagine setting fire to a room with a single sprinkler in the center and then being the first to complain when items in the room are burned, blaming the function of the sprinkler rather than the incendiary action.  The call center that handles Maplewood Police's workload also covers five other area municipalities (Shrewsbury, Webster Groves, Clayton, Olivette, and Richmond Heights) and in addition to providing police communications services, also handles calltaking and dispatch duties for the fire departments and EMS services of all six cities. The center is an entity entirely it's own, contracted to each city. When a flood of calls are coming from points across the country that are placed by individuals who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident, and when the calltakers tell them they cannot give them certain information, and the callers then spend time arguing that they have the legal right to that information and that it is public record (which by law, it isn't), I have a philosophical problem calling those legitimate complaints.  Meanwhile, people who are in need of emergency medical care, fire department response, and police response from five cities that also had nothing to do with incident are calling and cannot have the undivided attention they should have.  I take no issue with people lodging complaints against the police if they feel they are correct in doing so.  I do take issue with the involvement of scores of people who were in some cases thousands of miles from the courthouse when the incident occurred and who obviously were not at all familiar with the laws of this state arguing needlessly with people who were powerless to do anything at all about it.

The jail facility at Richmond Heights is routinely utilized to house the prisoners of all six cities that are served by the call center, and it is manned at times by a civilian jailer, at times by conveyance officers from a number of the cities contractually linked to the center, and at times by both.  The conveyance officers do not routinely patrol the streets or respond to calls for service.  Comparing the treatment of prisoners in the facility to a police response to a residence is comparing apples and oranges on that score.  It is also a bad comparison when considering the direness of situation.  Yes, if there was a person trying to break into my house with a gun, I absolutley would want a police officer to respond regardless of whether or not the city he works for gives extra blankets to its prisoners.

The claim that because Ms. Bleish was released after several dozen calls were places to the call center is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.  Because one event precedes another does not prove that it is the cause of the second event. A 24 hour hold, in the state of Missouri, is a provision of time allotted to allow for the confinement of an individual pending an investigation or filing of charges.  An individual can be held for a maximum of 24 hours without charges being filed and without being questioned in relation to a crime.  If after 24 hours charges are not filed or questioning has not taken place, the individual is then released without being charged.  It may sound unfair, but it is in fact one hundred per cent within the law.

Individuals answering calls are not typically given any information regarding the status of pending investigations or charges because of the Missouri Sunshine Law (that pesky right to privacy that we all love again), and so if a citizen calls asking for that information, the only answer the calltaker can give is that the person in question is in custody and is on a 24 hour hold.  If it is a warrant arrest, and the person is being held on a warrant, the only information that can be given is the bond amount.  It is entirely normal for a person on a 24 hour hold to be released well before that maximum time of 24 hours has expired.  I believe Ms. Bleish was held for a little over five hours after she was officially arrested.  This is well within the realm of normal. Her release after that time had nothing at all to do with the calls that were being placed, and I might add being recieved by people who have positively zero influence on the filing of charges or completion of investigations. The officers involved in placing charges, setting bail, and releasing prisoners likely never even knew of the calls.

You mentioned taking Mr McClure's misconceptions very seriously. Your claim that "any temporary disruptions to other functions of that facility are irrelevant compared to routine unlawful and inhuman [sic] conduct" is in my opinion a very dangerous misconception about the manner in which a call center operates and the nature of its "other functions".  A citizen with a genuine threat of his well being, an officer in the field dealing with a violent and intoxicated person, or a woman receiving CPR instructions to save her child are all things that fall into what you call "other functions" for centers such as these. It is incredibly myopic to claim that a person confined in a jail, who is honestly not in any genuine physical danger should take precedence over any of those things. Should the calltakers put the woman saving her baby on hold to field more calls about someone who needs another blanket? Should the radio traffic of an officer who is breaking up a domestic fight between an abusive husband and his wife be missed so that the ringing of five calls that will ask the same unanswerable questions can continue?

Please do not misunderstand something: I believe that indeed if a person is made aware of something that he or she perceives is categorically incorrect on such a level that it will adversely affect the community, that person has the moral obligation to at very least investigate it and then to do what he or she can to correct it.  You and I once again find ourselves on the same team when it comes to that ideal, whether or not I agree with your interpretation of what is correct or incorrect. What I agreed with Mr McClure on is the idea that one should make an informed choice of action and that action should in no way detract from the safety of other citizens who have no connection to the incident. That there are proper channels to take and that several calls from several anonymous individuals have done nothing but hinder the services of an emergency call center that only devotes part of its service to the target of your complaints.  Believe me or don't believe me, but the fact is that one call from you would have had the same affect on her release that all the rest of them did put together.

I may have made myself clearer, or may have obscurred myself more in trying to rewrite what I had originally written. The spirit of the point I'm making is that it is a much better, and I'll even say much more ethical pursuit, to foster justice through educated choices of action than it is to automatically direct attacks without knowing the efficacy of them or the extent of the power of those receiving them to actually influence the outcome.

Comment by Josh Carter
Entered on:

jstooge, thank you for being both frank and polite, but I must disagree with you on a few points. 

I indeed was there to witness this incident as I was the one Catherine was accompanying to court, and I was the one who bonded her out.

First off, people were asking what she was being charged with because she was not being told what her charges were. I disagree with your implication that it is somehow not the fault of the police department in question if their routine functions are disrupted by legitimate complaints. Incompetence--whether it is intentional and/or malicious or not--should not be excusable in the case that one's tasks are vital. Quite the opposite, I will reiterate the point in my earlier post that the idea that our police officers are our "finest"--not to mention tasked with public safety and dedicated to "the safeguarding of Constitutional guarantees" according to their own website)--then they(as well as their support employees) should be held instead to the highest, most stringent standards. Put simply, "we've had too many complaints" is no excuse for anything, it is a reason for severe restructuring.

Also, the sergeant on duty told me what Catherine was charged with. Are you saying that he committed a crime?  

Secondly, many of the complaints were about the frigid temperature in the holding cell, asking the Richmond Heights Police Station to provide its "prisoners"(note, not yet convicted men and women) with ample blankets to stay warm. Again, if they are neglecting people within their own custody, why would you want them coming to your house?

I believe you are mistaken that the phone calls did not expedite Catherine's release. Catherine's mother was told that Catherine would be held for 24 hours and then released without charges. The possible ramifications of this not being the case aside, I was given this same impression by the people at Maplewood that arrested Catherine, meaning that they at some point intended on or entertained the idea of imprisoning someone that they had no intention of even charging with any crime whatsoever. This is unacceptable in a free society. Instead, she was released relatively quickly, albeit at a suspiciously large bond amount. It is hard for me to believe, having witnessed this all first hand, that the phone calls did not cause her to be released earlier, if for no other reason than the employees of the two municipalities wanted(or needed) the phone calls to stop. The idea that we must pressure our law enforcement authorities to obey the law not to mention treat prisoners properly is reprehensible to me, and again, any temporary disruptions to other functions of that facility are irrelevant compared to routine unlawful and inhuman conduct.

Thirdly, I take Mr. McClure's misconceptions about the nature of law enforcement's relationship to their customers(the people) very seriously. Too many seem to think that authority itself is an excuse to abuse that authority.

To sum it all up, the complaints accomplished exactly what they were intented to do, and of course they will be followed up with the proper action intented to rectify these problems for good, freeing up our emergency service employees to actually protect and serve the community as opposed to unconstitutionally leeching and arbitrarily punishing the community.

Comment by Jason N
Entered on:

 

I must begin by saying that my comments are solely my opinion and do not represent any organization or agency of which I am a part, and I am reticent to some level to even comment, but it behooves me to make a few solid points in response to some of the things I have read on this particular thread.

 

 

I was not present at the courthouse when the incident took place in Maplewood, and so I unfortunately cannot speak intelligently of what in fact transpired. Neither can many of those who have already commented. I can speak with a degree of authority though regarding the communications between the public and the law enforcement agency, and will do so.

 

 

In the first place, a common complaint I’ve noticed is that those answering the phone calls that were placed were withholding information that detailed Ms. Bleish’s charges and the events surrounding her arrest.  Chapter 610, section 120 of the Missouri Sunshine Law states that any individual’s arrest records “shall be inaccessible to the general public and to all persons other than the defendant except as provided in this section” and goes on to say that those other entities include criminal justice agencies or agencies seeking to employ an individual for the care of the elderly, infirm, or children. Even if someone from within a criminal justice agency requests information pertaining to those records, that person is bound by law to provide a clear explanation of how the information is being used for legitimate criminal justice purposes.  The dispatchers (not police officers) who were answering the phones would have been committing a crime if they had disseminated her charges to any of the public who were calling in.

 

In a communications room such as those receiving the complaints about the incident last night and into this morning, it is also very important to realize that those are not the only complaints being fielded.  Commonly there are 911 calls for bona fide emergencies being received as well as the sporadic influx of other calls from non-emergency lines.  All that is accomplished by “rounding up more callers” and adding to that already strained workload with the same complaint lodged in assorted verbiage from several people is a distraction from citizens who may have legitimate emergencies that require immediate attention, or from other citizens who need direction and don’t have a national network of people to call and ask questions that the dispatchers really cannot answer. If they sounded weary and tired when giving the answers they could, there was probably a good reason for it.  It is with some genuine reluctance then that I here besmirch the efforts of those who did call, but your complaints were misdirected and uninformed. I am sure that statement will likely invoke an onset of retorts from some of you, but it is a statement of fact, not opinion.  Regardless of how many called, regardless of how many more may have called, and regardless of the complaints and opinions you may have given with such personal import, the fact was that Ms. Bleish was confined in a jail and flooding a public safety emergency call center with misguided words did nothing to change that, and they would have done nothing had they continued.  Forrest McClure seemed to have a pretty firm grasp on the types of responses that may have made a difference, but because he didn’t agree with everything said on this thread, he is not being taken seriously.

 

I think these United States will reach their greatest epochs when we, as a people, learn to control our innate and arguably human tendency to become influenced by what we perceive as wrong, and learn to look at those things intelligently and devise the most effective means of remedying them.

 

Comment by Joseph Blowseph
Entered on:

First of all, from The Constitution of the United States of America: "Amendment I - 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'" 

Secondly, from The Missouri Constitution: "Article I BILL OF RIGHTS Section 9 - 'That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance.'" Remonstrance defined: "the act of expressing earnest opposition or protest"

Furthermore, to Mr. Kevin Squatiro: I guess it takes a big man to try and pick on a woman, who is willing to give everything she's got and then some to stand up for our rights. I bet you could be considered pretty brave in some circles for not worrying about looking like a moody weakling for doing so. Keep up the good work buddy.

Comment by Josh Carter
Entered on:

Forrest, you speak of that which you do not grasp. To walk into most businesses is a voluntary act. To show up to court is not(essentially). When these "men" decided they wanted to play super-bully, they(unfortunately for them) took an oath to the Constitution, and at some point in the past they were actually considered "public servants", and until recently their squad cars were adorned with the phrase "to protect and serve", none of which is apparent in this officer's behavior. If you like it like this, that is fine. Liberty includes the freedom to enslave one's self, but if you are too ignorant to respect those that wish to fashion a respectable future for themselves and their posterity, I suggest you move to a country that does not have a Constitution that binds the government. I hear China is nice for the politically masochistic, give it a shot. For the rest of us, we will be demanding that "Maplewood's(or any other municipality's) Finest" act in a manner deserving of that title. ps-Catherine did not and DOES NOT insult people. She asked questions that the police officer did not like. Why is it in any way advisable for us to sanction people that cannot stomach QUESTIONS running through our neighborhoods with firearms?

Kevin Squatiro, thanks for your opinion. Please use your imagination and find a nice, dark place to tuck it away.

Comment by Forrest McCuller
Entered on:

Okay, think about it this way. If you were a waiter and someone was yelling insults at you you might want to get rid of them. Police can do that. Whether it is right or wrong is beside the point. They can. You shouldn't annoy them with petty complaints and insults. If you want to complain about the way that a public building is set up than there are always higher ups that can be reached. The process is slow but at least it has a possible positive outcome. You are referring to the first amendment the way that they help you memorize it in school. The right to bare arms does not entitle you to point guns at the police. The same thing carries over to the first. Amendments are complex and they have smaller clauses attached. You have to deal with bureaucratic process if you are going to change society.You have to treat officers like human beings regardless. They are awful, but I am guess that you are as well. 

Comment by Tom Martin
Entered on:

Officer was wrong, His obligation is first to uphold and defend the constitution, remind him he swore and oath to that affect. Protecting A citizen demanding - petitioning for redress of grievances is that officers duty before protecting a politician from being annoyed.


Comment by Richard Deyoung
Entered on:

The only thing Manic Catherine needs is a prescription of lithium and a job to pay off all the credit cards she's maxed out while playing "revolutionary". 

Comment by Jerry Alexander
Entered on:

I think it a good idea to tell their Children,and post their pictures all over town stating exactly what these sick SOB`S are doing to the future of their own Children`sand ours.. they would suffocateir own Mother if told to, right in front of their  children.

These cop`s..like the ones in the pic are,most likely robot`s,or,under the influence of some mind altering drug...just look at their eyes...SICK,SICK,SICK.

Just look at the picture of those comi cops...it`s pretty sickening.I wonder if they have real Mothers,or,if they were shit on a stump and the sun hatched them.

America!!! this crap must stop NOW...these people are scum and their families are also scum,puss sucking two bit drippings of Pelosi,and Reid ass boils.

How much longer will you coward Americans put up with the way you are being "Sold Down the River"?

Comment by Ryan Hall
Entered on:

 

Tracy Ward what is not stated in this article is the fact that when she was confronted about being arrested, she asked on what grounds and the officer said "I'll make something up!" This was witnessed by 10 people, who of which they have names and numbers for and they are willing to testify to the fact the officer said that. Also, she is being held on "failure to comply".

 

Comment by Tracy Ward
Entered on:

Catherine is now FREE!!  I just spoke with her on the phone.  She's upset about what happened to her, but she's free.  They did not even tell her what she was charged with until she was released.  "Failure to comply"

Comment by Tracy Ward
Entered on:

what is not stated in this article is the fact that when she was confronted about being arrested, she asked on what grounds and the officer said "I'll make something up!" This was witnessed by 10 people, who of which they have names and numbers for and they are willing to testify to the fact the officer said that. Also, she is being held on "failure to comply".

Comment by Ryan Hall
Entered on:

Whoever posted her facebook URL - that link probably will not work.  Please post links that Facebook has not mangled (FB is notorious for mangling links and text too for that matter).

 

This is a better working link for getting to her Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/DontTreadOnMe

She also has Twitter, which you can find her here:

http://twitter.com/donttreadoncat

her website is here:

http://LibertyRestorationProject.org/

 

I have met this lady and she is my heroine!  I hope she is ok and that she gets her deserved justice (reparations at least) from these anti-First Amendment Gestapo Police.

 

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

Someone is adding updates to Catherine's facebook page.

Cath says she is freezing because they took her sweatshirt away from her.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/DontTreadOnMe

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

Info has been posted to RPF and members of the former Revolution March team are alerted.

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

It's not 10:35 PM MST. I just called. An officer who answered confirmed that Catherine was in their custody and was in the process of being released. The officer could offer no further information. I explained that we expected her to be treated gently and fairly under the law.

He said "that's how we treat everybody sir".

I said I dearly hoped to hear this confirmed by Catherine when we make contact with her.

I'm gonna round up some more callers.

Comment by Darryl W. Perry
Entered on:

I just called the Maplewood PD - I told the dispatcher what I read - she said "that's not right. she did something illegal, was arrested,read her rights and has since been bonded out" but would not tell me the charges 

Comment by Drew
Entered on:
This was posted to Facebook by Amber     9:13pm ~  A seemingly polite officer at the Maplewood Police Department answered the phone and said that Catherine was definitely charged with "something" and would be held for 24 hours, and that there is no getting around that 24 hour period. He wouldn't give any clue as to what she was charged with (of course)... "She has a right to privacy, ma'... Read Moream. You wouldn't want people calling and getting that kind of information on you, would you?"
I asked him if there were many people calling the PD with concern for Catherine and he said "No." I doubt his answer somewhat as he hesitated and immediately knew who Catherine was (that may not be a big thing if the PD is small)... and seemed exasperated when answering my questions, as if he'd been answering them for others??
I did mention several times that she was not breaking any laws before her arrest according to bystanders and that I hoped she was okay.

 


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


Purse.IO Save on All Amazon Purchases