Thursday, February 09, 2012

How Elizabeth Warren made sure I wouldn't vote for her

POLITICO has a report on Barack's mortgage 'victory' and like most reports for that outlet, it doesn't deal with specifics but perceptions of how the plan will poll. Heaven forbid that POLITICO reporters ever had to sit down with a plan and do some research. From the article:

The nationwide deal, a year in the making, is expected to help as many as 2 million underwater homeowners as well as compensate mortgage holders who lost their homes in the so-called robo-signing scandal — evidence that banks cut corners during foreclosures by forging documents, falsifying information and illegally accelerating foreclosure proceedings.

The robo-signing is about crimes. It is illegal to forge documents, it is illegal to foreclose on someone's home when they shouldn't be foreclosed on. These are crimes. They should be prosecuted as such.

Will 2 million underwater homeowners be helped?


The plan -- see POLITICO, some of us have done the reading and research required -- rewards the banks yet again. It gives them a we-won't-prosecute card in exchange for the hope that they'll refinance some loans or even forgive some home improvement loans.

Why do they have to? The banks in agreement have to reach a forgiveness figure of 20 billion after they sign on. That can be refinancing loans, forgiving loans, etc. If they don't reach that number, then you're looking at fines.

Do you know how easy it is for the big banks to reach that number? Do you realize that the easiest way to do that and ensure full repayments to them is to forgive, for example, a home improvement loan that Jack Welch (former CEO of GE) took out and others like him.

This plan is akin to Ronald Reagan's trickle down economics that never reached the American people who were most in need.

What about people who have lost their homes or are about to?

They might see a one-term payment of $2,000.

Let's pretend I lost my home and am now living in an apartment. That $2,000is really worthless to me. It doesn't provide me with a home, it doesn't even help with rent other than for maybe three months or less.

So the plan is toothless and gutless.

Where does Elizabeth Warren come in?

Her picture was with the link. I thought, "Okay, she's going to stand strong, this is her signature issue. I'm going to read this article and I'll end up voting for her."

I read the article and she offered weak b.s. criticism and reminded me of Martha Coakley after she won the primary. (That's not a compliment. That's when she sold out her beliefs and ran as Barack's best buddy.)

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Thursday:

Thursday, February 9, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's Parliament discusses two Iraqi military officers who are reportedly spying on behalf of the United States government, an MP's brother turns up dead, big news for the peace movement out of Chicago, the US Congress examines who's watching veterans benefits, and more.
Infoshop News reports some major US peace news, "A settlement has been reached in the class action law suit Vodak v. City of Chicago, brought against the Chicago Police Department on behalf of over 700 protestors who were falsely arrested during a demonstration against the Iraq war on March 20, 2003. On that date, over 10,000 protestors demonstrated in Chicago against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, marching through downtown streets and up Lake Shore Drive before Chicago Police surrounded, detained and arrested over 700 people." The Chicagoist adds that the National Lawyers Guild and People's Law Office have "worked on the case for nine years" and quotes the People's Law Office stating: "Based on our collective experience litigating police misconduct cases for decades, we feel very positive about this settlement and about the amount of compensation for each sub-class member. We also believe that such a significant settlement will send an unequivocal message to the City of Chicago and its Police Department that they must respect you right to demonstrate." The National Lawyers Guild issued the following:
Nathan Tempey,
Communications Coordinator
(212) 679-5100, ext. 15
"Looking ahead to a spring of protests, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and his peers around the country should take note," said National Lawyers Guild Executive Director Heidi Boghosian. "Short-sighted attempts to extinguish free speech often come at great expense."
A Seventh Circuit ruling on the case (Vodak v. City of Chicago, 639 F.3d, 738 (2011)) holds that police cannot arrest peaceful protesters without warning just because a demonstration lacks a permit. The decision bears new weight in light of mass arrests of Occupy Chicago protesters this winter, as well as recently ratified, far-reaching city ordinances that aim to squelch protests of the G8 and NATO summits in May.
The over 700 plaintiffs in the Vodak suit will receive compensation up to $15,000 each, and Guild lawyers are negotiating additional payments for class representatives and class members who were required to give depositions.
"The rights of dissenting Chicagoans could have been buried under the county jail," Boghosian said. "Instead, thanks to years of tireless work by Guild members, those rights have been vindicated."
The city's settlement offer comes on the eve of a scheduled trial. The suit was litigated over the course of almost nine years by a team of NLG lawyers and legal workers including People's Law Office attorneys Janine Hoft, Joey Mogul, Sarah Gelsomino, and John Stainthorp, as well as People's Law Office paralegal Brad Thomson, and attorneys Melinda Power and Jim Fennerty.
The team has reached settlements totaling over $300,000 in other excessive force lawsuits stemming from the 2003 protest.
For more information and updates on the settlement visit
The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1937 and is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state.
Heidi Boghosian and co-hosts Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) produce a weekly radio progam entitled this week's Law and Disorder Radio which airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week (and is always streaming at the website). There may not be time for them to cover this on the program which starts airing Mondy but you can be sure that they will cover it shortly. And it is a big victory.
In Iraq today, Al Mada reports that the CIA's mission in Iraq (and Greg Miller's Washington Post article) was discussed by the Parliament's Commission on Security and Defense. The discussion noted that the US is still in control of Iraqi air "under the pretext" of protecting their diplomatic mission. The Commission also discussed two officers in the Iraqi forces who are said to be paid spies/informants for the US government and supply information for the monthly salary they receive. The two Iraqis, who are not named, are the subject of an ongoing investigation and are expected to be charged at the end of the investigation.

Two other Iraqis, two young males, took their own lives. Aswat al-Iraq reports they died in Amara as part of a joint-suicide and that it was over "a family feud." Aswat al-Iraq also notes an attack in Kirkuk by unknown assailants left 1 police officer dead and three more wounded. For others, today is a day of celebration. Dar Addustour notes a festival taking place, a Festival of the Sadrist Movement, to celebrate the departure of so many US forces. Salam Faraj (AFP) explains this latest celebration resulted in "tens of thousands" attending the ceremonies in Sadr City and quotes Moqtada al-Sadr from his pre-recorded number, "The armies of resistance terrified the occupiers, so they left after they lost. [. . .] The occupying forces were working for strife and destruction and to destabilize security. The occupier is not the one who can bring peace and safety to Iraq, but rather you, and only you." Press TV declares "millions" took part -- Jill Reilly (Daily Mail) says those present were "mostly men and boys" and AP's video suggests that might actually be an undercount. Iraqi flags were waived, towers were climbed, Moqtada appeared on a jumbo screen, balloons were released, and yellow suited participants stomped the British and US flags painted on what appears to be styrofoam. Sadr City is a section of Baghdad which means if Nouri's enforcing the rules properly, this was a rally that required a permit. I do have a point here. This was an official event, led by one of Iraq's most prominent Shi'ite particiants. And they symbolically stomped on the flags of the United Kingdom and the United State so explain to me why the hell the US government is providing one more dollar to this thuggish regime?
The Iraq War is illegal. I have no expectations that Iraqis are in love with the US. But these thugs who were put in power by the United States and still depend on aid from the United States? There's a world of difference between these official functions -- and this was official -- and what happens in Tahrir Square. A jumbo screen was put up for Moqtada. That thing was huge. And the government of Iraq is in fact stomping on both the British and American flags. So there's no reason for either government to provide a damn thing to Nouri. Repeating, this is different than Tahrir Square and I've never called them out for burning a US flag and wouldn't. But this should have been a permitted march, it had security, it had prepared parts to it and that huge jumbo screen.
The New York Times' Tim Arango was on NPR's Morning Edition yesterday (link has audio and text) discussing his report on the US State Dept in Iraq with Steve Inskeep and Arango noted of hostility towards the US within Iraq, "It also suggests how easy an issue the American presence is for Iraqi politicians to sort of demagogue on, and to use with their own public. They don't want to be seen in public supporting the Americans or accommodating them in every way." The stomping on the 'flags' and the cheering crowds were an awful lot like, highly reminescent of, the street activity in Iran before the US Embassy in Tehran was seized. Now maybe that's just me being overly cautious or paranoid or whatever. But if Americans are seized (more than likely it would be outside of the Baghdad compound) in Iraq, networks should cue up that AP footage and ask why it didn't alarm the US government in real time?

In other news, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "A leading al-Qaeda Commander, of Saudi nationality and holding the post of Military Emir (Prince) of al-Qaeda in northern Iraq's city of Mosul, has been sentenced to death by the Central Iraqi Criminal Court, according to a statement from within the High Judicial Council on Wednesday." The government of Iraq has been on a major killing spree of late. Already having a 'legal' system that's a joke throughout the world wasn't enough for the Iraqi government and now they apparently want to be seen as having a backward and brutal 'legal' system far beyond their practice of forced confession. Human Rights Watch issued the following this morning:

(Washington, DC) -- Iraqi authorities should halt all executions and abolish the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said today. Since the beginning of 2012, Iraq has executed at least 65 prisoners, 51 of them in January, and 14 more on February 8, for various offenses.
"The Iraqi government seems to have given state executioners the green light to execute at will,"said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The government needs to declare an immediate moratorium on all executions and begin an overhaul of its flawed criminal justice system."
Human Rights Watch is particularly concerned that Iraqi courts admit as evidence confessions obtained under coercion. The government should disclose the identities, locations, and status of all prisoners on death row, the crimes for which they have been convicted, court records for their being charged, tried, and sentenced, and details of any impending executions, Human Rights Watch said.
A Justice Ministry official confirmed to Human Rights Watch on February 8 that authorities had executed 14 prisoners earlier in the day. "You should expect more executions in the coming days and weeks," the official added.
According to the United Nations, more than 1,200 people are believed to have been sentenced to death in Iraq since 2004. The number of prisoners executed during that period has not been revealed publicly. Iraqi law authorizes the death penalty for close to 50 crimes, including terrorism, kidnapping, and murder, but also including such offenses as damage to public property.
Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances because of its inhumane nature and its finality. International human rights law requires that, where it has not been abolished, the death penalty be imposed only in cases for the most serious crimes in which the judicial system has scrupulously complied with fair trial standards, including the rights of the defendant to competent defense counsel, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and not to be compelled to confess guilt.
Criminal trials in Iraq often violate these minimum guarantees, Human Rights Watch said. Many defendants are unable to pursue a meaningful defense or to challenge evidence against them, and lengthy pretrial detention without judicial review is common.

Jill Reilly (Daily Mail) notes, "Iraq primarily uses hanging as a method of execution." Reuters adds these executions come "despite objections from the United Nations human rights chief." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes a statement Iraq's Ministry of Judiciary has posted online, "Questioning the credibility of the Iraqi judiciary system by the U.N. High Commissioner is (a) strange thing and the High Commissioner should also (be) aware of the size of the challenges that Iraq is facing by terrorist groups who had committed heinous crimes and mass executions against innocent people." UPI notes that the executions are seen by some as also part of Nouri al-Maliki's targeting opponents:
The executions and Maliki's targeting of the Sunni leadership of the opposition Iraqiya bloc, using his Shiite-controlled security forces, seem intended to further his drive to establish a new dictatorship in Baghdad following the U.S. military withdrawal in December.
Leaders of Iraq's Kurdish minority, which has its own semi-autonomous enclave in the north, say they are alarmed at the direction Maliki has taken and has given sanctuary to a senior Sunni politician the government is targeting. This could inflame the swelling crisis.
The Americans, whose boast they left behind a "stable and democratic Iraq" soon proved to be perilously empty, have starkly failed to replace military influence with political and economic influence and so are powerless to smother the mushrooming violence.
The spate of executions is a gruesome indication of the way things are heading in Iraq where the Sunnis, once the backbone of Saddam Hussein's regime, are struggling against being marginalized by the majority Shiites.

Al Rafidayn reports that the corpse of Akrahm al-Daini was discovered today outside Tikrit, five days after the man and his bodyguard weTe kidnapped. The family was ordered to pay a one-million ransom but refused. The deceased was MP Nahida al-Daini's brother. MP al-Daini is a Sunni and she is also a member of Iraqiya. A woman's corpse was also discovered. As for the bodyguard, the kidnappers shot him from behind, apparently assumed he was dead and left him, according to an unnamed National Security source. The bodyguard was able to make it to the police. Was this part of the continued targeting of Sunnis or of Iraqiya or of both? Possibly. Equally true, kidnapping remains a huge money maker in Iraq and the attraction here might have simply been: Here is someone who can afford a bodyguard, here is someone whose sister serves in the Parliament, surely they have money.

In Australia, the issue of off-the-book prisons, hidden from the Red Cross and others, is in the news. Tony Eastley (AM on Australia's ABC, link is audio and text) explains, "There are claims this morning that Australia played a key role in the potentially illegal detention of Iraqi prisoners of war. The British newspaper, the Guardian, has sourced a US military document that says an Australian SAS squadron of 150 men was 'integral' to the operation of a secret facility, known as H1, in Iraq's western desert in April 2003. The revelations are the first to suggest that the Australian military was directly involved in so-called 'black sites'." Ian Cobain wrote the Guardian article ("RAF helicopter death revelation leads to secret Iraq detention camp") which reported on a 2003 secret prison and how at least one prisoner, Tanik Mahmud, died while the RAF was transferring him to the secret prison (he was apparently killed on the helicopter ride). Emily Bourke (Australia's ABC) summarizes, "The Guardian report says an SAS team manning a roadblock in Iraq's desert arrested and detained a group of 64 men during a sweep for "high-value" members of Saddam Hussein's regime. The paper says the men were listed as being detained by US personnel because a single American soldier was attached to the SAS unit manning the roadblock."

Dylan Welch (Goondiwindi Argu) observes:

The revelation has led to an Australian human rights organisation investigating such secret prisons to claim that the Australian military might have been complicit in war crimes by handing detainees over to the so-called ''black site'' known as H1.
The revelations - which the Defence Department last night denied, saying it was only ''providing security'' when the detainees were handed over - would be the first time the Australian military has been implicated in the black sites.
Today the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on the VA's fiduciary system. There are veterans who are unable to overseeing or manage their benefits solely by themselves so they might ask that someone be a fiduciary -- thereby putting someone in charge of overseeing the benefits. The veteran might pick someone they know or they might ask the VA to select someone. There are problems with the system currently. The Subcommittee attempted to determine why that was.
The hearing had two panels (and many breaks due to votes on the House floor). The first panel was the VA's Dave McLenachen (with the VA's Diana Rubin), the second panel was composed of Katrina Eagle with the Veterans Law Office of Michael Wildhaber, Veteran Fiduciary Pam Estes, attorney Doug Rosinski with the Law Office of Douglas J. Rosinski, and Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick Weidman. US House Rep Bill Johnson is the Chair of the Subcommittee. And we'll note this exchange.
Chair Bill Johnson: What are the criteria for choosing a fiduciary:
Dave McLenachen: Mr. Chairman, the criteria for choosing a fiduciary is-is controlled by law. Congress required us when looking to see who should be a fiduciary to check a number of things: criminal history, credit and general willingness to act as a fidcuairy for a beneficiary. VA's policy, Mr. Chairman, is to always try to select the least restrictive and most effective payment for a beneficiary. To do that, the first thing that we do is look at who does the beneficiary want us to appoint? That's our first step. If we can qualify that person we will -- we will appoint that person. If that person cannot be qualified, we'll look to the person who has the care and custody of the beneficiary. That may be a family member that lives with the beneficiary and provides care or maybe a guardian? That's who we look to next. The next step is any other family member of person interested in performing these functions for a beneficiary. Only as a last resort, Mr. Chairman, will we look to a paid fiduciary or a court-appointed fiduciary. That is because we're looking for the least restrictive method. And I -- And I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that that is our policy and that Just so there's no misunderstanding, currently only about 8% of the roughtly 120,000 beneficiaries pay a commission for fiduciary services.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, the CFR states that a commission is only given to a beneficiary when it is necessary to obtain his or her services. Further it states that commissions should only be used if the veterans best interests would be served by the appointment of a qualified professional or a qualified person. What does qualified mean to the VA?
Dave McLenachen: To us, Mr. Chairman, qualified -- as I've described -- means that it's a person that has the interest of the beneficiary in mind, is willing to perform the service and meets the qualifications that have been prescribed by Congress for us to implement. That is what the regulations are referring to. So if it's an individual who has a criminal history or that has bad credit history or for some other reason cannot be bonded, that individual will not be appointed as a fiduciary --
Chair Bill Johnson: Are there -- are there any educational or other qualifications required to be classified as a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Not at this time, sir. However, one of the first things that I did when I took this job approximately five months ago was to initiate a complete review of our current regulations which Congressman [Jon] Runyan mentioned during his statement. I think there's a real need to update those regulations. We've reviewed all of those regulations and are currently revising them now. That is one issue that I would like to address in our regulations is whether there should be such requirements for fiduciaries?
Chair Bill Johnson: Would it -- would it surprise you to know that we have sworn testimony that a VA fiduciary stated that she had approximately one semester of community college education while she is the appointed fiduciary for 43 veterans, as a single mother working full time. Is that -- Would that be the VA's acceptable criteria for a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, I can tell you that with our current regulations, there is nothing to prohibit that fiduciary from serving in that role.
Chair Bill Johnson: In your opinion, would that be a qualified fiduciary? If you're a veteran would you want -- is that who you would want to put in charge of your daily care?
Dave McLenachen: It may be, sir. If that's the wishes of the veteran to have that particular --
Chair Bill Johnson: No, not this wasn't the wishes of the veteran. I'm talking about the VA appointing someone who is a qualified person. The veteran has gone to the VA saying I need a fiduciary and you request a fiduciary. Would that be your idea of a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, I would like to strengthen the requirements to be a fudiciary. So in that instance, I think that there should be some more stringent requirements.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. How many fiduciaries have the background checks or certifications waived?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, we just recently issued new guidance that affirms our responsibility to check the background --
Chair Bill Johnson: Does the VA waive fiduciary background checks and certifications?
Dave McLenachen: It's not my knowledge that we do. Uh, the guidance out there now is to check background in every fiduciary --
Chair Bill Johnson: I hope you're going to stay around for all of the testimony today then.
As Johnson noted in the hearing, ten veterans saw their fiduciary walk away with $900,000 of their money. 4% is supposed to be the largest amount the fiduciary can take of the veterans annual benefits. However, the Subcommittee was already aware of fiduciaries taking more than 4%. As the exchange above made clear, there appears to be a lack of serious oversight. The House Veterans Disability Subcommittee has also been examining this issue and a number of them sat in on the hearing. The Ranking Member on that Subcommittee is Jerry Mcnerny and he noted the lack of "oversight and accountability." He noted a 2010 field hearing where family members serving as fiduciaries were actually experiencing more government oversight than were strangers the VA picked to serve as fiduciaries. (One of the most public cases in the news during the current wars was of a family -- parents -- who used their disabled war veteran son's VA benefit checks to buy themselves a new truck, to go gambling and much more. I'm not implying that family members don't need oversight nor was Mcnerny implying that. He was noting that hand picked choices by the veterans, people who had the veterans trust, were getting more oversight than these people who are professional fiduciaries -- meaning they are primarly being fiduciaries for strangers due to the pay.) Mcnerny noted that most fiduciaries are doing an outstanding job. Rubens agreed noting that 90% of the fiduciaries are taking care of only one veteran.
Still on veterans issues, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Commitee and her office notes the following:
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
VETERANS: Senator Murray Participates in Virtual Town Hall Meeting hosted by Disabled American Veterans
Murray fielded questions, concerns, and suggestions from veterans, members of the military, and their family members across the country.
View full transcript of the Disabled American Veterans' Virtual Town Hall HERE.
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, had the opportunity to chat one-on-one with veterans across the country in a Virtual Town Hall Meeting, organized by Disabled American Veterans, a non-profit charity dedicated to building better lives for America's disabled veterans and their families. In the hour-long chat, Senator Murray discussed a wide range of issues including mental health care, VA claims wait times, women veterans, and veteran jobs. Over 3,000 veterans, members of the military and family members participated in the chat. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she heard today to continue to fight for veterans in Washington, D.C.
On this week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey, (airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network), featured an interview with journalist Ralph Poynter, husband of the people's attorney, political prisoner Lynne Stewart. Excerpt.
Glen Ford: On the last day of Feburary, a court will hear the appeal of movement lawyer Lynne Stewart imprisoned for 10 years on charges of supporting terrorism. Stewart was the attorney for Omar Abdul Rahman the so-called "blind Sheikh" charged with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Attorney Stewart is in federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas. She was first sentenced to only two-and-a-half years but then the courts decided to pile on some more years. Her husband and co-activist Ralph Poynter explains.
Ralph Poynter: This is an appeal of the re-sentencing Lynne received. She received a sentence of two-and-a-half years. 28 to 30 months. Then, when she was appealing, when she was free on her appeal, they called her back for a re-sentencing because a government appeal to the 2nd Circuit of a sentence 'too light' was taken up and two of the three judges agreed that the sentence was 'too light.' And besides Lynne Stewart continued "traveling around the country at the law schools and universities corrupting our youth." These are the words of the judges of the 2nd Circuit.
Glen Ford: In other words, her sentence was increased -- five times -- to ten years based upon her speech?
Ralph Poynter: Based upon her speech and they said it: "traveling around the country at law schools and universities corrupting our youth." Now Lynne Stewart said that the treatment of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman was racist and government funded and that there was no terror plot, that the government had done it. And it was all done by an Egyptian double agent, Emad Salem, who was hired by the Egyptian government and the American FBI --or CIA -- and so she had him on the witness stand and she caught him lying 32 times. And it got to the point where he just said, "Well I guess, Miss Stewart, I mis-stated, I lied," and put his head down. The jury heard that and yet they convicted Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman.
Glen Ford: So when Lynne went to these universities and law schools, she was not just exercising her own freedom of speech to say whatever she said, but also she was speaking on behalf of her client as a lawyer?
Ralph Poynter: Yes, the blind Sheikh, on his appeals, and his right for the First Amendment. And she answered all questions and she gave these law students a history lesson on racism in America. And she would use her own experiences -- experiences the people of the sixties, the activists, because remember Lynne Stewart was a teacher and an activist, she was a Christian Dutch Reform and honor student. And when she came to New York City as a 23-year-old who was born not five miles from Harlem, she didn't know it existed. So she said, "This is American miseducation. Not only do they not treat the Black children to read, write and count, they don't teach White children what America is and I'm the example." And you could imagine what effect that had on the students. So no wonder we are where we are: Islamophobia. And then she went into law, what law is about, understanding the Bill of Rights and what a lawyer's job is and how it came to this formulation. And one of the things that Lynne and I have an argument about, she says that with all of the warts and flaws in the new US justice system, she thinks it's the best model. But it will only be that if the lawyers play their proper role of being the person between the government and the accused and explaining that that is what protects all of us -- a vigorous defense by attorneys -- and if one person doesn't have that defense, none of us do.
Glen Ford: So when Lynne is talking to university students and law students about her principles and explaining her actions and what she thinks it means to be a citizen and a lawyer she is then faced with this massive retribution -- an increase of five times her sentence -- and in her appeal she's calling that substantial unreasonableness in terms of legalese.
Ralph Poynter: And this is what the appeal is. Now, before you can appeal your basic sentence, you know, her basic guilt -- she was found guilty in the federal court of terrorism, supporting terrorism, she has to go through the Second Circuit so this is a double. She's opposing the unreasonableness and the unfairness and the illegal upping of her sentence before she can before the Supreme Court on her original trial, the trial of being found guilty of supporting terrorism. Now the question is: How are they going to defend this? My answer to that is: If there were law in the first place, Lynne would never be in jail. And one of the first speeches that she made, they were holding a conference in California on the coming of the police state and Lynne was the speaker and she said, "The coming of the police state? The police state has always been here for certain members of our nation and now it's coming to White people and I'm the evidence." And it was standing ovation. The police state has always been here, the people didn't recognize it because it was against us [persons of color -- Ralph Poynter is African-American].
Glen Ford: And that statement was one of those -- and reports on that statement in the press was one of those factors in the judge multiplying her sentence by five?
Ralph Poynter: You got that 100% right.
Glen Ford: And thus verifying that the police state had arrived.
Ralph Poynter: And as I said to Lynne, you have to understand, we just got out of COINTELPRO, they listened to everything. She felt that one of the most embarrassing things of the left was allowing our defenders of the community to lay in jail all of these years.
Lynne's appeal takes place at the end of this month. She notes:
The same group of 3 Judges that heard and decided the original appeal will also hear the arguments on the 29th. The government is not asking for more time; they are satisfied with their pound of flesh but it is not likely that this Court will take any action that will help me. The times are askew for prisoners and their lawsuits.
The lawyers that argued in July of 2010 will be on board with the addition of Herald Price Fahringer, an eminent attorney in the First Amendment field (the win in the Larry Flynt Hustler case in the US Supreme Court was his. He was also in the line of fire (no injuries) when the shooting took place.) He will enthusiastically present our case. I will not be present -- not unusual once imprisoned. But my spirit will be there to inspire !!!
Of course, my case has always been government firing warning shots to Lawyers, that a vigorous defense, of certain clients, if not conforming to government specifications, will be punished severely . This chill effect in these days that we are confronted with Grand Jury investigations and dismantling of Occupations is not something we should contemplate with anything less than alarm. I have just finished David Gilbert's book (Love Struggle) and the intercession of lawyers when there are arrests of designated enemies of the "state" are the only meaningful protection available.
A Large Outpouring of Support in Foley Square and Tom Paine Park and in the Courtroom will signal to these arbiters of "Justice" that attention must be paid, the 99% are watching them with suspicion and tallying up the roads not taken.