You are viewing [info]codymolica's journal

Atypical Truth... [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
codymolica

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The Reason Why We will Soon Spend More on Prisons than On Schools. [Jul. 8th, 2007|08:16 pm]
7/8/07

The Reason Why We will Soon Spend More on Prisons than On Schools.

At first I didn't believe it either. I'm walking past a news rack and something catch's my eye as I turn, Prisons' budget to trump colleges' No other big state spends as much to incarcerate compared with higher education funding.

Front page, San Francisco Chronicle. I was astonished, at the current rate of budget increases in our cash strapped state, we will within five years spend more to lock people up than to educate our citizenry. Simply mind boggling. But why would the golden state become the golden gulag? The get tuff on crime trends of the 1980's have been an easy ticket into office for both sides of the isle. Although Republicans are more likely to punish offenders severely, Democrats in Congress are working steadfastly to insure that the convicted stay their longer. Presently there is bipartisan support for new legislation that would increase sentences for gang members and for the gang related common possession of firearms. For the past twenty years these types of prison enhancements have disproportionately impacted minority groups and specifically African Americans.

Just before this new trend of criminal hysteria began to sweep the nation a New York Times/ CBS News poll had periodically asked Americans to identify the most important problem facing this country today. In January of 1985, 23 percent of the respondents answered that the most important problem was war or nuclear war; less than 1 percent placed drugs at the top of their list. In September 1989, President Bush touted the drug problem during a prime-time address, in an effort to polarize the community with the new threat of drugs and crime. Shortly after another poll was taken, now 54 percent of Americans believed that drugs were the most important problem and only 1 percent thought that war or nuclear war was of greatest concern. (C. Reinarman and H. Levine, Crack in Context: Politics and media in the Making of a Drug Scare, 16 Contemp. Drug Problems 535, 537 Winter 1989).

In 1984 Congress enacted measures that were more sensible to reduce prison overcrowding and sentencing alternatives. However, overtime these sensible alternatives gave way to mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that in essence tie the judges hands at sentencing regardless of the particular circumstances of the case.

In the second half of the decade, Regan and Bush had successfully created a catalyst that entered America into an era of frenzied activity focusing on "the drug problem". Now mass media and all political factions made increasing demands for a war on drugs. Soon the priorities of the nation were directed on cracking down on crack.

The new sentencing laws enacted by the administration and congress of the era provided new distinctions under which a defendant could be punished. A defendant convicted of possession with the intent to distribute 453.6 grams or one pound of powder cocaine would now serve significantly less time in a federal prison than a defendant convicted of possession with intent to distribute only five grams of crack.

These new statutory minimums mandates that the same sentence is imposed for crimes involving 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine as it does for crimes involving just 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. It just doesn't add up.

Due to its low cost, crack is known as a poor mans cocaine. This being the case, it is not surprising that crack is used predominantly by blacks, while powder cocaine is used mainly by whites. Cocaine has always been characterized as a rich mans drug in this country and the sentencing laws reflect this. One set of punishment is outlined for the blacks at a 100 fold increase than that imposed by the less stringent laws, written for the punishment of the privileged elite.

The federal courts have taken notice of this. In Minnesota v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886, 887 (Minn. 1991)(en banc meaning all of the judges participated in it) the court noted that in 1988, 96.6 percent of all persons charged with possession of cocaine base in Minnesota were black and 79.6 percent of those charged with possession of powder cocaine were white. The following year, United States v. King, 972 F.2d 1259 (11 th circuit. And in United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763 (8 th cir 1992), the defendant asserted evidence that 97 percent of those prosecuted for crack offenses in the Western District of Missouri between 1988 and 1989 were black. Not surprising.

These laws just don't affect crack but all drugs as well, during a 7 year period the drug offence incarceration rate of blacks rose from 35 to 48 percent. Because Congress decided that because of its highly addictive nature, its affordability, and its increasing prevalence, the penalties for crack offenses should be more severe than those for powder cocaine according to United States v. Buckner, 894 F.2d 975, 978 (8 th Circuit 1990)

However one would assert that just because this kind of drug is highly addictive and cheap does not warrant punishing the offenders one hundred more times more severely than the offenders of its powder counterpart. Simply put, the war on drugs a seemingly noble concept has degenerated into a war on the poor and black.

The base of crack is cocaine and although crack labs exist in the United States, the core element is imported into the country through its many porous boarders. The people being imprisoned at an exponential rate in this country are not prop engine pilots or shipping vessel captains, they are overwhelmingly poor, black youth. Trying desperately to survive in downtrodden conditions in forgotten communities.

Some people believe that the crack epidemic is over, I wish they were right. Crack cocaine continues to be widely regarded as an epidemic for poor black communities nationwide regardless of geographics. Even if crack use has subsided to a certain degree the Congress has not relaxed sentences to go along with the positive trend. Overtime this increase in mandatory sentencing has burdened the prison system to such a substantial degree that it is on the very verge of collapse. The governor of California recently proposed the construction of 52,000 more prisoner beds to keep up with the flow of an estimated 173,000 inmates. With a national prisoner population of 2.2 million far exceeding any other country in the world, we simply are sealing our own doom. The average prisoner has five people on the outside who care about him or her and their rehabilitation. Because rehabilitation in the corrections system is a complete farce, it has become apparent that the sole mentality of prisons is to simply lock away someone's, sister, brother, cousin, uncle, or husband and throw away the preverbal key.

This does not sit well with the families of these people. If all prisoners' families would unite they would represent the single largest voting bloc in this nation. The most staunch supporter of extended sentencing would have to submit to reform or else. We all know that power only takes a back step to one thing, more power. Its time the families of the convicted unite before its too late.
link2 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Jun. 12th, 2007|07:00 pm]
RESTORE THE PEOPLE'S PANEL
Fifth Amendment Original Intent
By Cody Molica

Consistently when we turn on the television or pick up a newspaper someone is attempting to underscore yet another calamity that we Americans routinely face. Have you ever wondered if there was a solution that has been kept hidden away from our consciousnesses' for decades? There is a relic of founding fathers' wisdom which has been long forgotten and it's called the citizens grand jury. When the Constitution was framed, founding Americans implemented a mechanism that would serve the people directly. They envisioned an element of the Constitution that would serve as both a sword and a shield and would be controlled by the common man. This is what Grand Jury meant to the framers when indictment by grand jury was enshrined into the Constitution in 1791 , and what meant then means now . About a hundred years ago a sly provision in an unconstitutional bill eliminated a scared Constitutional right, and now its time we take it back. This article will depict exactly what the peoples' panel means and how it can help protect your civil liberties. Today I offer you the opportunity to apply a preexisting solution to dilemmas we already face.

The framers of this nation understood that in order to keep a fragile democracy in tact remedies to grievances must be made available at the local level. An independent grand jury is what the framers originally intended, however we have not had one single fully functional grand jury proceeding for over one hundred years. This came about because of the pernicious work of power hungry bureaucrats who robbed we the people of one of our most sacred constitutional rights.

The Grand Jury is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and supported by both Supreme Court precedent and Common Law doctrine . This means that people, yes you and I had the right, not privilege to petition our grand jury to investigate any form of malfeasance that we witness our government or fellow citizens portray.

The Grand Jury operated pristinely for over two hundred years both before and after the Constitutional Conventions unfettered until our sacred right was striped from us in 1906 in violation of the plain language of the Constitution.

Now the only person who can present matters before the grand jury is the United States Attorneys office, an agency of George W. Bush and the Executive Branch. If a citizen even attempts to present evidence of wrongdoing to the grand jury, without permission from the prosecutor he or she risks criminal sanctions, including jail time.

By blockading citizens' access to the grand jury the executive branch has usurped unbridled power to reek on the civilian population. This power has traditionally been abused in the administration of justice sector. However, this kind of behavior recently came to light in more mainstream accounts when videographer Josh Wolf, environmentalists in Oregon, black political groups in San Francisco and even SF Chronicle reporters have all suddenly found themselves ensnared in criminal investigations. Investigations that where sponsored by no known victim, rather they where generated on the whim and caprice of an overzealous prosecutor and quite possibly an element of a larger conspiracy to suppress decent that has swept America.

The prospect for reform is compelling; restore citizens' access to the grand jury and accountability will return to Washington, the First Amendment will flourish, environmental pollution will subside and the prison population will decrease.

What must be done is simply to set the record straight, restore the Fifth Amendment to its original intent, unmolested by judicial fiat and we the people will finally receive an overdue since of security and confidence in our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.

Contrary To Popular Belief, It Wasn't Always Like This.

Citizens’ access to the grand jury is not a novel concept, in fact it was the rule of law when the Constitution was established and even during the colonial period . This concept continued up until the early 20th century until Congress overstepped their authority and striped the people from the peoples panel.

According to our Federal Courts the grand jury has two functions. As a shield it protects the accused against the monolithic powers of the state. The grand jury is supposed to protect the accused from unjust accusations of criminal conduct and act as a barrier. On the other hand the grand jury has another function, as a sword. Through its powers of investigation and indictment the grand jury can effectively put away the miscreants of society .

Today the public prosecutor, called an Assistant United States Attorney, decides what the grand jury sees and basically controls the entire proceedings; however, when the Constitution was ratified there were no federal public prosecutors in existence!

The framers when erecting the Fifth Amendment grand jury clause brought with them the colonial heritage of private prosecutions to their debates. In both pre and post colonial times, private individuals, not government employees conducted the bulk of prosecutions. At the time the common law viewed a crime as a wrong perpetuated upon the victim, not the state. It was the aggrieved party who would initiate the prosecution. In early American times if someone stole your horse you approached your grand jury foreman and petitioned him to investigate your neighbor. After an investigation, conducted by your fellow citizens on the grand jury and the justice of the peace, a private individual would conduct the prosecution, only sometimes with the assistance of counsel. This private individual was normally the complaining witness, which is what prosecutor meant in the 18th century . This means that people, without attorneys or government agents approached and conducted the criminal prosecutions of another without the help of a public prosecutor or attorney general. In fact the core duties of district attorneys at the time of the Constitution's establishment were to complete, rather than conduct the prosecutions initiated by the complaining witness and their fellow citizens sitting on the grand jury.

Therefore, when the indictment by grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment was established it meant indictment not by a public official, but by the complaining witness, a citizen.

It was not until the mid 19th century that the judiciary started voicing disapproval of private (people) prosecution. It took until the late 19th century for the judiciary to begin affirming the presence and unchallenged discretion of the public prosecutor. However, even with the private citizen out of the way pertaining to the prosecution of crimes, people continued to have the right to petition their grand jury to investigate crimes.

For the grand jury this meant that citizens, would still be able to access their local grand juries directly, however now a public official, not the complaining witness actually tried the cases. An important bulwark against tyranny was the established practice that no public prosecutor or United States Attorney would be given access to the grand jury room. In fact in United States v. Rosenthal it was stated that this doctrine had been respected and well understood in our country for over 100 years. However three years later the Congress passed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6, which contained a provision eviscerating the constitutionally respected doctrine that no prosecutor would interfere with the grand jury in their room.

With the law now bent, government prosecutors could overstep their executive bounds and usurped control over a vital element of the judicial branch . Vis-a-vis an authentic separation of powers issue rears it head. Because the very fact of the presence of a prosecutor in the grand jury room contradicts its historically defined role; how can the grand jury protect the accused from the accuser if the accuser is alone with the grand jury and can effectively control the course of its investigation.

Merely allowing a prosecutor in the grand jury room was a violation of the grand jurors oath. Ironically this same quote is reiterated by the Supreme Court when they decided this grand jury issue, the same year Congress overstepped them by enacting FRCP 6 . Simply put the separation of powers doctrine, in this respect has been completely flouted. This doctrine is essential to the preservation of liberty. In order to overcome the Rosenthal decision and the intention of the framers of the Fifth Amendment, Congress enacted in 1906 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d) permitting the attorneys for the government to attend the grand jury in their room.

This unprecedented power grab on behalf of congress completely contradicted established constitutional grand jury procedure which had been followed up until that time. Moreover, it was the common law method that the framers brought with them to the constitutional conventions in 1787. Therefore, it was the original intent of the fifth amendment that people, not government officials would bring allegations of wrongdoing to their grand jury and that government officials have no place hamstringing the grand jury process itself via the unlawful occupation of the grand jury room.

It should be underscored that no act of congress can authorize a violation of the constitution and that said instrument is a written document, which it meant then, it means now. The Supreme Court has stated that it can only safely interpret the Constitution in a light that references the common law. It is also quite clear that this doctrine applies with equal force to federal grand juries. If it is accepted that very fact of the presence of the prosecutor in the grand jury room contradicts the historically defined role of that body. Then how can the grand jury protect the accused from the accuser if the accuser is alone with the grand jury and can effectively control the course of its investigation?

Undoubtedly a grand jury is:

"A spear in the hands of ambitious prosecutors anxious to silence dissent or to climb to greater political heights over the backs of hapless defendants caught up in the system".

This statement foreshadowed over twenty years ago, the horrors to come forward in the aftermath of an executive hijacking of one of our most sacred institutions. As a federal judge in the nineteenth century remarked; "The moment the executive is allowed to control the action of the courts in the administration of criminal justice, their independence is gone."

This can be easily seen in the recent media accounts of one videographer Josh Wolf, who committed no crime whatsoever but was falsely accused of videotaping the attempted arson of a police vehicle. Federal authorities via the hapless grand jury punished Wolf for being a journalist. This man was, at the behest of the prosecutor instructed to report to the grand jury for questioning of his sources for a video cast he made of a protest gone wrong in the San Francisco Mission district in July of 2005. Wolf had sold portions of his video to local television and independent media sites depicting this event and took refuge behind his rights as a journalist not to testify about his sources or give up his unpublished materials. The local authority of the state was completely disregarded when the federal government pulled an end-run around California's Reporter Shield Law. By using the grand jury as a tool, the US Attorney was able to maliciously imprison a journalist for over seven months, completely under the false auspices of the peoples' panel. The Supreme Court has remarked that "The grand jury was not meant to be the tool of the prosecutor". However in the light of the recent examples it indeed has become, just that.

Often times the most illuminating knowledge is dispersed when a dissenting justice of the Supreme Court decides to abstain from the flock and speak from the heart. This is exactly what Justice Douglas did in United States v. Dionisio:

"It is indeed common knowledge that the Grand Jury, having been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the Government, is now a tool of the Executive".

A grand jury proceeding degenerating into a tool of the executive was not the original intent of the Constitution and given the recent cascade of journalistic intimidation coupled with the respected opinions of the Supreme Court; we as citizens have a moral responsibility to see reform through. Some individuals believe that the solution would be to eliminate the Grand Jury all together. William Campbell writes in the Northwestern University Law Journal that the grand jury as an institution should be abolished because of several well documented instances of U.S. Attorney malfeasance. In his article Campbell, a distinguished judge , cities many very good reasons to be alarmed with the way our justice system is being presently run. However I agree with Campbell's examples for alarm, I favor a different solution. In stead of disregarding the Fifth Amendment pertaining to grand juries, why not restore them to the original intent, taking into account the centuries of grand jury practice, and Founders' wisdom?

The grand jury operated pristinely for hundreds of years before Congress made alterations that it was not entitled to make. It has been stated repeatedly by the Supreme Court that "No act of congress can authorize a violation of the constitution". Therefore, we the people must force Congress to reverse their omission and call on the people for a Constitutional Referendum. The reason why our grand juries are as fouled up today as they are is because Congress overstepped their boundaries and the courts went along with it. It is explicitly stated in Article V, that the only way to alter the Constitution is through an amendment. It is time we set the record straight. It is indeed unequivocal that law repugnant to the Constitution is void. Therefore Congress' Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 is fatally flawed and must be revised. If Congress insists that a member of the executive is necessary to blindfold and manipulate the grand jury then they are constitutionally obligated to bring that notion to the American people by way of an amendment. Nothing short will pass constitutional muster, regardless of how negligent the Supreme Court has been on this matter .

An executively directed grand jury has given more deference to the "war on drugs" than protecting our environment. This pattern is directly related to the government's interest of asset forfeitures, getting in the way of the peoples interest in protecting our oceans and rivers.

Take for instance the executive grand juries record on drug indictments vs. prosecution of toxic dumps.

Some examples:

Enforcement of environmental criminal law is almost non-existent. From 1986 to 2006 there were only twelve (12) violations of 42 U.S.C. 6928 (solid waste disposal, hazardous waste management) adjudicated in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal Court of Appeals that hears cases from the federal district courts in nine western states.

By contrast, this same Ninth Circuit heard 43 cases of drug conspiracy (21 U.S.C. 846 ) and 187 cases of possession with intent to distribute drugs (21 U.S.C. 841) in 2005 alone.
The situation isn’t any better at the state levels. Money and power buys influence. Some poor slob in a trailer park will get 30 years for selling meth. A corporate hog farmer who puts hog excrement into our rivers, lakes, and groundwater supplies faces—in most cases— faces six months in jail, if he is prosecuted. He almost never is.

It is extremely frustrating to watch corporate polluters, on almost a daily basis, ravage the environment while federal prosecutors ignore the crimes they commit. The truth is the U.S. Attorney could investigate. However, it's much better for their careers and better publicity in the eyes of the media if they concentrate purely on locking up the dirt poor bad guys. There is no blow back when a peasant is arrested for a bag of dope but when you start investigating large corporations of influence the potential for criticism rises. Furthermore U.S. Attorneys are members of partisan politics, an arm of the executive branch. It is a clear cut conflict of interest to have a gatekeeper of justice employed by someone he may have to investigate someday . It just doesn't work, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "A grand juror cannot carry on systematic persecution against a neighbor whom he hates, because he is not permanent in the office."

Perhaps not, although a Federal Prosecutor is in office for quite some time and will punish his neighbors if it is convenient for his career or merely to follow orders from his superiors which go all the way up to the White House.

Our fellow citizens are not much more safe either. Curtailing political dissent has always been a matter of importance for rulers regardless of what a government is called. One of the best ways of keeping "order" is to intimidate the masses. During the 1960's COINTELPRO was a secret FBI organization that terrified black political groups from organizing much in the same way as the Ku Klux Klan did during the same time. Today the infamous SF8, former members of the Black Panther Party were held for a year in the same kind of "coercive custody" as was used against videographer Josh Wolf. This same treatment was threatened against two SF Chronicle reporters, Lance Williams and Mark Wada, who had disclosed a steroid investigation involving baseball players. This coercive custody is a weapon dispensed by the U.S. Attorney when someone won't come to be interrogated by him in front of the grand jury for some "crime" cooked up in the government attorney's head. Keep in mind that everything the grand jury hears and sees is through the prosecutor. This is the principle reason behind grand jury abuse and wrongful prosecution. Without any citizens' complaints the gatekeeper of the grand jury will introduce tainted, fraudulent and bogus materials to the grand jury in order to seek the indictment or coercive confinement of a law abiding citizen.

The courts are acutely aware of these types of prosecutorial malfeasance and have documented this issue thoroughly. The grand jury usually degenerates into a rubber stamp wielded by the prosecuting officer according to the dictates of his own sense of propriety and justice. And it is well settled that "any experienced prosecutor will admit that he can indict anybody at any time for almost anything before any grand jury".

Members of Congress recognized the problem and have attempted to introduce reform, however "law reform has never been given priority by any government, perhaps because the law always works a little better for government than for individuals."

The truth is "Their [grand juries] historic purpose as a 'legal shield' is being disregarded by prosecutors who totally dominate the proceedings."

Those (cases) the grand jury refuses to indict are likely to be people the prosecutor does not want indicted. Many of the cases ending up with a "no true bill" are actually instances where a prosecutor feels the need for such backing to support his own view that further proceedings shall not be held.

"[That is why] The interests of justice and the interests of the prosecutor thus are often in conflict; prosecutors are restricted only by their consciences, and some choose a career-boosting path."
The Supreme Court constantly contradicts itself with regard to this most pertinent issue, perhaps because their consciences are also in conflict. "The grand jury was designed as a safeguard to protect defendants against oppressive government practices." However how can this be when we are constantly faced with encroachments on that supposed "safeguard" of the community. It seems that in this regard grand jury rhetoric is far detached from the applicable reality.
It was, "The purpose of the [Fifth] Amendment to limit the power of the legislature, as well as of the prosecuting officers, of the United States."
However, as the examples quoted above clearly illustrate, there is no limit to what a corrupt or overzealous prosecutor can do to an American citizen.
Congress has stated that :

"In fact . . . the grand jury has become a tool of the prosecutor. By both establishing the grand jury’s agenda and orchestrating the quality and quantity of the evidence presented, the prosecutor almost invariably determines who is and is not indicted."
"Most grand jurors are pawns in the hands of many unscrupulous prosecutors . . . grand juries are no more than rubber stamps placing the onus of guilt on the accused."

The author does not contend that individuals should be given back the ability to conduct private prosecutions under the common law, that would be impractical and lead to widespread abuse. The people do not need to be given the power of prosecutions, rather we should request access to a federal grand jury pursuant to federal rule of criminal procedure 6(a) and/or 18 USC 3332(a), to report criminal acts. To stand this argument on its head, even the United States Attorney cannot demand a prosecution. If the grand jury refuses to indict, that’s supposed to be the end of it.

Citizens' access to the grand jury is necessary for this mechanism to function properly. To be independent and informed, the grand jury must be able to obtain all relevant evidence, since only then can its judgment truly be informed. This is impossible if citizens are denied access to their compatriots sitting on the peoples panel . If someone retains information about a crime perpetuated by a public official, without direct access to the grand jury, that crime may go unpunished. For example; a political crony like the assistant U.S. Attorney is not going to allow prejudicial information to be considered by his "flock". Introduction of said evidence could counter the executives influence over the peoples' panel. Without legislative reconsideration in this matter informed and empowered grand juries are never going to happen.

The grand juror himself is an uninterested party unlike the public prosecutor. In function the grand juror can be trusted more than the government agent because [jurors] bring into the grand jury room the experience, knowledge and viewpoint of all sections of the community.

"They (grand juries) have no axes to grind and are not charged personally with the administration of the law. Not one of them is a prosecuting attorney or law-enforcement officer charged with ferreting out crime". Therefore they are the most objective arbiters of fact. Keeping into mind the historically defined intent of the often cumbersome and expensive grand jury mechanism itself, it was codified by the Constitution that his body had a benevolent purpose. The framers when out of their way to establish a barrier that would act as both a sword and a shield to protect the interests of the people, especially their freedoms from the overbearing powers of the state.

The bottom line is that citizens do have the right to bring evidence directly to a grand jury and request that they investigate criminal acts against them – not prosecute, investigate. If the grand jury decides to indict, a prosecutor will take over and handle that case. This is how it how the framers intended the grand jury to work, however as long as a political appointee stands in the way of the peoples' access then their can be no peoples panel to hold government accountable.
linkpost comment

Will Left of Center People Figure it Out, Before It's Too Late? [May. 2nd, 2007|02:17 pm]
Why liberals won't be able to succeed in 08;

Now that I have ticked off every progressive reader I will attempt to explain. I for one am a progressive democrat, however after making several studious observations of my party in the most broad and all encompassing manner I have concluded that we are too smug.

Recently, I had been actively involved in the Free Josh Wolf movement, a small faction of individuals seeking to free an independent journalist who was wrongfully incarcerated for almost eight months. This endeavor brought me closer to my largest metropolitan neighbor, San Francisco. Personally, I reside fifty miles north of the city by the bay in Sonoma County, a small developing community. Its quiet, in the early stages of mass development. Every time I drive down the street more grasslands are becoming ugly houses, and the people are mostly left of center.

When I began to infiltrate SF politics, I at first encountered a strong Progressive organization, some very well educated and articulate people who shared more of my views than the more reserved democrats of Sonoma County. However, over time problems began to surface while I was interacting with my new SF friends. They can be most charitably described as overbearing and elitist. Young, degree waiving quasi-intellectuals with a very strict since of propriety and justice. In Santa Rosa, for years, I have had slicked back my hair, wore tennis shoes, and blue jeans, and nobody has ever made a rude comment.

However, in SF, even on occasional visits I can't go by for a few hours without someone saying something like "whats up with that hair cut" or "wow" check out the "moon shoes". (apparently the style according to one hippie is going barefoot) I was bewildered at first so I decided to shut up more at social gatherings and just listen to my new liberal comrades engage in discourse. Most of the time the topics are right on the money like outlining in graphic details to many crimes of the bush administration. These people know their stuff and are very active in their community, however what they don't understand is they are "liberal" to their own determent.

Take for instance impeachment, a topic which in a just world would be easy to execute, the case for impeachment is so persuasive that it will turn your stomach. I think if anyone looks at the evidence this President has committed impeachable offenses. I for one have reviewed this topic in detain and agree theoretically, however in reality its never going to happen.

Although in SF, resolutions are passed calling for Bush's impeachment giving Hannity something to gripe about on the evening spin and consequently harming our chances to get a real senate majority in 08. Why? Because in order to gain real power we need not only a "liberal" president but a left leaning Senate as well and the only way to do that is recruit the most functionally intelligent progressives of all; the Clair Mccaskill's and Jim Webb's of the country. They gave us our majority and it is those people who are the real liberals. They took on impossible odds to sell the cornerstone progressive causes to their moderate constituents and pulled it off, against incumbent advantage. How? They were down to earth people, not pretentious "gravitas" elitists'. What the high class SF intellectuals' don't understand is that they are in the minority and always will be, being exorbitantly educated just does not appeal to everybody and liberals have to understand why this is okay if they want to remain in power. Being too smart turns people off, think about it intelligent or not you have one vote. And when someone like John Kerry comes off like a smug dick, the country people say "oh ill get you smarty pants, at the poll both."

If you have ever watched FOX. Just listen to the buzz words, evaluate their talent, then watch the voting record of republicans that come on that network in general. What you see is not what you get, but the public doesn't pay enough attention to figure this out. The Democrats (or liberals which includes Green Party for this excercise) based on their record of funding government programs that help the poor, backing consumer group measures, good labor policies for better or for worse are all positive attributes that are beneficial to the masses abroad. Now look at Republicans, they are the true puppets of the elitists, the true elite, the ones with all the money and power not the university professor.

However who gets the uneducated and poor vote? Who gets the heartland rural community vote? The Republicans. Even if the Republicans do absolutely nothing to help the rural voter, even if they pass laws that act as a direct assault of their own base, they remain in power. Why?

Because do as I say and not as I do. The Orwellian tactics work as long as FOX can paint left of center people as cosmopolitan "Hollywood" types. The ruling Republicans are the multinational corporations, they run the Republican party and they get into power with the help of all their ignorant friends in the heartland, one vote at a time. No matter how wicked they are while in office. Take a look at how FOX helps, "elitist liberals want to...". That image, that propaganda if you will is only perpetuated because liberals allow it to happen. Howard Dean has the right message, a true fifty state strategy won't succeed in the short run, although it holds real promise for the future. We, that is all left of center political groups, blue and green must work together if we are to appeal to MORE than our base. Its the only way expand our power in 2008.
linkpost comment

Josh Wolf Free at Last? [Apr. 4th, 2007|06:11 pm]
4-4-07

Yesterday Freelance Videographer and blogger Josh Wolf was freed from federal custody after spending seven and a half months in federal prison. Wolf and his attorneys reached an agreement with prosecutors to release him from custody. Wolf has served the longest time behind bars as a journalist protecting his sources. In exchange Wolf agreed to publish his unpublished video outtakes of a protest in the mission district of San Francisco during an anti-g8 rally in 2005. Federal Prosecutors called up a grand jury to investigate the alleged attempted arson of an SFPD police car after protesters began to light fireworks and place foam signs in the street. Although the police report depicted no fire damage only a broken taillight the US Attorney believed that someone "threw a firecracker" at a city police car that was paid for in some part with federal funds. Authorities asserted jurisdiction even after an editorial was published in the SF Bay Guardian where local district attorney Kamala Harris called for the subpoena to be rescinded. Nevertheless Wolf was compelled to testify to the grand jury about his sources, and provide the video in question, portions of which Wolf sold to several local television affiliates.

Wolf disagreed with the contention that journalists are arms of the state and can be routinely called in to testify as if they were investigators of the government. Wolf believed that if ordinary citizens were to recognize that journalists were prone to cow-towing to the state, a chilling effect would ensue and significantly hamper peoples right to know what is transpiring in their communities. I for one would not trust a reporter if I knew that they were a government investigator in disguise.

Many skeptics have attacked Wolf for a lack of mainstream media credentials. I have covered this story since the subpoena was issued and observed a near media blackout on this issue. Most mainstream publications have got it wrong, misinforming the pubic for reasons that at best can be characterized as negligence. The irony is that the mainstream press frequently chastises bloggers because of their lack of integrity, mainly because they don't report to editors. This absurd notion is underscored when it is taken into light that I have routinely written columns to correct the "mainstream" omissions when it pertains to Wolf's story.

For example the NY Times two months ago celebrated Wolf's introduction into the record books as the longest incarcerated journalist in American history for refusing a grand jury subpoena. It all sounds good until one notices the inference that Wolf's tape may implicate who threw an explosive device during a protest. Automatically sympathy is severely chilled. In reality this blogger went to the primary source of information available through the public record; court documents. I was matched only by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now and Dan Noyes of ABC7 News, our consortium were the only ones who went to the source and discovered that no such arson ever occurred to a police vehicle, and that the only crime that the federal government were investigating in this matter was arson. Simply put then why are we in this dilemma? Once the truth is uncovered the federal government's credibility is severely hampered (as if it wasn't already).

Throughout the misinformation campaign people in the media have contended that the grand jury was investigating who injured a police officer during the protest. However after careful examination of the records available, most would confirm that this was a ploy. One, the US Attorney made it clear that he was investigating arson, not an officers injury and two, Wolf was in another area of the protest when this officer in question was injured. Never mind the jurisdictional acrobatic maneuvers that were pulled in an effort to do and end run around California's journalist shield law.

Californian voters amended our state constitution in an effort to establish our will that journalists should be allowed to keep unpublished information like that on Wolf's tape confidential. Furthermore these laws protect journalists from being jailed for refusal to testify as well. California's courts have held that bloggers that are engaged in disiminating the news are protected under the interpretation of the shield law. Hence Wolf would have qualified if this case was tried in the proper jurisdiction, not to mention that Wolf was never charged with a crime at all. Rather he was being held in coercive custody.

So now the video is out for all to see here www.joshwolf.net/blog go ahead watch what was worth jailing a journalist for seven and a half months in a facility built for housing dangerous criminals, answer. Nothing. There is no magic depiction of someone throwing a “firecracker” at a police car, no malevolent actions on behalf of protesters. In fact the most interesting aspect of Wolf's footage was the footage of an officer choking a protester in the witness of two legal observers from the National Lawyers Guild. My question is why was the grand jury not investigating the police instead of harassing a journalist trying to scrape by on his last semester at SF State?

Answer, pilot program. The twentieth century is an excellent example of this. When the federal government seeks to encroach on our civil liberties they start out with a weak target and then work their way in steadily churning away at our Constitutional rights, until we have none left. Want evidence of this in the past look into the Church Committee, need evidence of this in the present read all my prior posts on Josh Wolf, suffice to say if you search you will find that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The best thing that has ever happened to tyrants in this country was 9/11 the neo-cons should send bin Laden a gift basket. By polarizing the people with fear overzealous prosecutors can see just how far they can push the envelope. As for the grand jury, they have and will continue to be a mere rubber stamp as long as the US Attorney's Office retains dominion into what grand jury's see, hear, and read. William Campbell former judge on the sixth circuit court of appeals remarked that "if a prosecutor is candid he will admit that he can indict anyone for anything in front of almost any grand jury". (in a law journal entitled "eleminate the grand jury")

We need a federal shield law to protect journalists, furthermore we require comprehensive grand jury reform, without those two measures working in tandem whats to stop this travesty from happening again?
linkpost comment

Josh Wolf is FREE! [Apr. 3rd, 2007|04:32 pm]
Statement of Josh Wolf, Journalist, on his Freedom from Jail
Submitted by John Stauber on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 15:48.
Topics: Defend the Press | journalism

Josh Wolf.Josh Wolf, the video blogger and journalist, is going to be freed. Wolf was jailed on August 1, 2006 when he refused to testify or turn over unpublished video out-takes to a federal grand jury investigating a July, 2005 anti-capitalist demonstration. The statement below was provided on Josh's behalf to the Center for Media and Democracy by Lisa Cohen. For more information contact Lisa Cohen at: lisa.cohen32 AT verizon.net

Statement from Josh Wolf:

"It took 226 days, but it was worth every second to get what I wanted from day one, which is that I will not have to testify before the grand jury about the events at the protest or the identities of participants. The demand for my testimony before the grand jury was the true assault on my code of ethics and, as I have stated previously, there will be, and has been no compromise to this resolute principle.

"Today, I posted the video footage to my web site www.joshwolf.net/ so that the public will have the opportunity to see that there is nothing of value in this unpublished footage. As there is no sensitive material on the tape, there was no reason to remain in prison, given the fact that I got what I wanted from day one - the right to protect journalists from having to testify before a grand jury.

"Until now, I had no assurances that publishing the video would lead to my release and furthermore had every indication that it would have the opposite result and indicate to the judge that the so-called coercive effect was working. That has changed.

"I do feel that my unpublished materials should be protected by a Federal Shield and moving forward, that is where I will focus my efforts. Journalist should have the right to be protected from testifying before a grand jury and I will not stop fighting until there is a law that protects us."

STATEMENT FROM DAVID GREENE, attorney:

Today, Josh got what he wanted from day one -- he will not have to testify before the grand jury about the events at the protest or the identities of participants.
linkpost comment

The Devide Between Rich and Poor and Access to Justice... [Mar. 28th, 2007|09:56 pm]

Reprinted from California Bar Journal by Nancy McCarthy 

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/March2007&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2007-03_TH_01_justice-gap.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines 

The gap between the resources needed to meet the legal needs of California's low-income population and the resources that actually are available is so huge that it would take an infusion of nearly $400 million to close it, according to a just-released report by the California Commission on Access to Justice.


Indeed, the commission found that despite some gains in terms of overall resources, two-thirds of the legal needs of the poverty community go unmet, and that those who get some services often receive only minimal help.

"A chasm still separates the need for representation of low-income litigants and the supply of services available," Chief Justice Ronald George told the Assembly Judiciary Committee last month.

"Many people are still shut out of the system," said Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Steven Austin, who headed an access commission task force that developed an "action plan" to achieve access to justice. He called the number of unrepresented litigants a crisis that he sees firsthand in his Martinez courtroom on a daily basis.

The action plan was prepared at the request of Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, who chairs the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Austin's panel spent eight months assessing how well poor Californians' legal needs are being met and developing 27 recommendations for improved access. The plan "lays down a roadmap for changing the current reality," he told the committee.

Although Austin declined to prioritize the recommendations, he singled out three that can be addressed soon: increasing the yield on IOLTA accounts, increasing the state's contribution to the Equal Access Fund, and pursuing a three-year pilot program that will address large scale civil legal services needs. Gov. Schwarzenegger included $5 million in his proposed budget for the program this year.

While unmet legal needs is an ongoing problem throughout the United States, it is more acute in California, which has the largest low-income population of any state. Since 1980, as the state's population grew by 40 percent, the number of residents living in poverty increased by 60 percent. Compounding the problem are such elements as California's diversity, the high cost of housing, income inequalities and the failure of wages to keep up with inflation.

"The result is that the majority of Californians do not have the resources to obtain legal representation for the myriad legal problems affecting them every year, such as divorce, child support, child custody, domestic violence, loss of housing and employment, education and discrimination,"the report concludes.

The task force estimated what it calls the justice gap at $394.1 million — the difference between actual resources and what it would take to "truly meet the needs of California's low-income community."

Among the task force's findings:

  • In 2005, only 754 California lawyers worked as legal aid attorneys. That translates into one legal aid lawyer for every 8,361 low income Californians. On the other hand, there is one private attorney for every 250 Californians.
  • Two of three eligible low-income clients with meritorious cases are turned away.
  • IOLTA (Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts) funding, which serves as the underpinning for many legal aid programs, declined by $14.6 million between 1993 and 2005, a 59 percent drop.
  • Although core funding for legal services (from IOLTA, the Legal Services Corp. and California's Equal Access Fund) increased by $7 million from 1993 to 2005, when adjusted for inflation, the 2005 money actually represented a decline in funding.
  • Self-help centers are helping to fill the gap in county courthouses, but the courts need $44 million to fully achieve self-help assistance. Current funding provides $8.7 million statewide.

Jones said his "objective will be to see how many recommendations we can enact this year," and he likely will start with legislation to increase the yield on IOLTA accounts. The accounts, which provide funds for legal services programs, are based on interest accrued on client funds that are either small in amount or are held for short periods by lawyers. In recent years, the accounts have generated less revenue as interest rates declined.

Jones said the current statutory language requires lawyers to keep their IOLTA funds in interest-bearing checking accounts. He wants to lift that restriction and update the kinds of accounts people can use, including sweep accounts that offer a much higher return.

In addition, lawyers may be required to place their IOLTA accounts in banks that offer a return that is comparable to the return on other accounts so an equivalent net yield is achieved. "We want to make sure the money is secure, liquid and that we get comparable interest rates," he said.

The total revenue generated by placing IOLTA money in sweep or similar accounts would be considerable. Fifteen states have changed their IOLTA rules to take advantage of banking changes and have seen between a 100 and 300 percent increase in IOLTA funds, according to a task force member.

Jones also hopes to move toward appropriating more money for the state's Equal Access Fund, which this year received a $5 million increase from filing fees. And he is working with Schwarzenegger and the chief justice to get underway a proposed pilot program to offer civil legal services to low-income people who cannot obtain counsel. The governor included $5 million in his proposed budget to fund the program, which would make appointed civil counsel available in three counties in what Jones called "certain fundamental cases" such as landlord-tenant or family law.

The program would be the first of its kind in the country.

Jones said he also wants to continue to expand the availability of self-help resources at courthouses, a need that would cost an estimated $44 million. Currently, such centers are funded in part with $8.7 million in the judicial branch budget, and Jones said he hopes to achieve "additional incremental progress this year." He also plans to reintroduce legislation to pay for civil court interpreters, a bill that passed last year but was vetoed by the governor.

The task force recommended increased loan repayment assistance for public interest lawyers, currently provided for by statute but unfunded. Jamienne Studley, president of Public Advocates in San Francisco, urged the judiciary committee to support loan repayment as a way to fill what she called "the growing gulf between legal services salaries and the expense of a legal education." Starting salaries at elite law firms hit the $160,000 mark this year.

"At my organization," Studley said, "not a single person was paid that, including those with 30 years of experience."

Jones, a former legal services attorney, said access to justice is an ongoing crisis and "is the most important issue facing the judiciary and the (judiciary) committee . . . It's important that we make sure the words chiseled on our courthouse — "and justice for all" — are not just words, but in fact are made real by making sure we have adequate legal services."

linkpost comment

An editor gets it wrong? re: The San Francisco Chronicle [Feb. 28th, 2007|04:13 pm]

Dear Debra Sanders,

I write concerning your unconscionably one sided and misconstrued editorial regarding the longest incarcerated journalist in American history, for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena. 

First and foremost I would like to point out that this is a federal investigation that is being conducted without the support of local government. Neither the local district attorney nor the State's Attorney General has any interest in Josh Wolf or his now infamous tape. As you accurately point out Wolf does not work for a news organization. He is a freelancer and like many other independent journalists he operates a blog in his part time in order to document local events that might otherwise go unnoticed by mainstream media. The question is do you alienate freelance journalists from the protection’s given to corporate journalists? If so then how do you define a true journalist? You admit that Wolf was paid by KRON-TV for this footage; in fact later other local stations did the same. Wolf has a record of engaging in videography for Indymedia and various independent newspapers; would you discredit those organizations as real media too? 

The truth is in this state Josh Wolf is considered a journalist under the law. The California Appellate Court ruled that the shield law covers "internet publication" and have avoided the term "blog" because of its rapidly evolving and currently amorphous meaning. Rather the State Courts, where this matter should have been properly tried regards journalistic privilege to include those who engage in "periodic publication" drawling inferences from Supreme Court doctrine. I find no logic or humor in your dynamic hyperbole comparing Wolf to the vigilante who shoots a criminal. In a since of irony if you take a look at the evidence you will find that the cops in this case were attacking innocent civilians. This is why the local authorities dropped their case against Gabe Myers, the protester who was arrested. Which would probably never have happened if Wolf was not documenting Officer Shield’s partner chocking a protester (Myers). 

You say that Wolf likes to put himself in the company of real journalists, invoking the Chronicle’s Lance Williams and Mark Wada. Did you know that it was not Wolf who put himself in that category but the Society of Professional Journalists when they gave all three of them "Journalist of the Year" Awards? Next month the SPJ will be presenting Wolf with the James Madison Award. The SPJ is both the largest and oldest established fraternity of journalists in America and they see no distinction between your colleagues and Wolf. 

Furthermore you make the erroneous point that Wolf had no confidential source agreement and so Wolf had to get "creative" and make a mockery of the ACLU when he attempted to show the judge in chambers the tape. How is this a mockery of the ACLU when this entire case is over the grand jury, empanelled to determine who threw a firecracker July 8th 2005? This case is not about a SFPD police officer's ghastly wounds, it is about a firecracker thrown at a police car. This is documented in page 111:1 of the court transcript when the federal government unequivocally took this preposterous position. 

Dan Noyes works for ABC 7 and reviewed the SFPD police report which is evident here: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=4517281

The SFPD police car suffered no arson, just a broken taillight. 

Peter Shields is not the victim in this case; you're invoking emotion in order to paint Wolf in a dark light. You have attempted to cherry pick the facts in order to turn public opinion against Wolf, a shameful act. If Wolf's tape did document who hit this officer then why isn't District Attorney investigating Wolf? Moreover why did the judge refuse to look at his tape? If you were given the opportunity would you not want to view this footage in question before sending a young man to prison over it? Unless of course this entire case is a sham, then you wouldn’t want nor need to see anything.

Peter Shields states that the activists during this protest were destroying property and endangering lives. You and I both know that is crap. Some protesters threw a couple of newsstands into the street, a petty act of vandalism hardly worth this sensation. As for "endangering lives" take notice of a letter sent to your editors by local spectators who were not part of the demonstration in question, rather they had just watched a film at the New School. Jack Hayman and Charles Minster both witnessed a police officer viciously strike a movie producer who was not a member of the protest. This letter was sent July 9th, 2005 and I anticipate it got about as much defernece as this letter will. If you run into Mr. Shields again ask him what his partner was doing choking Gabe Myers as is visable in Wolf's video.

I have been a frequent reader of the Chronicle, however from now on forward I will have to consider everything from your paper with a certain degree of suspicion. Is the newspaper telling me the truth or twisting the facts in order to arive at a predetermined supposition? (i.e. the manufacturing of concent)

Thank you for showing your overwhelming sence of sensationalism as you contort the truth in a biased effort to make people who are standing up for Josh Wolf and a free press look akin to a cause celebre for the attacker of injured gay cop. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Respectfully,

Cody Molica

 

 

linkpost comment

Josh Wolf - Day 169 Ross Mirkarimi [Feb. 22nd, 2007|04:19 pm]

Supervisor Mirkarimi exposes an alleged judge
linkpost comment

The Alarm Clock for your Sleepin Ass! [Feb. 17th, 2007|11:12 pm]
The Alarm Clock;

 I am an alarm clock. 

I've been buzzing for the past few years

 But it was easy enough to ignore 

My gentle protest and continue to slumber 

As of recently the noise has grown louder. 

You've been hitting snooze, 

But each passing day it grows harder 

For you to stay at rest. 

You don't want to wake up. 

The dreams are so comforting 

And you know reality is a let down,

 But the sound has grown penetrating 

The time has come to make a choice 

Either listen to the warning that is breathing in your brain 

Or surrender to your weakness

 And become a slave in name. 

I am an alarm clock

 And I am sounding the alarm 

Like Paul Revere did years ago 

I'm riding down the lane Screaming, "Wake up!" 

By Josh Wolf the Longest Incarcerated Journalist in American History 

www.Joshwolf.net

Tune into the PBS Frontline Series NewsWar Feb. 20th they will discuss Wolf's case among other attacks on the free press.
linkpost comment

The Longest Jailed Blogger in American History, A SHAME! [Feb. 7th, 2007|11:20 pm]
2-8-07

The longest incarcerated journalist in American history for resisting a grand jury subpoena; Josh Wolf.
Has a nice ring to it don't you think? I have been covering Josh's episode since the beginning of his subpoena and never did I conceive that it could have gone so far.

It all began during a July 8th, 2005 anti-G8 protest in the acclaimed Mission district of San Francisco, California. Josh Wolf is an independent journalist videographer who maintains his videoblog www.joshwolf.net. Wolf specializes in covering the anarchist social movement in San Francisco and was one of the only journalist's that members of that coalition felt comfortable enough to speak to; distrusting most mainstream media reporters.

Wolf was in attendance at the July 8th protest acting in his capacity as a newsgather. Later in the night a disturbance broke out between protesters and a crowd of demonstrators. According to the San Francisco District Attorneys office and the National Lawyers Guild it was clear that this protest was exacerbated when a police officer drove his vehicle at a high rate of speed into a crowd of protesters, then got out and began swinging his batons wily nilly.(according to Ben Rosenberg, National Lawyers Guild)

Josh caught part of these unfortunate events on tape, and sold his footage to our local SF news media affiliates. After this coverage aired the federal government acting in there capacity as the Joint Terrorism Task Force or JTTF attempted to contact Wolf at his residence, asking him for his "cutting room floor" outtakes. Wolf has refused as a matter of principle based in part because the state of California and 30 other states have journalist shield laws that protect them from having to release their sources to the government. Unfortunately the Federal Government has no such law and in a premeditated effort to circumvent local authority the U.S. attorneys office convened a grand jury and subpoenaed not only josh's outtakes but his A/V recording equipment (hardware) as well (according to his appeal brief 9th cir). Josh refused to cooperate asserting his constitutional rights, one bears especial repeating;

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

Now Webster defines abridge to mean;

DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH

What we have here the Federal government acting out a malicious attempt to abridge the Constitution.

Now some have argued both in the mainstream press and from the government perspective that Josh is not a real journalist.

What is a journalist?

According to the Supreme Court and various California Court of Appeals decisions the law regarding "Bloggers" is as follows;
Neither of the parties has directly addressed the question whether petitioners' Web sites may properly be viewed as "periodical publications." Amicus Bear Flag League, an association of "bloggers," comes nearest to the point by citing judicial authority defining "periodical publication" to mean a publication appearing at regular intervals. (Houghton v. Payne (1904) 194 U.S. 88, 96-97
(Josh posted at regular intervals)

"Amicus Bear Flag League asserts that nothing in these definitions "exclude[s] Bloggers who publish (i.e. post) fairly regularly." However, we have avoided the term "blog" here because of its rapidly evolving and currently amorphous meaning. It was apparently derived from "we blog," a whimsical deconstruction of "weblog," a compounding of "web log," which originally described a kind of online public diary in which an early web user would provide links to, and commentary on, interesting Web sites he or she had discovered. (See Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (as of May 23, 2006).) The term may now be applied to any Web site sharing some of the characteristics of these early journals. (See ibid.) It is at least arguable that PowerPage and Apple Insider, by virtue of their multiple staff members and other factors, are less properly considered blogs than they are "e-magazines," "ezines," or "webzines." (See Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (as of May 23, 2006) ["A distinguishing characteristic from blogs is that webzines bypass the strict adherence to the reverse-chronological format; the front page is mostly clickable headlines and is laid out either manually on a periodic basis, or automatically based on the story type."].) However, the meanings ultimately to be given these neologisms, as well as their prospects for survival, remain unsettled. O'Grady v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 (Cal.App. Dist.6 05/26/2006)

Cyber cafes are not just your ordinary "retail establishment." fn17 Cybercafes allow people who cannot afford computers (or, often, who cannot afford very high speed internet connections) the freedom of the press. They can post messages to the whole world, and, in theory (if they get enough "hits") can reach more people than read the hard copy of the New York Times every morning. It is thus telling that in defamation law, posting a statement to the internet is considered "publication" --in a very real sense a web site is publication every bit as much as the large presses of a major newspaper. As Judge Kozinski has noted about the freedom of the press inherent in access to the Internet: "For instance, look at Matt Drudge. He sits in his little apartment with a computer and trawls the Internet and overnight becomes a reputable news source -- at least a to-be-feared news source." (Clay Calvert and Robert D. Richards, Defending the First in the Ninth: Judge Alex Kozinski and the Freedoms of Speech and Press (2003) 23 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 259, 276.) With the Internet, the average computer blogger has, in effect, his or her own printing press to reach the world. (Cf. ibid. [Judge Kozinski noting, given the rise of blogging, that "I think the division between press and ordinary speech has all but disappeared"].)
Vo v. City of Garden Grove, 115 Cal.App.4th 425, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 (Cal.App. Dist.4 01/29/2004)

"The architecture of the Internet, as it is right now, is perhaps the most important model of free speech since the founding [of the Republic]. Two hundred years after the framers ratified the Constitution, the Net has taught us what the First Amendment means. . . . The model for speech that the framers embraced was the model of the Internet--distributed, noncentralized, fully free and diverse." (Lessig, supra, at pp. 167, 185.) (Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999) p. 10.) "Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer." (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, supra, 521 U. S. at p. 870.)
In re Stevens, 120 Cal.App.4th 881H, 119 Cal.App.4th 1228, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/29/2004)

In O'Grady v. Superior Court (2006) 2006
Cal.App.LEXIS 802, the application of California's shield law was
further broadened to include the gathering and collection of news by
journalists publishing information through the Internet.

Personally I found the preceding writings very enlightening on the subject. I just wish the mainstream media especially the LA Times who says that Josh is not a journalist would at the very least do some kind of meaningfully research on the topic before condoning the incarceration of a independent journalist. At a minium in the present situation Josh was acting as a freelance journalist because the local media affiliates bought his footage, each affiliate paid $500 to Josh for using his tape on the air, sounds like a real journalist to me.

Next some skeptics are still not convinced they assert that Josh is unlawfully concealing evidence of a crime, why else would the government want his tape?

I take that question as follows; first there was no "crime" the mainstream media is quick to point out that at this protest and in the proximity of Wolf a police officer was hit in the head with an unknown object, he suffered a concussion. We don't downplay this unconscionable act however I must make perfectly clear that that is not the reason josh is in JAIL! The federal government took the formal stance that they are investigating who threw a 'firecracker' at a police vehicle during the protest (court transcript excerpt of record or EOR page 19,69:6-10;110:17-111:3) I will quote at lengths from the appellate documentation available to your right in the column marked "opening brief josh wolf")[right under the GG Bridge pic]

Some people are still not convinced; the mainstream media in several articles by the SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercery News, NY & LA Times have remarked that the government is investigating an arson (not a cop being hit in the head I say again). This is true to a point, it is the Governments stance that the grand jury is investigating an arson and they need josh wolf's tape to prove it. However this assertion is patently silly on its face. According to the only good piece of mainstream journalism on this issue Dan Noyes of ABC7 our local ABC affiliate did a great job debunking this ideological myth surrounding the present debate at hand. If you watch the video here (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=4517281)

you will understand that according to the SF City Police reports there was no arson of their patrol car only a broken taillight. An excerpt for the skeptical;

"The damage report on the squad car in question -- number 1139 -- mentions no burn damage, only a broken tail light." (It should be noted that this assertion is backed up by a visual screen shot of the police report that documented NO FIRE DAMAGE)(watch it)

Anyone can now easily see that this was no legitimate federal intervention attempting to fret out arson damage to a police car. Rather this entire scandal in actuality is nothing more than an arbitrary fishing expedition bent on eviscerating the free press.
I will further point out that the police car allegedly in question is first and foremost property of the city of San Francisco and not in any way connected with the FBI or any other federal agency. The Feds contend that because they give money to the police dept. via govern. grants they do now have jurisdiction over that vehicle. This point is absurd, first of all the government uses no law to support their assertion in this regard; secondly they give money to all sorts of projects irrespective of law enforcement. The mere point that the government gives you a grant does not make you beholden to them. If that were the case the feds could remove federal funding or student aid to a Berkeley student that criticizes the government, or designate who can walk on a city street paid for in part by the federal government. Our schools, our roads and police stations would all cease to be under the dominion and control of local officials. In other words the Tenth Amendment United States Constitution has been completely thwarted in this regard.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people, Amendment X U.S. constitution.

Furthermore even if some rabid right winger still wants to stand on the preposterous government opinion on this matter, it must be taken into consideration that the feds cannot amend the constitution through fiat see Article 5 of the Constitution.

I hope by now I have disavowed you of any false presences that the misinformation mainstream media has driven into your head on this topic. I have frequented several of the "Blogs" (Huffington Post & others) on this issue and peoples comments regarding Josh very on a scale directly linked to the amount of good information they receive, as is the case of people in general. James Madison once remarked regarding the quality of information that people must receive in order for democracy to function.

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Madison letter to WT Barry, 1822

Even Nixon and I agree for once;

"When information which properly belongs to the people is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and eventually incapable of determining their own destiny." (Yale Law Journal Vol. 84 pg. 612, year: 1975) [albiet it may be rhetoric but its ironic]

and Congress "A democratic society requries an informed, intelligent electorate, and the intelligence of the electorate varies as the quantity and quality of its information varies." 

But we cant have this form of a democratic society until the mainsteam media does its homework before opening its mouth. Take the Feb. 7, 2007 New York Time article on Wolf, they erroneously stated that the police car in question was damaged by a explosive device. I guess thats the hyped up way of saying Wolf was in the area filming a large protest of people and one of them allegedly throws a firecracker, and somehow a police car gets a broken tailight so we throw a journalist in jail for doing his job and being a tad idealistic. Put it in my context and its an outrage, although in the Times he sounds like a bad guy, especially in a post 9-11 world. "Explosive device"? Guys give me a brake, when your the most respected paper in the world and you screw this up and I get it right, well you suck. And its because of plagiarism, the Times just read what all the old reports on Wolf were saying and rehashed it into a quick little article and its wham bam. Nevertheless it's a sham. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/06blogger.html)

So now that we have effectively and intelligently determined that this entire federal intervention into a state and local matter is a complete farce. What are the local and state officials saying about Wolf, what do they have to say about this dilemma? 

1. The State Assembly; 

San Francisco State Assemblyman Mark Leno has been an outspoken proponent of the Free Josh Wolf movement for quite sometime. He and State Senator Caroloe Migden introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 31 last year. This resolution passed unanimously in both the assembly and the senate and urged the federal legislature to pass a federal counterpart to the state reporter shield law. [read here] (http://freejosh.pbwiki.com/Assembly%20Joint%20Resolution%2031) 

This resolution cited the following as there reasoning for such an act; 

A May 2005 poll conducted by the First Amendment Center
and American Journalism Review found that 69 percent of Americans
agree with the statement: "Journalists should be allowed to keep a
news source confidential 

Attorneys General of 34 states and the District of Columbia submitted to the United States Supreme Court, "A federal policy that
allows journalists to be imprisoned for engaging in the same conduct
that these State privileges encourage and protect 'buck(s) that clear
policy of virtually all states,' and undermines both the purpose of
the shield laws, and the policy determinations of the State courts
and legislatures that adopted them;"
2. The California State Attorney General;
is chief law officer of California. 
At the times relevant to Wolf’s case Bill Lockyer was attorney general of California and he submitted a declaration of his views to both federal courts that were holding hearings regarding federal grand jury investigations of journalistic sources. (http://joshwolf.net/grandjury/NEW/filed%20dec-jlf.pdf) 

In his brief Lockleyer stressed his firm belief that the federal government should take into consideration the states legitimate interests in the matter (after all they are allegedly investigated damage done to a city police vehicle) 

Lockyer emphasized that not only was a shield law present in the California Statutes (evidence code) in addition California voters overwhelmingly voted to enshrine this prerogative into our state constitution via constitutional amendment art. I, sect. 2. Proposition 5 was approved in a landslide with 75% of the vote.
Furthermore the Attorney General in his brief before the court quoted from the Prop. 5 ballot pamphlet stating; 


The free flow of information to the public is one of the fundamental cornerstones assuring freedom in America, and the use of confidential sources is critical to the gathering of news; If our democratic form of government ; of the people, by the people, for the people ; is to survive, citizens must be informed. A free press protects our basic liberties by serving as the watchdogs of our nation. Citizens may agree or disagree with reports in the media, but they have been informed, and the final choice is made by the individual. To jail a journalist because he protected his source is an assault not only on the press but on all Californians as well.


3. Professional Unions;

Some citizens have purported the belief that Josh Wolf is a criminal, simply because he is currently in jail. These people are woefully mistaken. Wolf is not only not a criminal hes not even accused of a crime. Wolf is being held and to date has been held for 169 days in a federal detention facility undergoing what Judge Alsup calls “coercive custody”. He was told by the judge that he can go home as soon as he wants to cooperate. Josh believes in being lawful and at every point during these proceedings he has insisted to following the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Activism has alerted the admirable support of both the Society of Professional Journalist and the National Lawyers Guild. The former late last year presented Wolf with the coveted "Journalist of the Year" award. They have also issued Wolf the largest legal defense endowment in their history; $30,000 dollars. Would a journalist union be so mistaken to award such a hefty sum to the defense of a mere criminal? I think not!

 Furthermore the National Lawyers Guild has come full force behind Wolf in an attempt to flank off the oppressive proclivities of the Bush Administration, whom has a direct influence on there proceedings. George Bush appointed the United States Attorney General, the ultimate chief law enforcement official, who in turn appoints the U.S. Attorneys. The U.S. Attorneys office has been behind these shenagins from the beginning. They have erroneously placed an unfair onus of guilt on a man who was simply trying to report on and later through both old and new tech methods disseminate that news in a responsible and professional matter.

4. Local government and law enforcement; 

At the end of the day it’s the local government not even the state that takes direction over what will and will not be a priority in law enforcement. The County District Attorneys office ultimately makes the decision of who they may prosecute. In this present case the appropriate authorities to take action would have been the D.A.’s office headed by Pamela Harris. They never took action against Wolf, they never asked him for his tapes or charged him with withholding evidence of a crime (police officer injury or vehicle damage). In fact the only related charge that comes anywhere close to Wolf was initiated against Gabe Myers, a protest participant who was charged placing a styrofoam sign under this patrol car's wheels. (this was the "arson" in question because the sign was billowing smoke even though Myers was never subpoenaed by the grand jury, go figure) 

[according to indybay [http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/09/18345277.php] 

Later these charges against participant Myers were dropped because The SF District Attorney's Office decided not to pursue the case because of "potential witness testimony and video footage that indicated that police had unsafely sped into a crowd of demonstrators, which Meyers was part of". (also corroborated by the National Lawyers Guild, Indybay and other witnesses that I have personally interviewed)

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors after learning the sheer ridiculous nature of the charges against there constituent voted and passed a local resolution CONDEMING the unlawful and bias persecution of Wolf in this matter. (http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/?page_id=214)
(http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/10/18295876.php)


They stated;
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco oppose these attempts by the federal government and the federal grand jury to intervene in this matter that is within the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco; and, be it further

RESOLVED, The Board of Supervisors urges the federal government and the federal grand jury to respect the protection of journalists afforded under the California Shield Law; and, be it further

RESOLVED, The City and County of San Francisco reinforces the need for a free press as stipulated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and is deeply concerned that this attempt to erode the protections afforded to journalists under state law can not only have a chilling effect, but stands to potentially erode the trust relationship between journalists and their contacts and is essential to journalistic practices.

So in my analytical attempt to examining this issue as comprehensively, albeit not succinctly as possible I assert the firm belief that Josh Wolf does not belong in prison, that a federal shield law is necessary and it be understood that Wolf is a true journalist.

What are people doing about it?

On February 7, 2007 the Free Josh Wolf Coalition of which I am a part of met and organized a press conference on the steps of city hall in San Francisco to mark Wolf's milestone accomplishment. I was personally astonished at the both the volume and gravity of the turnout. Finally the mainstream media took a stronger interest and extended some much overdo coverage. Speakers ranged from the inspiring and charismatic star of the city supervisors office Ross Mirkarimi who called Wolfs incarceration "wrong" to community organizers, journalists and public statements of support from local members of State Assembly and Senate. Later a quaint benefit concert was held at the House of Shields in an effort to raise awareness and much needed funds.

What can you do to help?

We need your help in this dire and pertinent matter. Write a letter or email to your local representatives no matter where you are, urging them to make a federal shield law a priority in this legislative session. There are fed shield bills in both the house and senate pending but our legislators must know that we want these issues to be taken seriously. As they so certainty are.

Call in to your local talk radio affiliate. Regardless of format if you listen to talk radio make your voice heard on the airwaves and plug Josh’s site www.joshwolf.net no E on the end of Wolf.

Let your papers know that this issue means something to you, they will listen and take notice. Often times letters to the editor are published when they pertain to such a pivotal issue of civil liberties and social justice. 

Wolf's defense fund after countless and unsucessful attempts at litigation is in need of replishment. Any donations may be made by paypal or check through www.joshwolf.net/blog

Join the Free Josh Wolf Coalition, email andy.blue@yahoo.com and request to be added to our news list.

Check out other stories relating to this subject http://tinyurl.com/39n23x will supply you with everything via Google news.


Recomend me and this site to your friends there are dozens of more talented writers here for you to explore...






link1 comment|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]