PLO Files Lawsuit Demanding Mayor’s Office Release Information to #NoCopAcademy

Activists with the #NoCopAcademy campaign file suit against the Mayor’s Office for withholding critical e-mails regarding the proposed $95 Million new CPD facility, including evidence that the DOJ report did not prompt the new facility construction.

Erin Glasco and Debbie Southorn, of the #NoCopAcademy campaign, are filing a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit against the Mayor’s Office for refusing to disclose crucial emails and records regarding the early planning for the proposed $95 Million new police academy. They are represented by attorneys with the People’s Law Office, the full complaint can be viewed here.
https://nocopacademy.files.wordpress.com/…/nocopacademy-com…

“As a librarian and information worker who believes that people have the right to access and scrutinize city plans involving their communities, I’m dismayed to see that the Mayor’s Office continues to prioritize secrecy regarding a plan that will have a substantial impact on Black communities across Chicago,” says Erin Glasco, one of the individuals filing suit. “Even as Mayor Emanuel attempts to paint a picture of this new facility as the answer to the CPD’s problems since the cover-up of the Laquan McDonald murder, he is continuing the same practices which led to that scandal in the first place – secrecy and collusion with CPD.”

Glasco and Southorn filed numerous requests for information with the Mayor’s Office upon learning about the proposed new training facility, including their communications with key players in the cop academy including the Chicago Infrastructure Trust, the Office of Alderwoman Emma Mitts, and the Department of Planning and Development. While some information has been shared, critical e-mails and records are still being withheld. The documents released so far indicate evidence that the plans for the new facility were initiated four months before the Department of Justice report was released, debunking the Mayor’s justification for the facility since it was first announced in July of 2017.

Shubra Ohri of the People’s Law Office, who is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said, “The Mayor’s refusal to provide full and complete information to the #NoCopAcademy campaign about developing a $95 million police training academy is a clear violation of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. We hope this lawsuit will help provide more transparency and government accountability concerning this massive misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

This afternoon’ lawsuit is in solidarity with young Black people in Chicago, who are trying to stop his new plan to construct a massive new training facility for Chicago Police. His plan to spend $95 million on a new, 32-acre police academy this year in Chicago’s West Garfield Park neighborhood, has drawn criticism from communities across Chicago, including celebrities like Chance the Rapper. The #NoCopAcademy campaign in Chicago is led by young Black people from Assata’s Daughters, and is supported by over 52 community organizations across the city and country. For more information and updates on the #NoCopAcademy campaign, visithttps://nocopacademy.com

 

Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional DNA Charges by Wisconsin Officials

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 7, 2018

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND OTHER HIGH LEVEL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS APPROPRIATED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM CRIMINAL DEFENDNANTS TO FUND THE STATE’S DNA ANALYSIS PROGRAM, FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ALLEGES

Attorneys for three men who were assessed a $200 DNA surcharge as a result of being convicted of misdemeanors have today filed a federal civil rights class action damages lawsuit on behalf of these men and a class of 10,000 similarly situated individuals against former Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, current Attorney General Brad Schimel and numerous high level government officials, including fourteen judges.

The suit alleges that in 2013 the Wisconsin Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Van Hollen, successfully lobbied the Wisconsin legislature to enact a law requiring that a DNA sample be collected from everyone convicted of a crime in Wisconsin. It alleges that in order to build up funding for the new DNA program without expending any resources, Van Hollen requested that the new law require anyone convicted of a misdemeanor pay a $200 DNA surcharge but not submit a DNA sample for a 15 month period of time, then after the 15 month period of collecting surcharges but no samples, the new law would require anyone convicted of a misdemeanor to both pay the $200 surcharge and submit a DNA sample for analysis. The suit asserts that Van Hollen requested that the new DNA surcharge scheme be structured in this manner so that funding for the Department of Justice’s expanded DNA program would not have to come from the Department of Justice budget or from the State of Wisconsin but instead from people who were convicted of a misdemeanor and who did not have to submit a DNA sample for analysis over a 15 month period of time. The suit further asserts that Van Hollen’s scheme ensured that the Department of Justice would receive millions of dollars for doing nothing, so that it would have funding for its new DNA program so that 15 months later it would be able to handle the significant increase in DNA samples which all criminal defendants would be required to submit.

The suit claims that the DNA surcharge law violated the constitutional rights of approximately 10,000 people who, during this 15 month period of time, were convicted of misdemeanors and assessed a $200 DNA surcharge but did not submit a DNA sample. The suit alleges that Van Hollen and Schimel along with numerous judges and other high level government officials knew that the DNA surcharge law was violative of the constitutional rights of thousands of people, and that they had the opportunity and duty to intervene to prevent the violations of these people’s rights, yet they failed to do so.

“It has been over three years since the Department of Justice conceded that the DNA surcharge statute they came up with was unconstitutional, yet during that time the Department of Justice has just sat back and done nothing as hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal DNA surcharges continue to be collected and deposited into the Department of Justice bank accounts. To this day, the Department of Justice is still receiving money from people who agreed to pay the DNA surcharge on monthly payment plans,” said John Bradley, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. “This is a gross example of the leadership of the Wisconsin Department of Justice not playing fair with the citizens of this state.”

Ben Elson of the Chicago-based People’s Law Office, another attorney representing the plaintiffs, said, “the people of the State of Wisconsin need to know that their Department of Justice built its DNA database on a rotten foundation from money that was unconstitutionally taken from more than ten thousand people and that their criminal justice system condoned and facilitated this taking. We hope that this lawsuit will correct this outrageous wrong.”

The plaintiffs are represented by John Bradley of Strang Bradley, LLC in Madison, and Ben Elson, Flint Taylor and Brad Thomson of the People’s Law Office.

Charges dropped in 1989 murder investigated by Chicago cops tied to Jon Burge

By: Megan Crepeau, Chicago Tribune.

Kevin Bailey admits that there were moments during his 28 years in prison that he lost hope he would ever be cleared of murder.

“But I just kept fighting,” he said with a smile moments after his release Tuesday afternoon from Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet. “Just kept fighting.”

Hours earlier, with Bailey in a courtroom at the Leighton Criminal Court Building, a Cook County special prosecutor dropped charges against him and Corey Batchelor, who had been paroled in 2004. The two had long alleged that Chicago police detectives with ties to disgraced former Cmdr. Jon Burge had physically abused them into confessing to a brutal 1989 murder.

After Judge Alfredo Maldonado formally tossed out their convictions, Batchelor and Bailey, both 48, embraced in the courtroom.

Bailey then grinned, pumping his fists in the air as spectators in the courtroom applauded.

“I never, ever wanted to give up,” Batchelor, his voice at times emotional, later told reporters in the courthouse lobby. “At times, Kevin used to actually tell me that he was giving up, that he actually didn’t believe that we were ever going to get out. And all I did was motivate and motivate and motivate him, and let him know no matter what … the fight would continue.”

Batchelor and Bailey were 19-year-olds with no criminal history when they were arrested for the murder of Lula Mae Woods, the wife of a retired Chicago police officer, according to court records. Woods was found stabbed to death in her South Side garage in June 1989.

Read the whole article here: Chicago Tribune 

7th Circuit Allows Malicious Prosecution Case to Proceed

A malicious prosecution case brought by a woman wrongly convicted of murdering her son will continue in district court after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the grant of summary judgment to the United States government.

After a fire destroyed her home and claimed the life of her 3-year-old son in June 1995, investigators with the Indiana Fire Marshal’s office decided Kristine Bunch had intentionally set the blaze. But when samples from Bunch’s home were sent to William Kinard, a federal forensic chemist with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, he determined no accelerants were present in the living room and boy’s bedroom, where the fire began.

According to Bunch, the investigators told Kinard they were not happy with the results of his report, so he agreed to fabricate findings and report that accelerants were found in the two central locations. Bunch was subsequently convicted of felony murder and sentenced to 60 years.

Read the whole article here: The Indiana Lawyer

Read the 7th Circuit Opinion Here.

Burge and nemesis Flint Taylor spar in video depositions in Jackie Wilson case

Lawyers for Jackie Wilson on Tuesday closed out their case that detectives under the command of Jon Burge tortured Wilson into confessing to the 1982 murder of two Chicago Police officers, in Wilson’s latest bid to win a new trial for the killings.

A courtroom gallery filled with CPD officers looked on as Wilson was cross-examined by special prosecutors at the second of what will be a trio of hearings on whether Wilson’s confession to the slaying of CPD officers William Fahey and Richard O’Brien was tortured out of him.

On Tuesday, as he did at an earlier hearing last month, Wilson choked up on cross-examination, as he repeated his recollection of being beaten by multiple officers until he confessed to the murders, as special prosecutors who tried to trip him up on details. Wiping his eyes, Wilson, 57, took issue with Special Prosecutor Michael O’Rourke skipping steps in Wilson’s account of the abuse when O’Rourke jumped from Wilson being clubbed with a phone book directly to being hooked up to an electroshock box.

Read the whole article here: Chicago Sun-Times

On 48th Anniversary of Fred Hampton’s Murder, Rampant Surveillance of Black Liberation Movements Continues

American political and social activist and Black Panther Party member Fred Hampton (1948 - 1969) raises his arms at the 'Days of Rage' rally, Chicago, Illinois, October 11, 1969. (Photo: David Fenton / Getty Images)

American political and social activist and Black Panther Party member Fred Hampton (1948 – 1969) raises his arms at the “Days of Rage” rally, Chicago, Illinois, October 11, 1969. (Photo: David Fenton / Getty Images)

Monday, December 04, 2017

By Flint TaylorTruthout | Op-Ed

In August 1967, notorious FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover sent out an urgent directive to all of his field offices under the file name “COINTELPRO-Black Nationalist Hate Groups.” It instructed “Racial Matters”(RM) agents to take aggressive — and highly illegal — actions to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize the activities of Black-nationalist, hate-type organizations and groupings, their leadership, spokesmen, membership and supporters.” On March 4, 1968, exactly one month before Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, another urgent Bureau-wide COINTELPRO directive from Hoover’s desk instructed RM Agents to devise COINTELPRO actions designed to “prevent the rise of a ‘messiah’ who could unify and electrify the militant black nationalist movement.”

On December 4, 1969 — 48 years ago today — RM agents in the Bureau’s Chicago office secretly congratulated themselves and hailed their “success” to Hoover for masterminding the bloody pre-dawn police raid that left Fred Hampton, the 21-year-old chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP) — and most certainly a rising “messiah” — and Peoria Panther leader Mark Clark dead, and several other young Panthers seriously wounded.

Read the whole article here: Truthout 

Time for Kim Foxx to do the right thing

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx

Prosecutors have a hard time owning up to the injustices they perpetrate—especially in murder cases, all the more so when the deceased happens to have been a police officer.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office was supposed to be different under its avowed reformist leader, Kim Foxx, but the office has proved sadly unexceptional in refusing to acknowledge a palpable miscarriage of justice dating back more than four decades.

At about 2 a.m. on Oct. 10, 1976, a Sunday, Terrence Loftus, a 36-year-old off-duty Chicago police officer wearing civilian clothes, courageously tried to stop a brawl between 30 to 40 members of rival gangs—the white Gaylords and Puerto Rican Lawndale Imperial Gangsters.

Read the whole article here: injusticewatch.org

Lessons on the Anniversary of the Greensboro Massacre

2017_1103greensboro

Activists display a sign in a March for Justice after the deadly Greensboro Massacre that took place on November 3, 1979. (Photo: The Romero Institute)

By Flint Taylor
November 3, 2017
Originally published in Truthout

Thirty-eight years ago, on November 3, 1979, 35 heavily armed members of the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party drove nine vehicles through the city of Greensboro, North Carolina, and opened fire on a multiracial group of demonstrators who were gathering at a Black housing project in preparation for an anti-Klan march. In the most deadly 88 seconds in the history of the city, the KKK and Nazi marauders fired over 1,000 projectiles with shotguns, semi-automatic rifles and pistols, leaving five of the march leaders dead and seven other demonstrators wounded. Most of the victims were associated with the Communist Workers Party (CWP) — a militant, multiracial organization which had been organizing in the South against the Klan.

The Greensboro police, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) were all aware of the plan to attack the march. However, no law enforcement officials were present except for a police informant-provocateur, Edward Dawson, who led the caravan into the housing project, and his control agent, Jerry “Rooster” Cooper, a Greensboro intelligence detective who followed the caravan and reported on its progress to the Greensboro police. Four television crews were on hand and captured the attack on video.

Read the whole article here: Truthout

8 Principles for Aspiring People’s Lawyers

This was a speech originally given by People’s Law Office attorney Michael Deutsch this Spring at the 2017 Midwest Regional National Lawyers Guild Conference. 

I also want to welcome you and recognize your commitment to be here so early on a Saturday morning. These meetings are really important to share strategies, experiences and to provide the fuel of comradeship that keeps us fighting for justice in all aspects of our work.

One of the perks/ consequences of having reached senior status, and having been around so long, is being asked to share my insights on the representation of the victims of political repression.  To be sure we are entering dark and really uncharted waters, with what I would characterize as the neo fascist take- over of the executive branch of the federal government, and the very real potential of a sea change in the make-up of the federal judiciary, with the potential given the present vacancies and the attrition of the appointment of hundreds of new judges, as well as the control of state governments by conservative forces which are moving to rewrite laws to up the ante against those who protest.

However, despite the dire potential, we still have the trappings of so-called liberal or neo liberal democracy, where we have courts mandated to enforce  the constitution and juries composed independent citizens.

The historic reality that the U.S. was never a real democracy, racism, sexism and exploitation, has always been with us, and as a result we have had a long history of resistance and of repression.  In my own legal experience, I have seen the attacks on the anti-Viet Nam war movement, including the coordinated use of nation-wide grand juries under Nixon to imprison leaders, the Co-intelpro  program which targeted BLM imprisoning and assassinating  its leaders / the Attica massacre and its aftermath of indictments of the prisoners, the siege of Wounded knee the attacks on the PRIM, here and in Puerto Rico, the attacks of the CA Sanctuary movement, the use  after 9/11of  federal “terrorism”  laws to criminalize solidarity work, particularly against  Muslims and the Palestinian solidarity movement, and the passage of broad state terrorism laws to charge Occupy activists.  And countless other acts of repression against workers, woman’s rights, the LGBT community, environmental and animal rights activists and the wholesale attacks and deportations of millions of immigrants.

So I want to share with you some principles I have distilled from my own experiences as a lawyer in many of these struggles. I was very fortunate as a young lawyer to have the opportunity to work with the Attica Brothers in their fight for justice. And many of the experiences I had there were repeated in the subsequent political cases that I have had the privilege of being involved in.

Of course, some of these ideas should be obvious and others will not apply universally, but I humbly offer them for your consideration.

  1. First and foremost, as much as possible take leadership from your clients.  Understand their politics and their goals, specifically as it applies to your legal representation.  At Attica we had 60 brothers charged with 1400 hundred felony counts It was our job to translate in the courtroom and if called upon outside to explain that they were not the criminals, but the victims of a massacre and a subsequent orgy of brutality.  To do so we had to understand what caused the rebellion and the State’s cover-up.

When you represent a Grand jury resister, be clear if their position is non-collaboration, regardless of  immunity andimprisonment.  In the case of PRIM activists accused of being members of the FALN, they made a collective decision to not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court and demand POW status. This decision was a difficult one for a lawyer used to contesting the facts, but we accepted this position, prepared motions supporting their position under international law and took their case to international forums. Not surprisingly, they were convicted, but set the political stage, that they were not criminals, for their release as political prisoners.  In contrast , Independence activists accused in Hartford of being member of the Macheteros, fought their case on the facts, while still raising political issues.

  1. Secondly, we must work with the community of supporters of your clients. We must explain carefully your strategy as much as possible and listen to their views and concerns. Hundreds of people from all across the progressive spectrum were moved to support the Attica brothers, while our relationships were not always amiable, we felt an obligation to respect their support and provide them with information.
  2. Work collectively with co-defendants and their lawyers. Unity is key here. In multi-defendant cases, there may be strategy, political and style differences between the lawyers, but a collective coordinated defense ensures a stronger, clearer, presentation and minimizes the possibilities of  a defendant isolated and choosing to become a state’s witness.   In the Pontiac prison case, in which 17 young Black men faced the death penalty we had 20 different criminal defense lawyers who were used to representing their own individual clients, but after much struggle and meetings and sharing the unity of Attica, all agreed to work together with a joint strategy.  All were acquitted or had their cases dropped.
  3. As much as possible put the Govt/State on trial. look for ways in your motion practice to raise the political issues inherent in your case.  Selective enforcement, political motivation, international law, government vindictive prosecution or misconduct to raise political issues. Use discovery to expose surveillance, spying,  the names of informants and make it burdensome on the prosecution.
  4. Be creative!  Think of ways to expose the political/repressive nature of the prosecution.  In the case of Muhammad Salah, who was tortured in Israel, we kept demanding the protocols and procedures allowed by the Israeli interrogators, which the Court denied as classified. We kept insisting and ultimately the Court allowed us stipulations to be read to the jury about the Israeli methods, which were akin to torture. This was determinative in convincing the jury that he confession was coerced and unreliable.

In the case of the NATO 3 charged with material support for terrorism, – a 40 year potential sentence -we convinced the court to instruct the jury on a lesser included charge of mob action, a misdemeanor

  1. Act with courage. Don’t be afraid to raise political issues or challenge the prosecution’s good faith or the impartiality of the court.  In  Rasmea  Odeh’s case we moved to recuse the Judge because of his close ties to the State of Israel.  He angrily denied the motion, but later when it was exposed that his family had a financial interest in an Israeli business that was bombed he had to step down.
  2. Be Resilient.  Don’t let bad rulings or difficult facts deter you. Study the history of political cases and what lawyers did right and what they did wrong.
  3. See yourself as part of the resistance movement. Your legal skills as your contribution.  Fight for your clients and for justice!

With Executive Order on Policing, Trump Declares Racialized War on Dissent

By Flint Taylor

On the heels of the much ballyhooed meeting that an obsequious Donald Trump conducted this week with local law enforcement officials from across the country, the president titillated the gendarmes with a threat to destroy — COINTELPRO style — an unnamed Texas state senator rumored to be introducing legislation to prevent law enforcement from financing police operations by seizing arrestees’ property before they have been found guilty in a court of law. On Thursday, Trump followed up with an executive order that gave the recently confirmed Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions a carte blanche to bring down the wrath of the federal government on anyone who is unfortunate enough to have a confrontation with a cop, a prison guard, a border patrol officer or who knows who else outfitted with a badge and carrying a gun.

At first blush, the order could be seen simply as a wildly unpopular president playing macho man to our nation’s police departments and their reactionary police unions. The unions have been chafing over being curbed by the previous administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), which, by means of pattern-or-practice investigations and consent decrees, started to put the brakes on racist police violence. On its face, Trump’s new order looks like much bluster, with no enforcement mechanisms. Many of the provisions will need to be passed by Congress, receive funding and ultimately, pass constitutional muster — a hurdle that the authoritarian Trump administration, with its white supremacist hatchet men at the helm, seems unwilling to pay even a trifling respect.

On further analysis, however, the order can be read as an official authorization, from one white supremacist — Steve Bannon — to another — Jeff Sessions — to pursue the most racist and reactionary criminal legal policies in recent memory. The overriding theme of the order is “to develop strategies led by the Department of Justice … to further enhance the protection and safety of Federal, state, tribal and local law enforcement officers.” What first comes to mind, quite intentionally, no doubt, are cops killed in the line of duty, the shooting in Dallas being the most prominent recent example. The policy statement — either explicitly or implicitly — appeals to fears about people of color and the demonization of Black Lives Matter (BLM), resonating with the barely coded racist refrains of “blue lives matter” and “law and order.”

Within the rubric of that declaration, and the details that follow in cold and calculating procession, the order, at bottom, takes aim at protesters, most urgently the Water Protectors at Standing Rock, BLM protesters across the nation, people protesting the Muslim ban and many others who practice acts of civil disobedience that bring them into conflict with law enforcement. Not content with local prosecutors dealing with these confrontations, this order encourages Sessions and his Department of Justice to find more punitive federal laws to charge protesters, to seek the passage of new federal laws to further aid this effort and to seek new mandatory minimum sentences to enhance the punishment of protesters, all under the guise of protecting law enforcement from “violence.”

Additionally, the order directs the Department of Justice to work with other federal agencies — no doubt the FBI, CIA and NSA prominent among them — to “develop an executive branch strategy to prevent violence against Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.” As I typed those words, I had a chilling realization: This was the same rationale, and almost the exact same language, that the notorious J. Edgar Hoover used in his COINTELPRO directives that targeted Black liberation leaders Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture), Fred Hampton and their organizations, and permitted wildly illegal government surveillance and orchestrated state violence during the 1960s.

The order also calls for the DOJ to evaluate “all grant funding programs currently administered by the DOJ to determine the extent to which its grant funding supports and protects” law enforcement and to seek legislation that would “adequately support and protect” these agencies. What seems apparent from these provisions is that funding for police reforms in training, discipline, monitoring and the like will be quashed, while funds for wartime armaments such as SWAT tanks, drones, high-powered weapons and sophisticated 21st-century surveillance will be the norm.

This order, like the similar legislation that the American Legislative Exchange Council is pushing on the state level, is designed to criminalize and quash dissent. Like the attack on the media, it is aimed at defeating, with broad authoritarian strokes, growing popular opposition to a wannabe neo-fascist regime. Wrapped in “law and order” and protecting the police, the next target after those who practice civil disobedience may well be the millions who have been taking to the streets.

Yet, clearly, executive repression will not signal the end of resistance. This battle will continue to be waged in the streets, in the media and in the courts. Our very existence depends on the outcome.

This article was originally published in Truthout on February 10, 2017