Judge Thompson's ruling pertaining to the constitutionality of the seizures of "Tin Drum" tapes in December 1997 was followed in October 1998 by his ruling that the move was neither obscene or child pornography under existing Oklahoma law.

Thus far in two rulings Judge Thompson has knocked the props out from under all contentions made by the Oklahoma City Police Department and Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy. What followed next was not only expected but revealed even further that the entire Tin Drum Fiasco was built on a foundation of agendas, lies, and illegal conduct on the part of the police department.

On 12/20/98 a Tulsa World report titled "Confiscation of video violated federal privacy law" revealed Judge Thompson's next major ruling.

The reported quoted Judge Thompson as follows:

"The Video Privacy Protection Act was violated when defendants High, Kim and French obtained identifying customer information without a prior search warrant, grand jury subpoena or court order" that complied with the act."

The Tulsa World report went on to point out:

The video privacy law is part of federal criminal statutes, but there is no criminal penalty, such as jail time or fines. If the law is broken, victims can bring a civil lawsuit and seek actual damages."

The same report went on to quote the Oklahoma City Police chief M.T. Berry as follows:

"Any time a judge says that we've done something that violates the law we would look into it, but I can't comment on this specifically because I don't know anything about it."

Since the Tin Drum Fiasco originated with officers of his department in June 1997, was reported by newspapers, magazines and broadcast media worldwide ever since and had been the subject of repeated hearings in both state and federal court for approximately a year and a half doesn't it strike you as kind of odd that Police Chief Berry would know nothing about it?

Owing to the Chief's professed ignorance of events unfolding around him would one be justified in questioning if he has even to this day heard of the terrorist bombing that struck his city in 1995?

In a fiasco in which the District Attorney claims he was not involved and the Chief of Police claims he knows nothing could there be any doubt as to the "defense" the officers charged with violating the law would offer?

If you guessed the "Nuremburg Defense", give yourself a big pat on the back.

The "I was only following orders" defense, attempted unsuccessfully at the Nuremburg War Trials worked quite well for the Oklahoma City Police Officers involved in The Tin Drum Fiasco and shielded them from responsibility for their illegal actions.

On March 3, 1999 the Tulsa World in a report titled "Police not liable for film seizures" revealed that Judge Thompson had ruled that "Police and prosecutors are largely immune from liability" for their roles in the fiasco. This ruling by Judge Thompson left only one party liable for the unlawful conduct of the Oklahoma City Police Department and that one party is of course the taxpayers that would eventually foot the bill for the foolish lawlessness that was The Tin Drum Fiasco.

In his ruling Judge Thompson ruled that Maj. Bill Citty, who approved the seizure plan, and officers Britt High, Se Kim and Matt French, who violated federal law and seized the videos, were immune from damages because of the action's "extraordinary circumstances". Judge Thompson also granted immunity to Assistant District Attorney Patricia High and District Attorney Bob Macy.

Evidently Judge Thompson felt that Police Chief M T Berry was so "ignorant" of what was going on around him and in his police department that he did not need immunity.

Following on Judge Thompson's latest ruling, on 3/16/99 the Tulsa World in a report titled "Settlement considered in `Tin Drum' case" revealed that the Oklahoma City Council was considering a $575,000 settlement in The Tin Drum Fiasco. The settlement would be paid in the form of $400,000 by Oklahoma City with the remaining $175,000 due from the office of District Attorney Bob Macy. As a part of the settlement, new rules would be instituted to restrict the Oklahoma Police Department in the seizure of videos.

The $575,000 settlement was to reimburse legal cost of the Video Software Dealers Association, the National Association of Recording Merchandisers and Southwest Video Rentals (Hollywood Video stores) which won a judgment on their claim that the roundup of the movie was unconstitutional.

Of course there was still the matter of Michael Camfield's civil suit, an outgrowth of the illegal conduct on the part of Oklahoma City Police Officers in violating his privacy in regard to records of his video rental.

The next news regarding Mr. Camfield's suit came on May 20, 1999 when the Tulsa World in a report titled "Judge rules Macy not liable in suit" revealed that Federal Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange had ruled that District Attorney Bob Macy isn't liable for possible legal damages arising from Mr. Camfield's civil suit. The judge ruled that that only police officers and the city of Oklahoma City could face payout in the civil lawsuit. Since Judge Thompson had previously ruled that the police officers were immune from any suits arising out of their criminal conduct, that left only the taxpayers of Oklahoma City and Oklahoma County to foot the bills for any awards arising out of the fiasco. Well, almost...

On 6/3/99 the Tulsa World in a report titled "Loan delays computer linkup" it was revealed that:

The state District Attorneys Council is having to delay its plan to connect Oklahoma's 27 district attorneys by computer because the Legislature didn't reimburse it for $50,000 it had given to District Attorney Bob Macy over the "Tin Drum" lawsuit.

The report also revealed:

The council gave Macy the $50,000 to use as part of a $175,000 settlement he agreed to on a lawsuit brought by the Video Software Dealers Association, National Recording Merchandisers and Southwest Video Rentals.

It appears one is left to speculate as to whom Bob Macy "hit up" for the remaining $125,000 of the settlement or if he paid that portion out of his office's budget. Certainly it wasn't the OCAF that kicked in any dollars to help Macy, as when a Oklahoma City Counselor suggested that OCAF share at least a portion of the liability for the fiasco, the organization flatly refused claiming they were in no way either responsible or liable for The Tin Drum Fiasco or the fallout there from.

In spite of OCAF's denials of any responsibility in the fiasco, many questions remained regarding the group's involvement and the degree of influence the group held with both the Oklahoma City Police Department and District Attorney Bob Macy. Many of these questions would be answered at trial in the civil suit brought by Mr. Camfield and once again the answers would lay waste to the patchwork of lies created by various parties involved in the fiasco.

On 8/26/99, Reuters News Service carried a report titled "Oklahoman Wins Video Privacy Case Against Police". Portions of that report are quoted below:

OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuters) - A man who rented an Oscar-winning foreign film deemed pornographic in Oklahoma won a $2,500 civil rights judgement Wednesday after a jury found that police violated federal law by obtaining his name from a video shop.

A federal jury found that the police officers violated the Federal Video Privacy Act by acquiring Camfield's name from a list of people who had rented it from local stores.

The jury rejected Camfield's claim that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, by coming to his house and taking the tape.

Defense lawyers argued the tape had not been seized because Camfield handed it over voluntarily.

Camfield said police had scared him into giving them the tape, telling him he could go to jail for 20 years.

Thus was brought to a close the last pending court case in The Tin Drum Fiasco. Many questions still remained, some to be answered as news reports from the civil trial were published. Other questions remain unanswered to this day.

One of the most fascinating bits of information that surfaced as a result of Mr. Camfield's civil suit was the relationship between OCAF and the Oklahoma City Police Department. This relationship was revealed publicly in a Tulsa World report titled "Drumming up support" on 8/28/99 following the civil trial.

In that report it was revealed:

An anti-pornography group held training conferences that included participation by police officers who later were involved in seizures of videotape copies of an award-winning film.

The report went on to reveal that OCAF had organized conferences on enforcing laws against child pornography and obscenity in 1986 and 1995.

During the 1995 conference, Oklahoma City Police Lt. Greg Taylor was a featured speaker. Oklahoma City Sgt. Britt High and about 80 prosecutors and police attended.

What is so utterly fascinating about this revelation is that it appears that both the law enforcement officers and districts attorney sworn to uphold the laws of our state and cities are being unduly influenced by an organization whose stated goal is the elimination of all pornography, legal or otherwise.

While I can not speak for anyone other than myself, I would much prefer that both police officers and districts attorney consult the applicable laws for determining what is and is not illegal pornography as opposed to permitting a private organization with an agenda to lead them around by the nose. On this evidently I am at odds with both the Oklahoma City Police Department and the Oklahoma County District Attorney. However it appears my view is identical to that of both the then Tulsa County and Cleveland County Districts Attorney, both of which reviewed the "Tin Drum" and determined that it did not meet the legal standards to be deemed illegal pornography.

To understand agenda and methods of the OCAF one needs a glimpse into the thinking, the standards and the attitudes of its leaders. Such a glimpse surfaced as an outgrowth of The Tin Drum Fiasco, when a copy of a police report was published on the Oklahoma Department of Libraries web site. The report attributed to an Oklahoma City Police Officer, A. Gracey is available in its entirety here Officer Gracey's Report.

The most revealing aspects of Officer Gracey's report are as follows:

On 6-20-97, I was assigned by Captain McDonald to go to the OCAF Headquarters, suite 707, Founders Tower in reference to picking up two copies of the movie Tin Drummer. I was told one of these tapes had been checked out from the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Library System and the other tape had been checked out by Blockbuster Video.

Upon receiving the one copy (the library's copy) of "Tin Drum" from OCAF President Bob Anderson, Officer Gracey indicates the following in his report:

I then stated to them that I understood they had another copy of this, that they had gotten from Blockbuster.

The report then went on to state:

I explained to Mr. Anderson that he could not have any copies of what would be considered child pornography in his possession. He then cited state law in which it stated if he was assisting police agencies that he could have this type of material in his possession. I advised him that was true for adult pornography, but not child pornography. Before Mr. Anderson would release the tapes to me I had to sign a release form that he had, stating that he had advised the library system that this was possibly child pornography and that it was being turned over to the police department at this time due to the fact that he had knowledge of this. I signed three copies of this, the tapes were then released to my possession where I transported them back and turned them over to Lt. Taylor.

From the above it seems quite clear that OCAF in general and Bob Anderson, the groups President at the time, in particular felt that they were somehow "above the law" under which us mere mortals are expected to live. Owing to the buddy-buddy relationship between the Oklahoma City Police Department and OCAF, such a view on Mr. Anderson's part might not seem unreasonable.

Officer Gracey is to be commended for his fair application of the law, for he appears to be the only Oklahoma City Police Officer in any way involved in The Tin Drum Fiasco that acted in a fair and appropriate manner given the circumstances in which he found himself.

Mr. Anderson and OCAF both deserve scorn, in this writer's opinion, owing to the fact that while they wish to deny pornography to the general adult public they seem to wish no limitations on their own ability to possess and utilize multiple copies of that which they would deny us mere mortals and this while maintaining a "we are above it all" attitude that so smacks of double standards that it makes this writer want to gag.

In yet another series of twists in The Tin Drum Fiasco, on 10/1/99 Reuters News Service in a report titled "Grass Wins 1999 Nobel Literature Prize" it was reported that:

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (Reuters) - Germany's greatest living writer Guenter Grass, who gained worldwide fame with his 1959 novel ``The Tin Drum,'' won the Nobel Prize for Literature Thursday.

``It's a great joy to me, not just for myself but for all German literature, which is honored with me,'' he told reporters outside his studio in the Baltic port of Luebeck.

The last literature laureate of the millennium, Grass has wrestled with some of the 20th century's most fundamental themes, from the suffering of the Nazi period to the hope and reconciliation that followed.

Grass's titanic stature in world letters made him a clear choice for the prize, the world's most prestigious for writers, and this year the Swedish Academy, which usually makes the award in early October, reached agreement early.

Two days later, Reuters in a report titled "Tin Drum critics slam Nobel prize for Grass" revisited Oklahoma for a dose of OkieThink in its purest form:

OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuters) - An Oklahoma pro-family group that once tried to ban the film ``The Tin Drum'' as child pornography has criticized the Nobel Prize committee for awarding the 1999 literature prize to German novelist Guenther Grass.

The Reuters report also stated:

Bob Anderson, whose group Oklahomans for Children and Families filed a 1997 complaint that led police to seize video copies of the film, reacted to news of Grass' Nobel prize by saying ``The Tin Drum'' remains child pornography in his mind.

``I don't know who makes those decisions, but I think it tends to legitimize children having sex,'' said Anderson, president of the group.

``They (the Nobel Prize committee) are pushing the sex envelope. Is the killing at Columbine High School going to be next for the Nobel Prize in literature?'' he said, referring to an April shooting rampage by two students who killed 13 people and themselves.

At the conclusion of the report Reuters quoted Anderson as follows:

``I'm surprised that the selection committee would select a book that portrays sex with children,'' Anderson said, though he admitted: ``I haven't read the book.''

While of course gives rise to the question "How many times have you watched the movie, Bob?

In what was a final blow to the taxpayers of Oklahoma City, the Tulsa World in a report dated 2/13/00 and titled "Attorneys seek restitution" revealed:

Oh well, what's a million dollars in the bigger scheme of things when, in the opinion of this writer, we have a group of censor-wanna-be's, a police department and a district attorney all with an apparent desire to protect us from ourselves.

What the heck if a few laws, constitutional rights and societal norms are violated in the process?

It was all for "our own good", wasn't it?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those interested in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.