Attack on the First Amendment

Ampersand

New member
Thought folks here might be interested...

Federal magistrate imposes severe restrictions on supporters of US political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal

By Joseph Tanniru
14 June 2000

A federal magistrate has imposed severe restrictions on several prominent organizers of the campaign to defend US political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal because they allegedly refused to obey a policeman's order during a civil disobedience protest last July in Philadelphia. The eight individuals-including Clark Kissinger of Refuse and Resist; Frances Goldin, Mumia's literary agent; and Mark Taylor, Chair of Academics for Mumia-were placed on one-year probation, during which time their contact with Mumia and their activity in the campaign will be legally restricted.

The sentences, handed out on April 23, are a gross violation of democratic rights and a political attack aimed at undermining the campaign for the freedom of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Mumia, who has spent the last 18 years on Pennsylvania's death row after being framed up for the murder of a Philadelphia policeman, is an internationally known opponent of the death penalty, racism and the US justice system.

The eight individuals were arrested, along with 87 others, during a July 3, 1999 rally at the historic Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. They were arrested after allegedly refusing to move when Park Rangers ordered them to do so. Those arrested were charged with "failing to obey a lawful order," a petty offense equivalent to a traffic ticket. While most of those arrested pled guilty to the offense and paid a $250 fine, the eight pled not guilty and requested a trial. Federal magistrate Arnold Rapoport ordered the eight defendants to serve a one-year probation sentence in addition to paying the fine-an extraordinary punishment for an infraction not even considered a misdemeanor.

The probation terms consist of an assortment of draconian restrictions and requirements, directly aimed at limiting the political activity of those sentenced. This includes a prohibition against associating with felons, including Mumia, and a requirement that the eight hold a regular job, meaning they cannot work as full-time volunteers for the Mumia campaign. In addition, they are prohibited from leaving the federal court district in which they reside without the permission of a probation officer, and must submit a list of all organizations to which they belong, as well as a detailed list of their financial records. Moreover, they must inform authorities of all individuals with a criminal record that they contact, must surrender their passports and will be visited regularly in their homes by probation officers.

From the beginning, those who pled not guilty were targeted for severe sentences. Goldin writes that "from the start, the prosecutor told one of our lawyers that he was going to make life so difficult for us, we'd have wished we'd pled guilty."

Rich Goldberg, a senior staff member of the US Attorney's Office, prosecuted all the defendants. Normally, Goldberg would never prosecute such a low-level case. Andrew Erba, the defense lawyer who has filed appeals on behalf of several of the defendants, stated, "Somewhere there was a policy decision to make this high priority." The sentence couldn't have been more severe, Erba said. "[Rapoport] would never have done it on his own. The only reason the probation was advanced was because the US Attorney's Office pushed it."

The prosecution's rationale for seeking the stiff probation sentence was that the defendants did not acknowledge the criminal character of their actions, and did not renounce engaging in similar activity in the future. "At sentencing," reasoned Goldberg, "they told the court they had not committed crimes, that they would not be deterred from doing what was right." The court, he said, declared that they must therefore be watched, and prevented from committing future "crimes."

At the trial Goldin, Kissinger and Taylor stated that they were never ordered to move and thus could not have disobeyed any such order. Indeed there were a number of problems with the prosecution's case, including false identifications on the part of prosecution witnesses. By the government's own account, the activity of those given the parole sentences was less disruptive than many of those who received only the fine.

More importantly, however, the defendants argued that their refusal to acknowledge they had committed a crime in Philadelphia was not a brief for disobeying orders, but simply an assertion of their legal rights to campaign on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

The federal magistrate's ruling essentially criminalizes much of the political activity carried out by the defendants. The sentence, though it is currently being appealed, has already prohibited Kissinger from speaking at Mumia rallies held outside of the New York City district in which he lives. The clause prohibiting contact with felons will especially disrupt the activity of Frances Goldin, who has been in close contact with Mumia and has written a great deal on his trial.

Shortly after the sentencing, Kissinger's wife received two federal subpoenas demanding that she turn over all her financial records for the last 10 years, including joint records with Clark Kissinger. She has also been ordered to testify before a federal grand jury, supposedly because of an investigation of her former employer. However, she worked for the individual under investigation for only two years, and no other employees have been subpoenaed. This action, in conjunction with the sentencing of Clark Kissinger, hardly seems coincidental. Kissinger has stated that it is an attempt to use "every legal mechanism to bring pressure on a key leader in the Mumia movement and find out everything about his finances and personal activity."

The federal magistrate's ruling is the latest in a series of efforts by the authorities, the media and police organizations to intimidate and silence supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal. In January 1999 New Jersey Governor Whitman led a witch-hunt against a benefit concert for Mumia in East Rutherford. Two months later Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell attempted to restrict to 500 the number of participants at an April 1999 pro-Mumia march and prevent supporters from publicizing the protest the night before in many downtown areas. In June 1999 House majority whip Tom Delay, the right-wing Texas Republican, sought to prevent officials at Evergreen State College in Washington state from playing a taped address by Mumia to graduating students. A similar effort was made by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and the Fraternal Order of Police two months ago at Antioch College in Ohio.

These efforts underscore the connection between the political vendetta against Mumia Abu-Jamal and the ongoing attack on democratic rights in the US.
 
Sounds like this garbage came from mother jones or pravda. That self confessed cop killer should have been executed many years ago instead of being deified!

Should his ignorant followers be denied first amnendment rights? NO! Should they be allowed to protest as long as they obey all laws? Yes

ordo
 
Yes, my fellow TFLers. I see the light!

We, the law-abiding, we need to change!
We need to give up some our freedoms for fairness and safety!
We need to be more understanding of cop-killers and their supporters!
 
Whether or not you think Mumia was framed, surely no one here thinks that those who support him should be silenced.

If you do, well...
 
Oh, so he's a political prisoner now... Sure, and I'm the Easter Bunny. :mad:

This guy is a murderer. He was tried. He was convicted. He is awaiting execution.

Nothing political about it as far as I can tell, but then again, I am feeling dizzy from all the *spin* on that farce of a story.


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
No, of cource not silenced, as such no...But silencers might be a good idea.

Ah-ha-ha! I am so funny that I laugh sometimes! Really, I do!
 
Sounds to me like they had their day in court. They were represented by an attorney and the case was heard by 12 jurors who heard and evaluated the evidence as well as a magistrate. I didn't hear any of the evidence and have not read anything I consider authoritative and unless one has it really difficult to respond. At any rate they have the right to appeal.
 
I'm with Coinneach and Ordo on this one. Regulating the size of the crowd protesting?

I also have a problem with receiving a heftier sentence if you decide to plead not guilty. It happens so often. A lot of times, people plead guilty to something that they aren't guilty of, purely because the cost and hassle of fighting it is more than they can handle.
 
WAIT A MINUTE! The protesters and supporters of the convicted murderer aren't convicted murderers themselves!

They have a right to be stoopid. They have a right to be wrong. They have a right to an opinion. They shouldn't have their First Amendment rights limited or removed because they are wrong.

The guilt or innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal is one discussion. The right of his supporters to show their a$$es in public is another issue. They have that right as long as it doesn't limit ours.

As far as "lawful orders" go, ... don't get me started.
 
sensop,
You're obviously correct. No one here has said otherwise.
We're simply reacting to the story's slant and tone. Posting it here on TFL is almost trolling.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roybean:
Sounds to me like they had their day in court. They were represented by an attorney and the case was heard by 12 jurors who heard and evaluated the evidence as well as a magistrate. [/quote]

Negative a Magistrates hearing does not have a jury present. They should have held out for a hearing in front of the district judge and a jury. I know most of the cases I make end up in front of a federal a mgistrate

It sounds like a case of the liberals eating their young or own to me. They have the right to protest, they even have the right to practice civil disobedence, but they must realize they do the civil disobedence thing they are gonna get burned.
I don't like it, they should be able to protest as long as no personal or property damage is done but it also sounds like they had lousy representation. Hey I don't like lawyers but when I need one I want the best shyster I can get.
 
Komerade Ampersoff,

You live on a commune. You disdain Libertarians. You think Capitalism is not a good idea.

You are our the official TFL Troll. Congratulations!

This will all be short-lived when your neo-socialist counterparts start regulating the internet. All for safety you know.

Your fellow Eneadians would likely enjoy the UK better than the US. Less of that selfish freedom. More access to the dole. And Mi5 will ensure your e-mail and internet transactions are fair and safe.
Oh, yes! And the cameras! Thousands of police cameras keep a compassionate eye on all goings on in the UK.

Your views are even more popular there. You'd find many more people willing to join your collective. You could all sit around, watch StarTrek and eat wild rice on your futon! Have a big brainstorming session on how to get rid of us evil anti-progressives.
I'll buy you the ticket.

Everyone go take a look at his website. Very cute! Find it in his profile.

[This message has been edited by Shin-Tao (edited June 18, 2000).]
 
LOL!

By a curious coincidence, Comrade Shin-Tao, one of my fellow communemates (someone who more-or-less founded the commune, actually) just got back from hiking across Britain. :) I'm more of a beef-and-potatoes than wild rice type myself, and the very mention of the word "futon" gives me lower back pains. :)

Anyhow, I don't think of myself as a troll, because when I post I'm sincere and I try to avoid personal insults. My thought in posting this thread was that I've enjoyed some of the similar threads which Firing Line folks have started on the Ms. Magazine bulliten boards... injustices that I find interesting, but which I wouldn't normally hear about because the stories don't reach left-wing information networks. I knew that many TFL regulars strongly support first amendment rights, and I also knew that a court order against Mumia supporters isn't a story that most folks here would come across in their usual activist networks.

It's not really on-topic in this thread, but I happen to think that capitalism is a great idea. No mechanism can distribute goods to consumers more efficiently than the workings of a market. But just as I think pure socialism is a bad idea, I think pure capitalism is a bad idea. Each of them needs to be moderated by the other.

Roybean and WGB38, the issue isn't that they were found guilty... that's a risk every protestor takes, and many activists I know are quite willing to deal with fines and jail time. You do the crime, you pay the time (or fine). But bizarre punishments intended to silence political speech are unfair and profoundly un-American, in my view.

As for Mumia's guilt or innocence, I agree with Sensop: that's not relevant to the first amendment issue here.

--Amp

[This message has been edited by Ampersand (edited June 18, 2000).]
 
The First and Fourth Amendments are God to Liberals -- until they protect someone with whom they disagree. Then the First and Fourth Amendments are ignored.

Perfect example: Chapter 180 of the Laws of 1998, Massachusetts. This set of laws -- the most repressive gun-grabber laws in the US
-- deprives gun owners of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. You heard me correctly. If you, as a licensed gun owner, join a protest at the State House to, say, protest the gun-grabber laws, and are arrested for "disturbing the peace" (you yell too loudly) -- you automatically lose your gun license for LIFE. And no appeal. Neat, huh? If you are turned-down for a gun permit by your local chief of police, the law says no appeal to anyone, period. Ever hear of another law in the US which cannot be appealed? If you are simply _accused_ of any domestic abuse -- just accused by, say, a pissed-off spouse who wants to hurt you -- you automatically lose your license AND have all your firearms confiscated by the police and -- ready? -- melted down.

Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that these provisions of 180 are just fine.

So, the next time a Liberal whines about the Bill of Rights, ask them to defend what's happening here in the PRM. That should shut them up, big time.

And to any Liberal lawyers skulking here in this forum -- how does it feel to be professional, dishonest, oath-breaking pitiful excuses for human beings?
 
I think that all should read, and CAREFULLY CONSIDER, the following. Matter of fact, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VERY, VERY CAREFULLY, re the actions of "the feds", in this matter.sensop
Senior Member posted June 17, 2000 10:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIT A MINUTE! The protesters and supporters of the convicted murderer aren't convicted murderers themselves!
They have a right to be stoopid. They have a right to be wrong. They have a right to an opinion. They shouldn't have their First Amendment rights limited or removed because they are wrong.

The guilt or innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal is one discussion. The right of his supporters to show their a$$es in public is another issue. They have that right as long as it doesn't limit ours.

As far as "lawful orders" go, ... don't get me started.
 
Shin Tao --

I'm not a big Star Trek fan myself, but I've watched it and we do discuss it now and then. So you've got me there. :) To tell you the truth, I'm more of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan.

And I'd never plot to get rid of you evil anti-progressives! Who would I debate with if y'all weren't around?

Woodit, going from your description of the law in question, I'm against it - that goes too far. And I've supported the first amendment rights of many people I disagree with.

...how does it feel to be professional, dishonest, oath-breaking pitiful excuses for human beings?

It feels like being a baseball umpire, except without the union.

--Amp
 
It is strange how your set acquired the moniker of "Progressives" when, through your growing regulation and taxation, inovation is hampered.

De-regulating technologists like myself are more progressive in practice.
 
Back
Top