Criminal Justice – Page 2

May 20, 2016May 20, 2016

Rep Dan Reilly’s benefited from his father’s shell corporation

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Representative Daniel Reilly has not listed contributions from his father on his campaign finance reports, contributions the US Department of Justice found while prosecuting his father for tax evasion in Florida.

Reilly, a Republican from District 72 serving portions of Middletown and Portsmouth, has reportedly received money for both his schooling and his political campaigns from his father’s “law firm and shell corporation” that the elder Reilly is alleged to have used to illegally evade paying taxes.

His father, William J. Reilly, pled guilty to tax evasion and was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in federal prison and ordered to “pay more than $1.9 million in restitution.” Channel 12’s Tim White noted that William Reilly is “at the top of Rhode Island’s tax delinquent list.”

The US Department of Justice reports that from 2005 through 2010, William Reilly,

…used bank accounts for his law firm and the shell corporation to receive personal income, transfer funds into his personal accounts, and pay personal expenses directly, including his Visa credit card account, his children’s private school and college tuition, support his daughter’s equestrian business, make vehicle and mortgage payments, contribute to his son’s political campaign, and purchase more than $50,000 in tickets for sporting events and concerts.

You can read William Reilly’s plea agreement here.

The only contribution Daniel Reilly reported receiving from his father was a $500 in-kind contribution noted as “use of a recreational vehicle.” This was not a cash contribution. You can access all of Rep Reilly’s campaign contributions here.

Reilly responded in an email that, “My father never contributed any money to my campaigns and only rented an RV during my 2008 campaign for us to campaign in. I recorded that as an in-kind contribution for the amount that it was valued. I believe that was what was referred to in the press release. It was a ‘contribution’ in the sense that it is in-kind and was recorded as such, but not a cash contribution and I never received any from him.”

Daniel Reilly served two terms as District 72’s representative before being unseated by Linda Finn in 2012. He regained his seat in 2014 and Finn is challenging him again in 2016.

RI Future has reached out to House Spokesperson Larry Berman and Rep Daniel Reilly for comment. We will update.

Thank you to Paula McMahon at the Sun Sentinel for her reporting on this story.

April 28, 2016

Woonsocket police sued for unlawful arrest and detention of deaf person

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the R.I. Disability Law Center have today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a profoundly deaf person who was arrested and detained overnight in jail by Woonsocket police for allegedly making an obscene gesture, and who was never provided an interpreter to allow him to communicate with the police during his detention. The case raises important issues regarding municipal agency obligations to accommodate residents who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The lawsuit argues that city officials violated plaintiff David Alves’s “statutory and constitutional rights by unlawfully arresting and detaining him, charging him with violating an unconstitutional City criminal ordinance, subjecting him to discrimination on account of his disability, and failing to accommodate his disability.”

The arrest took place late one night last July, when Alves and some friends were at the City Side Club in Woonsocket to celebrate a friend’s birthday. After a verbal altercation between the bouncer and members of the group, police were called. On his way out of the bar, Alves gestured toward the bouncer with the American Sign Language sign for “b*llsh*t,” which police who had arrived at the scene interpreted as giving them the middle finger. Immediately after making the gesture, Alves was arrested by the police for violating a city ordinance banning “obscene language or mak[ing] an obscene gesture.”

While being booked and held at the station overnight, Alves’s requests for a sign language interpreter were ignored. When a deaf friend came to the station to check up on him, a police officer handed the friend a note saying that Alves would “be out in the morning no problem . . . These things happen, he just needs to take it as a learning experience.” In the morning, he was released from custody and issued a summons to appear at court on the ordinance violation. A few months later, a Municipal Court judge dismissed the criminal charge.

Today’s lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorneys V. Edward Formisano, Michael Pushee and Alyse Galoski, and RI Disability Law Center attorney Katherine Bowden, raises a host of constitutional and statutory claims, including that:

The City’s “obscene gesture” ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague in violation of the First Amendment
The arrest and overnight detention of Alves without cause violated his rights to due process of law and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and
The police officers’ failure to procure an interpreter or provide other means to effectively communicate with Alves violated a number of federal and state laws barring discrimination by municipal agencies on the basis of disability.

Among other remedies sought, the lawsuit asks the court to rule the “obscene gesture” ordinance unconstitutional, declare Alves’ arrest and detention unlawful, order the City to implement policies to prohibit future discrimination against deaf or hard of hearing individuals, and award Alves unspecified monetary damages for violating his rights.

Below are quotes from the participants in today’s lawsuit:

Plaintiff David Alves: “I need to fight this case so that other people don’t have to go through the same thing I went through. Deaf and hard of hearing people deserve the same dignity anyone else deserves. If they violate my civil rights, then they might feel they can violate other people’s civil rights. I want to do what I can to prevent that.”

ACLU of RI attorney V. Edward Formisano: “Mr. Alves was unlawfully arrested and detained under an unconstitutional law. To add insult to injury, he was not provided with the accommodations he needed for his obvious disability. We are confident that a court will vindicate the rights that were so unfairly denied Mr. Alves.”

RIDLC attorney Katherine Bowden: “Municipal compliance with federal and state laws prohibiting disability discrimination is mandatory, not optional. People who are deaf and hard of hearing have a right to equal access to city services, including the right to effective communication with the police and other city officials.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown: “In this country, people cannot be locked up simply in order to give them a ‘learning experience.’ We are hopeful this lawsuit will send a clear message to all law enforcement agencies that there are basic constitutional limits on the use of their formidable police powers, and that they cannot ignore their obligations under anti-discrimination laws to treat people with disabilities fairly.”

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

April 22, 2016

Former prison administrator supports changes to solitary confinement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Following President Obama’s executive order limiting solitary confinement in the federal prison system, this disciplinary method has begun receiving greater scrutiny across our country. In the past few months I have heard a range of voices – nationally and locally, from mental health professionals to formerly incarcerated Rhode Islanders – speak out about this practice. As someone who spent over three decades working at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, I would like to add my perspective.

I retired in July 2012 after 33 years with RIDOC. After holding several administrative roles, I became the Warden of the Women’s Facilities in 1991. After ten years in that position, I was promoted to Assistant Director of RehabiIitative Services, one of three members of Director Wall’s leadership team, where I served for eleven more years. I worked very closely with Director Wall and have great admiration for him. He is one of the most well respected Corrections Directors in the country and is responsible for bringing the Department into compliance with many of the highest standards in the field. Over the course of my career I also supervised Officers and professional staff. I knew many of them and can speak to the professionalism and responsible behavior of the great majority of them.

That said, from my firsthand experience within the corrections system, I strongly support legislation introduced by Representative Aaron Regunberg and Senator Harold Metts to guarantee commonsense protections against the inappropriate use of prolonged solitary confinement. I believe the reasonable reforms they propose are important not only from a humane perspective, for I have seen how segregation harms individuals and their families, but also from a public safely perspective. Too often, inmates come out of Isolation angrier and more dangerous than they were before. Some, unfortunately, are released directly to the community from Segregation when their sentence ends. If we have not done all we can to change that person’s behavior, he or she will continue to be a threat to us upon their return.

I have observed and talked with many inmates who had been locked in Isolation for extended periods of time, and over the years it became painfully clear to me that inmates subjected to long term isolation often suffer irreparable harm. My observations have been confirmed by a growing body of research indicating that periods of longer than 15 days in Isolation results in serious mental health damage.

The ability to isolate people from general population is an important tool for institutional management. This legislation does not eliminate the use of Isolation. It only sets reasonable time limits and basic humanitarian baselines, while requiring adequate treatment and programming.

Viable alternatives to Isolation exist for most offenders. Therapeutic communities, nonviolence training, and behavioral training are examples of approaches used in some prisons including the ACI. Unfortunately, in Rhode Island rehabilitation receives only 15% of the budget. It is impossible to provide these programs to most of the inmates who could benefit from them. Every inmate in Isolation would benefit from the introduction of therapeutic programming and nonviolence training.

Isolation should be utilized only for as long as necessary to protect staff and inmates from physical harm. It loses its meaning and becomes tragic when it is extended beyond reasonable periods of time. And it is especially painful to vulnerable people, the mentally ill, emotionally unstable and many female offenders who have been deeply affected by isolation. Think about yourself in that situation – being isolated from human contact for months at a time would affect any of us.

The legislation before the General Assembly presents a real opportunity to begin to reshape a system that as it exists today, fails to truly accomplish its mission. As someone who helped lead this system for decades, I don’t say this lightly. I feel proud of the accomplishments we achieved over the years. But I feel compelled to speak now, and I hope our state will do the right thing, and the smart thing, by reforming a practice which has so much potential to damage our fellow Rhode Islanders and our community as a whole.

April 19, 2016April 19, 2016

The media’s role in criminalizing poverty

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“Panhandling is common in Kennedy Plaza,” said a reporter at a Jorge Elorza press conference yesterday, “is that going to be addressed in addition to the drug dealing?”

Providence Commissioner of Public Safety Steven Paré was standing behind a podium, having just announced the results of a months long effort to arrest drug dealers in and around Kennedy Plaza downtown. The drug dealers were selling prescription drugs, like Oxycontin, as well as cocaine. Police were particularly concerned because Kennedy Plaza is a spot where hundreds of schoolchildren transfer buses every day.

The question, from a female reporter, was off subject, and suffused with ugly assumptions about the homeless, equating being poor and asking for help with selling drugs to children.

To his credit, Paré was unequivocal in defending the rights of panhandlers to ask for money. “Panhandling is legal, so, by standing in an open space and asking for a donation… is legal and we will not be doing anything because it’s been deemed a constitutional, legal right. Panhandling has nothing to do with [the drug dealing arrests]. This is illegal behavior, the selling of drugs. Any other illegal behavior will not be tolerated as well. We will focus on that kind of activity that is illegal and makes people feel unsafe.”

So one reporter went off on a tangent and Paré shut it down. End of story, right?

Nope.

“Some would argue that [panhandling] is also a safety issue,” countered a second reporter.

Paré reiterated that panhandling is a constitutional right, decided by the Supreme Court. It is not an illegal activity, it is a protected, First Amendment right. Blocking people and demanding money is not panhandling, said Paré. Such behavior is a crime, but standing or sitting and asking for money is not illegal.

That should settle it then, right? This is, after all, a press conference abut the arrests of 14 drug dealers…

Nope.

A third reporter now asks about a meeting Paré had with various groups in Providence about the court decision that upheld panhandling as a constitutionally protected right.

“What was the outcome of that meeting?” asks the third reporter.

Paré explained that the meeting was called to discuss the ruling and to deal with safety issues around Kennedy Plaza. “Panhandling is something completely different than what we’re talking about,”said Paré for a third time. Drug dealing, he said, “is criminal behavior.”

So what happened?

Three reporters at this press conference worked very hard to equate being poor with being a criminal. To his credit, Paré did not take their bait, but this line of inquiry from the press does raise serious questions about the media’s complicity in promulgating stereotypes about homelessness and the criminalization of poverty.

Barbara Kalil, a homeless advocate who works downtown, told me after the press conference that she was happy to have Paré on video so strongly advocating for the rights of the homeless. The arrests downtown were of drug dealers, and the homeless community was not involved, she said. In fact, until this press conference, she was unaware of these arrests.

Note: Because of the noise on the street and the fact that my camera was on Paré and not on the reporters, I had to amplify the sound artificially when the first two reporters spoke. The third reporter was right next to me.

April 11, 2016

ACLU ‘disappointed’ with Caleb Chafee records request ruling

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled today that Providence Journal reporter Amanda Milkovits “would not be granted access to public records the Rhode Island State Police made concerning an investigation of an underage drinking incident at property owned by then-Governor Lincoln Chafee that involved the governor’s son, Caleb,” reported Bill Thompson at Channel 12.

In response to this ruling, the ACLU of Rhode Island issued the following statement regarding The Providence Journal Company et al. v. The RI Dept. of Public Safety:

The ACLU is very disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Caleb Chafee case. We believe it fails to give sufficient weight to the important public interest in monitoring police investigations of high-profile cases.

“In denying the Providence Journal access to any of the requested documents, the Court inexplicably points to the large number of records that were withheld as proof that ‘a thorough investigation was performed.’ But without being able to examine the documents, it is impossible to determine a key fact behind the records request — whether the public outcome of the investigation properly reflects what the undisclosed investigation actually uncovered.

“For decades, the ACLU has strongly supported both the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know. In this instance, we believe the Court tipped the scales the wrong way. Instead, the decision highlights the need for a stronger open records law in order to allow the public more critical oversight of the state’s law enforcement agencies.”

April 4, 2016April 5, 2016

The experience of solitary confinement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The United Nations has called solitary confinement torture. President Obama recently condemned its use. In New York, a judge just resolved a class-action lawsuit by ensuring that there are legal limits on the amount of time a prisoner can be kept alone in a cell.

In Rhode Island, we call solitary confinement “segregated” confinement.

But what is solitary confinement, really? Can any of us who have not experienced it truly understand it?

Last Thursday the Senate Judiciary heard hours of testimony on solitary confinement in Rhode Island. Most of the time was taken up by prison officials and others explaining the present policy of “segregated” confinement to the Senators on the committee. But the most emotional, moving and disturbing testimony came from former inmates, people who have endured solitary confinement and who are still haunted by the experience.

Jessica Gonzalez was the first juvenile ever sentenced as an adult in Rhode Island. At the age of 14 she was sent to the ACI. Her story should not only make us question solitary confinement, it should make us rethink the entire way we deal with juvenile defendants.

John Prince, who I write about often because of his work with DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality), spent decades in prison. He speaks here about his experiences with solitary confinement.

JoseDavi Lamoso is an organizer with Black and Pink, one of the groups pushing for these legislative reforms. While serving his sentence in prison Lamoso was held in solitary “several times.” Lamoso bluntly states that “solitary confinement is torture.”

Osiris spent ten days naked and alone in a cold room with no mattress or toilet paper. This stint of solitary confinement was the worst thing to happen to him in his eleven and a half years in prison.

The General Assembly is considering bills that would curtail the use of solitary confinement in the Rhode Island prison system. Last Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senator Harold Metts‘ bill that would prohibit the use of solitary confinement for specific vulnerable populations (juveniles, elderly and the mentally ill), ensure that conditions in segregation are humane, and limit the use of solitary confinement for all inmates to 15 consecutive days, and no more than 20 days within any 60 day period. The videos above are all from that hearing.

A companion bill, submitted by Representative Aaron Regunberg, will be heard in House Judiciary this Wednesday, room 201, at 4:45pm.

March 29, 2016

Elorza storms past two protests outside his own fundraiser

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza tore past the twin protests taking place outside his exclusive fundraiser taking place at the Rooftop at the Providence G. On one side were members of Providence Fire Fighters IAFF Local 799, who are in the midst of difficult negotiations regarding overtime and staffing. On the other side were members of the STEP-UP Network, a coalition of community groups eager to pass the Community Safety Act (CSA), which candidate Elorza pledged to support in October, 2104.

Since his election, Elorza has avoided any substantive meetings with any groups about the CSA, and has not supported the bill’s passage as he promised. This protest was, in the words of the STEP-UP Network, “to denounce the fundraiser for Mayor Jorge Elorza’s campaign as he has neglected and in some cases, refused to meet with groups representing low-income people of color on issues such as public safety, housing, and jobs.”

As a result of Elorza’s broken campaign promises and disinterest in meeting with community groups, the STEP-UP Network asks that instead of donating to Mayor Elorza’s campaign, funds be directed “to local organizations whose work directly impacts those affected by police violence, housing instability, and unemployment.”

Vanessa Flores-Maldonado, a PrYSM organizer, introduced three speakers outside, before the Mayor’s arrival.

Malchus Mills, volunteer for DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality), said in a statement, “A fundraiser for a mayor who refuses to meet with his constituents is absurd. We have been asking for a meeting for over a year now, but instead we keep getting passed off to police administrators. We still have not met with Mayor Elorza since the start of his administration, yet he falsely claims to have met with us on numerous occasions.”

Mike Araujo, Executive Director of Rhode Island Jobs with Justice, stated: “Not only have we been passed off to police administrators, but we have been given offers of only 15 to 30-minute-long meetings with the Mayor. How are we supposed to talk about the safety of an entire city in just 15 to 30 minutes?”

Jorrell Kaykay, volunteer at the Providence Youth Student Movement (PrYSM), stated: “Last time we publicly asked Mayor Elorza about his changing stance on the CSA, he got this bill confused for a statewide bill. Clearly, Mayor Elorza is not paying attention to the issues that are affecting the community he serves especially when he keeps denying to adequately meet with said community. Whose mayor is he really?”

Kaykay spoke in reference to an East Side community forum that took place in November 2015 in which protestors had shown up as it was the second forum held in a neighborhood where crime rates were actually falling. When questioned about his stance on the CSA, Mayor Elorza responded on a different bill that had recently been passed in the General Assembly. I covered that event here.

The STEP UP Network includes the Providence Youth Student Movement, Direct Action for Rights and Equality, the American Friends Service Committee, and the Olneyville Neighborhood Association.

March 23, 2016

Millennial-based orgs praise RI Senate leaders for supporting proposal to regulate and tax marijuana

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Some of the state’s most prominent millennial-based civic engagement organizations are praising state Senate leaders for supporting legislation that would end marijuana prohibition in Rhode Island and replace it with a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed similarly to alcohol.

In a letter to Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio and other members of the Senate on Tuesday, leaders of the Young Democrats of Rhode Island and Students for Sensible Drug Policy thanked the senators for backing S 2420 because it would “improve Rhode Island’s ability to protect students, retain graduates, attract young professionals and create opportunities for a new generation of entrepreneurs.” The full letter is available below.

S 2420 would make possession of limited amounts of marijuana legal for adults 21 years of age and older, and it would establish a tightly controlled system of licensed marijuana cultivation sites, testing facilities, and retail stores.

“It’s a sensible proposal that is long overdue, and we are proud to stand with you in support of it,” the letter reads. “The time has come for Rhode Island to move forward and leave the antiquated policy of marijuana prohibition behind.”

A poll conducted in April of 2015 found that nearly three out of four voters aged 18 to 34 support regulating and taxing marijuana similarly to alcohol. The full results of the poll can be found here.

Full letter from Rhode Island youth leaders to ranking members of the Rhode Island Senate:

Dear Honorable Members of the Rhode Island Senate,

We are writing on behalf of our organizations and their many members across Rhode Island to express our gratitude for your support of S 2420, the Marijuana, Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act.

The Young Democrats of Rhode Island and Students for Sensible Drug Policy represent a diverse group of young, civically engaged Rhode Islanders who share a commitment to promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of our communities. We strongly support S 2420 because it would dramatically enhance Rhode Island’s ability to protect teens, retain graduates, attract young professionals, and create opportunities for a new generation of entrepreneurs.

Our state’s current policy of marijuana prohibition has caused far more problems than it has solved. It has failed to prevent teens from accessing marijuana. It has disproportionately impacted lower-income communities and communities of color. And rather than eliminating the supply of marijuana, prohibition has forced it into an underground market in which consumers aren’t asked for ID, they don’t know what they’re getting, and they’re often exposed to other, more harmful substances.

S 2420 would replace our state’s underground marijuana economy with a regulated market for adults. Marijuana would be sold by licensed businesses that test their products, label them, and only sell them to adults who provide proof of age. These companies would also create good jobs for Rhode Islanders and generate tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue to fund vital state programs and services.

It is a sensible proposal that is long overdue, and we are proud to stand with you in support of it. The time has come for Rhode Island to move forward and leave the antiquated policy of marijuana prohibition behind.

Sincerely,

Michael Beauregard
Young Democrats of Rhode Island

Shmuel Barkan
Brown University Students for Sensible Drug Policy

Patrick Shea
University of Rhode Island Students for Sensible Drug Policy

March 22, 2016March 22, 2016

RI profits from Greek tragedy

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

2016-03-22 Goldman Sachs 004 — Jack Reed and Gary Cohn

In 2009 a change in government forced Greece to admit the truth about its troubled economy: Greece had joined the European Union under false pretenses. It’s economic condition was artificially made to look better than it was due to help from the American investment house Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs had helped Greece to hide hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, and in the process netted itself a “premium fee” of $300 million. “The deal also made up 12 percent of Goldman’s $6.35 billion in trading and investment revenue for 2001,” writes Garry Levine for Al Jazeera.

In 2005 Goldman Sachs intervened in a Greek economic crisis a second time, restructuring the original bad deal by increasing debt, stretching out payments, and increasing Goldman’s cut to “something like $500 million.”

2016-03-22 Goldman Sachs 014 — Gina Raimondo

Now in 2009 the new government in Greece was facing yet another crisis, and a team from Goldman Sachs, lead by Gary Cohn, now Chief Operation Officer for Goldman Sachs, flew in to offer yet another restructuring.

“Cohn offered to finance the country’s health care system debt, pushing it far into the future,” writes Levine, “After all, argued Goldman’s team, it had worked before.”

Levine goes on to write, “The Wall Street house not only earned large transaction fees and rights to future Greek revenue, it also hedged its investments, essentially placing a bet on the economy of Greece to fail. Looking at the deals in the rearview mirror, analysts said Goldman’s exposure on Greece was, for all intents and purposes, zero.”

Greece turned down Cohn’s offer, and was forced to accept decades of grueling austerity to work its way out from under mountains of debt. A Greek generation or two will be lost, even as political fascism predictably rises in response to economic privation. Preventable political disaster looms, because Goldman Sachs wanted more money.

Now, in an East Side bike shop with Governor Gina Raimondo, Senator Jack Reed, Mayors Elorza, Diossa, Grebien, Badelli-Hunt and more press than I’ve seen gathered in weeks, Gary Cohn was offering the state $10 million in small business training and funding, and everyone seemed to think this was a great idea.

I couldn’t have been the only person who thought there was irony in Cohn’s statement that, “We at Goldman Sachs… like to be accountable for what we do.”

Goldman Sachs is giving away free money, perhaps to salve their consciences or to buy some positive press after nearly destroying the world economy, or perhaps to inspire a new generation of rich suckers to fleece in the next market bubble. It doesn’t really matter why they are doing it.

When Rhode Island takes the money, they should know that the money comes, in part, at the expense of the Greek people, who suffer because a vampire-like Wall St. bank has consigned the country to half a century of brutal, soul-destroying austerity.

As Levine says so eloquently in his Al Jazeera piece, “The consequences are born by ordinary Greek people that now find themselves in the the economic equivalent of debtors’ prison.”

We should understand the moral consequences of accepting money stained with the blood, sweat and tears of a nation’s future.

2016-03-22 Goldman Sachs 003 — Matt Bodziony, President of NBX Bikes

2016-03-22 Goldman Sachs 007 — Elorza, Reed and Cohn

March 21, 2016March 22, 2016

Pilot program for PPD body cams underway

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Providence Police Department is in the process of finalizing their implementation of a Body Worn Camera (BWC) Pilot Program and working to establish procedures and regulations pertaining to it.

A draft of the proposal has been obtained by RI Future. Because it is a draft and not covered by the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), Evan England, Mayor Elorza’s communications director, was unable to verify its authenticity. RI Future has independently confirmed that the draft proposal is the one currently under review.

The pilot program was presented at a meeting held Friday afternoon. Public Safety Commissioner Stephen Paré and Chief Hugh Clements were in attendance, as well as representatives from the City solicitor’s office and several community groups, including the ACLU and the NAACP. Those who attended the meeting were given a week to submit potential revisions to the draft regulations.

Two companies are providing free trials of their body cameras, Taser and Vievu. The timeline is vague, and has not been confirmed by the mayor’s office, but the PPD will have 5 weeks to test each company’s equipment. Once the equipment has been tested, the city will apply for a Federal grant to help pay for the cameras. England was able to say that he knows there are no planned announcements on body cameras over the next few weeks but at the meeting it was suggested that the program could potentially be unveiled as soon as early May.

It is unknown how much public input will be allowed into this process.

This story is developing and there will be more on this as we get it.

Some specifics in the BWC proposal

According to the draft proposal, which may be amended at any time, “It is the policy of the Providence Police Department to utilize body-worn camera equipment to record and document specific categories of law enforcement interactions with the public, and to institute parameters governing the viewing, storage and dissemination of the associated audiovisual recordings,” according to the draft policy.

Under the BWC Pilot Program the department is issuing BWCs to selected uniformed and investigative officers. “The BWC Pilot Program will be examined to determine whether or not BWCs contribute to officer safety, provide evidence for criminal prosecutions, help to resolve complaints made against personnel, and foster positive relationships with the community. BWCs are only intended to record that which an officer could potentially observe or hear using his/here own senses of sight and sound.”

The pilot program is considered a “work in progress” and it is possible the procedures outlined may be amended when the procedures run up against the “real world.”

Officers will be issued a particular BWC. Officers must continue to write their reports as before. They cannot write “refer to video” but must complete a thorough and detailed report.

Officers are required to activate their BWCs under the following circumstances:

All enforcement encounters where there is at least reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing or may be involved in criminal activity. This includes, but is not limited to, self-initiated stops and dispatched calls for service.
All enforcement encounters where there is reason to believe that the individual is committing a violation for which a summons may be issued.
When initiating and conducting all vehicle pursuits.
When conducting all vehicle stops.
Taking or attempting to take an individual into custody (i.e. arrests, mentally ill persons/protective custody situations, etc.)
All incidents involving a reportable use of force, as soon as and whenever practicable.
Any public interaction, regardless of context, that escalates and becomes adversarial.
All building searches/entries made pursuant to criminal or investigatory purposes.
Whenever an officer judges that it would be beneficial to record an incident, but only when recording does not contradict Section “C”, below.

If the officer does not activate the BWC under the above regulations, the officer must report the reason why to an immediate supervisor both verbally and in a written letter.

The BWCs should not be activated under the following circumstances:

During encounters not directly related to official activities in the proper performance of police duties.
During the performance of non-departmental functions or administrative duties within a Department facility.
In places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, such as, but not limited to, the interior portions of domiciles, hospital emergency rooms, locker rooms and restrooms.
Whenever a potential witness requests to speak to an officer confidentially or desires anonymity.
Whenever a victim or witness requests that he or she not be recorded and the situation is not confidential.
Whenever dealing with victims of sex crimes or child abuse.
Whenever a victim requests that he or she not be recorded as a condition of cooperation and the interests of justice require such cooperation.
To record any personal conversation of or between another Department member or employee without the recorded member’s /employee’s knowledge and permission
Whenever the identities and/or investigative techniques of undercover officers would be compromised.
Whenever performing or present during a strip search of a detainee.

Officers who make a prohibited recording must make a request for deletion to their immediate superior as soon as practicable.

Officers must inform, as soon as practicable, that they are recording by using the phrase, “I am advising you that our interaction is being recorded.” That said, permission from the subject is not required to record.

The BWC can not be stopped until the interaction is complete. Interruptions or premature terminations of recordings need to be reported and justified.

The recordings collected will be considered the property of the PPD. Members of the PPD may not copy, publish, share or disseminate any BWC audio or video without the permission of the Chief of Police or the Commissioner of Public Safety. Also, the recordings may not be edited, deleted or altered. They may not be stored on a cloud server or other media storage devices.

Video will be stored for 90 days, at which time it will be automatically deleted unless it is ordered to be archived.

It is a violation of the policy for recordings to be reviewed solely for the purposes of searching for instances of Department members committing violations of law or Department policy, unless reviews are related to a specific complaint, allegation or incident.

March 14, 2016March 13, 2016

ACLU statement on Cranston Police Department prostitution sting operation

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

On Friday, the Cranston Police Department issued a news release announcing the results of a sting operation that, in its own words, was aimed at “targeting human traffickers, specifically those victimizing juveniles.” According to the news release, no fewer that eight law enforcement agencies were involved in this operation. According to news reports, however, the sting led to only one arrest for trafficking and one arrest for pandering. Instead, the biggest result of the operation appears to have been the arrest of fourteen “johns” for “procuring sexual conduct for a fee” and fourteen other people for prostitution.

ACLU of Rhode Island Policy Associate Hillary Davis issued the following statement today in response to the arrests:

“Human trafficking is a scourge, and efforts to eradicate it are to be applauded. However, as this operation makes clear, law enforcement stings like this one often end up having little to do with trafficking, but a lot to do with embarrassing and penalizing consenting adults engaged in sexual conduct for a fee. Conflating prostitution with trafficking does nothing to help the trafficking victims who remain ensnared while consenting adults are pursued and arrested. By humiliating and charging johns for seeking consensual sex and by giving prostitutes arrest records in the name of ‘helping’ them, these operations misleadingly purport to crack down on human trafficking, when their major effect is just to make the lives of prostitutes more difficult and dangerous, driving sex work even deeper into the shadows.

“We commend the organizations in the state actively working to provide social and other support services to sex workers who may have addiction or need other assistance. But we emphatically reject the notion that the only way these individuals can be helped is if they are first put into handcuffs.”

March 13, 2016March 13, 2016

The sudden need to defend Raimondo’s pension plan is intriguing

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Prominent public figures are appearing on taxpayer-funded television to shape the discourse about the pension heist after the media has been flooded with information from reputable sources that question the need for Raimondo’s intervention. It’s no surprise that Michael Riley and Brown University’s Wendy Schiller, along with Edward Achorn, are defending these efforts, they are neo-liberals, but Democratic Party Chair Joseph McNamara should be seriously interrogated for this: he is supporting the impoverishment of senior citizens while the Governor seemingly profits off the shady and not-so-blind trust that the pension is invested in.

Riley does provide some useful commentary. He emphasizes that the pension is invested in a bunch of junk commodities that are going to cause trouble down the road. What he does not mention is that the pension will not return to viability in the future because of the outrageous fees being billed to the pension fund by the hedge fund managers.

March 2, 2016March 3, 2016

Founding father of Saudi America indicted

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Aubry McClendon, ousted CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corp, was indicted on Tuesday for conspiring to rig bids to buy oil and natural gas leases in Oklahoma. The indictment is the result of a four-year antitrust investigation by the US Department of Justice.

Let’s revisit some of the prehistory. McClendon was among the scam artists who took the White House for a wild ride on the natural-gas bridge to nowhere. Recall Obama’s 2012 State of the Onion address celebrating the founding of Saudi America:

… oil is not enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. [thunderous applause] A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs. We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years.

McClendon’s scheme was simple:

Lease land throughout Greater Frackonia.
Drill in the sweets spots.
Pretend that the gushing wells are representative.
Flip the leases before the buyers realize that the productivity of a typical fracked well is far worse and tends to decay by a factor of ten within three years.

Obama bought into McClendon’s scam. From there it trickled down via Rhode Island’s Congressional delegation, led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Next, the snake oil flowed to Rhode Island’s Office of Energy Resources, with Commissioner Marion Gold blazing the fracking trail for Team Raimondo.

Janet Fire Wall Coit, hapless director of the Department of Environmental Management, is collateral damage of the tragedy. She is implicated by the bizarre Rhode Island statute that puts her on the Energy Facility Siting Board and makes her part of the “regulatory” process that will decide the fate of Invenergy’s proposal for a gigawatt fossil fuel power plant in Burrillville.

Recently, Steve Ahlquist raised the question why the siting board is in such a hurry to push through Invenergy’s proposal. One part of the answer is that McClendon’s gig is up; his co-conspirators know that their time is running out. The other reason to make haste is Saudi Arabia’s frontal attack on Saudi America by means of the current oversupply of oil, aka Oilmageddon. The title of this post on DeSmogBlog says it all: “Top Drillers Shut Down U.S. Fracking Operations as Oil Prices Continue to Tank.” Of course, Chesapeake is one of those.

No surprise that all of this coincides with the precipitous drop in Spectra Energy’s stock since the middle of 2014. This is the corporation that will be the main supplier of fracked gas for Invenergy’s stranded asset-to-be in Burrillville. Fortunately, Team Raimondo is ready to bail out Spectra by creating a market for its gas and by selling Rhode Island down the “Clear River.”

Guess who will be paying the bill for the construction of this power plant? We the people of Rhode Island, of course! It’s joke of cosmic proportions that there will be a 38 Studios hearing to begin at 4:30pm this Thursday in room 101 of the State House.

Thanks, Team Raimondo! We love you as you step on the gas in Burrillville to create 300 fleeting jobs. Special thanks also to you, Rhode Island AFL-CIO, for your support for “Clear River” in your October 2015 resolution

Hey, only $2.3 million a job. How do you beat that?

Note added to original post: Aubrey McClendon, 56, Ex-Chief of Chesapeake Energy, Dies in Crash a Day After Indictment

February 20, 2016February 20, 2016

The greatest scandal in U.S. history

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.”
Sir Walter Scott

The fix is in. The President is not elected by 105 million American voters. No, the President is selected by five Supreme Court justices.

Justice Antonin Scalia writes that recounting Florida votes will “cast a cloud” over the election. This is absurd.

On December 11, 2000, conservative justices rule in Bush v. Gore for George W. Bush on a technicality: The Florida Supreme Court is making “new law.” So Florida’s justices promptly submit a revised ruling.

Oh no! Isn’t there still some way to stop this recount? How?

The Supreme Court Five now invoke the opposite finding: Florida must put aside each county’s voting laws on recounts and establish ‘new law’—the same for every county.

This too is absurd. Differing legal standards for each county’s voting already exist. So, using the Court’s logic, shouldn’t Florida’s results be tossed out? No, Al Gore would win.

Moreover, applying one legal standard statewide requires judicial activism and violates states’ rights. Doesn’t Scalia detest such violations of his bedrock principles?

If the recount proceeds, however, Al Gore is almost certain to be President. The reason: Outdated punch-card machines in poor Democratic precincts negate more votes than modern machines in Republican precincts. A manual recount restores legitimate votes. And The Guardian reports that recounts commissioned by The Washington Post and Palm Beach Post document, “Florida ‘recounts’ make Gore winner.”

So the Court’s Republican caucus commits this dastardly deed of selecting their favored candidate. They declare the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment—whose original intent is protecting the slaves—now protects Bush. This violates Scalia’s ‘originalist’ and ‘strict constructionist’ interpretation of the law—especially since he declares the equal-protection clause should not apply to women.

So much for Scalia’s ‘principled’ jurisprudence. Did he somehow forget Jesus’ bedrock principle, “The truth will set you free”?

The Court’s chicanery continues: The ruling is issued at 10 pm on December 12, requiring the Florida Supreme Court’s compliance by midnight!

The Court’s legitimate choice is to give Florida several days to conduct a fair recount. As they fear, however, Gore will win.

Make no mistake: Democracy dies on December 12, 2000. The Court’s miniature election is a coup d’etat.

This pernicious ousting of President Gore is compounded when Bush appoints two conservatives to the Court which crowned him.

Moreover, the Iraq invasion is highly unlikely with a Gore administration. Imagine: No Iraqi war deaths or refugees; no emergence of ISIS in Syria—and no fear of their terror attacks. The Supreme Court Five bear much responsibility for this widespread devastation.

But deceptions do not cease with Scalia’s death.

In the year 2000, five Republican-appointed justices overthrew a Democratic President. In the year 2016, Senate Republicans insist they will block any candidate the Democratic President nominates. Thus, Republican leaders only ethic is winning at all costs—the ethic of dictators.

A coup for Scalia’s successor is repugnant. Again, the excuses are absurd.

Excuse #1: Time’s too short. False. Since Clinton’s presidency, the longest confirmation takes 87 days. Obama still has more than 300 days in office.

Excuse #2: The voters should decide with the next President. Wrong. The voters already decided, electing President Obama for four years—not three.

Excuse #3: As no president has made a Supreme Court nomination in his last year in office for 80 years, doing so would violate our tradition. Sounds good—except no such ‘tradition’ of waiving nominations exists.

Excuse #4: Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas was rejected in 1968 because it was the last year of LBJ’s presidency. Again, the deception meter buzzes. Abe Fortas was filibustered because Republicans were outraged with the Warren Court’s decisions.

In this instance, Ted Cruz is deceptive—obscuring Republican obstructionism to justify his own case for Republican obstructionism!

Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

February 15, 2016February 14, 2016

Has slavery really ended?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“Churches can be a place where
judgment, shame and contempt
[for families with felons]
are felt most acutely.”
Michelle Alexander

Time for a pop quiz question. Ready? In what year did the U.S. end slavery?

Most agree it’s 1865. Some historians disagree. Their answer: 1942.

True, the Triangle Trade’s enrichment of slave shippers ended with the Civil War. Tragically, however, legally coerced work continued. Some southern states were sly. Police falsely imprisoned blacks, and judges ordered lengthy sentences at hard labor.

“Convict leasing” was legalized. Douglas Blackmon describes this practice as “a system in which armies of free men, guilty of no crimes and entitled by law to freedom, were compelled to labor without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced to do the bidding of white masters through the regular application of extraordinary physical coercion.”

The penal system became the new slavery.

Still, the answer to our black-history-month query may not be 1942. Ready for a shocker? Enslavement of blacks exists today.

The War on Drugs intensified in the 1980s. In just two decades, those jailed for drug offenses increased ninefold. The Director for National Drug Control Policy, retired General Barry McCaffrey, referred to this imprisonment system as a “drug gulag.”

Mass incarceration is aggressively focused on communities of color. Despite blacks and whites having similar drug usage rates, a 1999 Human Rights Watch report states, “Black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men.” Indeed, black men imprisoned, on parole and probation now exceed all men enslaved in 1850.

Bondage for drug offenses is inflicted almost exclusively on black and brown men. Whites are usually ‘off the hook.’ Even when arrested, whites are more often given alternatives to jail. When jailed, whites’ average sentences are 16.3 percent shorter than blacks.

Enormous numbers of black bodies are placed in bondage, their prison labor extracted, for non-violent drug offenses. Isn’t this a new system of slavery? Isn’t this massive discrimination also subjecting prisoners’ families—parents, spouses and children—to excruciating emotional and financial bondage?

As a permanent undercaste, the black community also suffers wage slavery. Whites’ average household income is 68.5 percent higher than blacks—and the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites. This severely depressed income continually increases economic inequality: Average white families now have thirteen times the assets of average black families.

It gets worse: Black prisoners’ sentences continue after release.

Imagine leaving prison. Determined to lead a good life, you plan to go to college—but you’re barred from getting a federal loan. Or you need a job but, if a black man, only five percent of employers will even grant you an interview. You may be desperate for public housing assistance. You can’t get it. By law, you probably can’t receive any public benefits—including food stamps if your kids are hungry. With all these cruel barriers, what choices remain? Can we see why ex-cons often return to prison?

Again, this discrimination primarily decimates blacks.

So who should correct these many forms of racialized financial rape? Why not the white community which perpetrates and often benefits from black bondage?

The first step is education: More fact-packed articles detailing the destructive impacts of racism can be found at www.quoflections.org\race.

Second, share these injustices with friends and family.

Third, let’s seek legislation ending the War on Drugs (really, the War on Black Men). Let’s eradicate laws discriminating against ex-felons. Let’s legalize a living wage. Also, our nation has the wealthiest white community in history, primarily due to centuries of labor stolen or cheated from African Americans. In the name of justice, we who are white can advocate for long-overdue reparations to be invested in neglected black communities.

Oh, and our pop quiz answer: Even in 2016, slavery continues on a massive scale.

February 9, 2016February 10, 2016

Why wait for the feds when AG Kilmartin can use the RICO Act against Raimondo’s pension scheme?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Since the publication of Ted Seidle’s letter to various federal agencies regarding the Raimondo pension policies, the operative question has been when will the feds come knocking on Smith Hill? It is clear that Raimondo is desperate to rebuild her reputation with unions, hence the push for the union-friendly RhodeWorks project. But why wait when Attorney General Kilmartin has the RICO Act at his disposal?

The website NOLO.com, a free resource for legal information, says the following of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act:

It allows prosecution and civil penalties for racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Such activity may include illegal gambling, bribery, kidnapping, murder, money laundering, counterfeiting, embezzlement, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other unsavory business practices. To convict a defendant under RICO, the government must prove that the defendant engaged in two or more instances of racketeering activity and that the defendant directly invested in, maintained an interest in, or participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

(1) racketeering activity means
(A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
(B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 14611465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 15811592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons).,[1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 23412346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 242124 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials),
(C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds),
(D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States,
(E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act,
(F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or
(G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B) [Emphasis added]

So the question then becomes whether Raimondo and her associates have engaged in this behavior. And there are plenty of reasons to suspect so.

The first document to consult is one commissioned by the American Federation of Teachers, the Roosevelt Institute, the Refund America Project, and the Haas Institute titled All That Glitters is Not Gold: An Analysis of US Public Pension Investments in Hedge Funds. While the document does not specifically study Rhode Island, the lessons are applicable here and it says the following:

Key Findings: Hedge funds were responsible for an estimated $8 billion in lost investment revenue

Our findings suggest that these 11 pension funds’ hedge fund investments failed to deliver any significant benefits to the pension funds studied. Specifically, we found that:

Hedge fund net return rates lagged behind the total fund for nearly three-quarters of the total years reviewed, costing the group of pension funds an estimated $8 billion in lost investment revenue.
Despite lagging performance, hedge fund managers collected an estimated $7.1 billion in fees from the same pension funds over the period reviewed; on average, our estimates suggest that these pension funds paid 57 cents in fees to hedge fund managers for every dollar of net return to the pension fund.

Whereas hedge fund managers promise uncorrelated returns and downside protection, all of the 11 pension funds reviewed demonstrated significant correlation between hedge fund and total fund performance.

Recommendations:

Considering the implications of these findings for pension fund trustees, participants and consultants, we recommend that public pension funds currently invested in hedge funds immediately take the following steps:

– Conduct an asset allocation review to examine less costly and more effective diversification approaches. The review should include a complete analysis of past net performance of their hedge fund investments, as well as a comparison with low-fee alternatives.

– Require full and public disclosure from hedge fund managers and consultants, including complete disclosure of historical investment management and incentive (carry or profit-sharing) fees captured by hedge fund managers for the duration of their fund’s investments. Pension funds should also consider developing legislative policies requiring this level of disclosure. [Emphasis in original]

Before moving forward, it is worthwhile to recall here that the Governor has previously invoked a host of proprietary information reasons for not providing full disclosure of matters regarding the pension fund. In this sense, this document not only flies in the face of that logic, it is recommending things under the auspices of full disclosure laws that the Governor has said do not apply in this situation. As such, Attorney General Kilmartin could investigate further on this issue and hold people liable for failing to obey public disclosure laws.

Also notable is that, while the report does not deal specifically with the Rhode Island pension plan, it does discuss shortcomings of Daniel Loeb’s Third Point Capital, one of the firms the Rhode Island pension plan was invested in.

Here are further findings of this paper:

Indeed, our findings suggest that all 11 pension funds included in our analysis would have performed better having never invested in hedge funds in the first place. This has important implications not only for pension fund trustees, who have a fiduciary duty to prudently seek investments that provide the highest long-term returns for the lowest cost to the pension fund, but also for public employees, public employee unions, retirees and taxpayers, all of whom should be concerned about this overall negative impact that hedge funds are exerting on public pension funds. [Emphasis in original]

With that in mind, consider for a moment this information from Ted Seidle’s first audit of the pension, Rhode Island Public Pension Reform: Wall Street’s License to Steal:

[A] significant portion of the Treasurer’s wealth and income relates to shares she owns in two illiquid, opaque venture capital partnerships she formerly managed at Point Judith Capital—one of which she convinced the state to invest in on different, less favorable terms. Unlike the state which paid millions for its shares in one of the Point Judith funds, the Treasurer was granted shares in both of the venture capital funds for free… In a letter to the Rhode Island Ethics Commission requesting an advisory opinion concerning whether she had taken sufficient steps to avoid conflicts of interest relative to her ties to a venture capital fund in which the state had made an investment, the Treasurer represented that in 2007 the State Investment Commission entered into a ten-year contract with Point Judith in which the State agreed to invest $5 million dollars in the Point Judith II fund. She also represented that the State’s investment in the fund was passive, meaning that after signing the contract with Point Judith and making its investment commitment, the State Investment Commission had no say in the fund’s ongoing management or investment decisions.
The Treasurer notably failed to mention in her letter to the Ethics Commission that the state had not merely entered into a ten-year contract with Point Judith. Rather, the state was a limited partner in a fund managed by Point Judith as General Partner and, as a limited partner the state may have broad rights in the fund’s ongoing management, or investment decisions, the exercise of which may conflict with her rights and interests.
Further, as a Point Judith insider, she, or other investors, may have been granted special rights more favorable than those granted to the state, including special withdrawal rights; rights to receive reports from the partnership on a more frequent basis or that include information not provided to other limited partners; rights to receive reduced rates of the incentive allocation and management fee; rights to receive a share of the incentive allocation, management fee or other amounts earned by the general partner or its affiliates. If true, the Treasurer may literally be profiting at the expense of the state…Regardless, the characterization of the investment in the Point Judith II Fund as merely a ten-year contract in a passive investment as to which the state had no say is neither complete nor accurate.
In order to create further separation from her investment in the Point Judith funds, the Treasurer represented that prior to assuming office she placed all her right, title and interest in both funds into a blind trust designated as the Raimondo Blind Trust. While a blind trust may be of value in certain circumstances, where, as here, the sole assets of the trust, i.e. the shares in the two Point Judith funds, are illiquid, i.e. cannot be sold for a decade, no protection is afforded. The purpose of the blind trust is to keep the beneficiary unaware of the specific assets of the trust, so as to avoid a conflict of interest between the beneficiary and the investments.
In this case, the Treasurer knows precisely the assets held in the Blind Trust during her entire term as Treasurer and continues to enjoy cash distributions related to the Point Judith funds—payments exponentially greater than her state salary in the past year— and payments related to shares she was granted for free.
Rather than provide protection against conflicts, here the blind trust serves to enable the conflict of interest involving ERSRI to persist throughout her term.
Most important, in connection with granting the Advisory Opinion, the Treasurer did not indicate, and Ethics Commission did not consider, that the Treasurer would subsequently refuse to disclose to the public information regarding ERSRI’s investment in Point Judith II.
Ironically, the Blind Trust scheme she proposed to the Ethics Commission coupled with her nondisclosure policy regarding the Point Judith II fund, has resulted in only the public being “blind” as to the Point Judith II fund.
In short, in our opinion, this arrangement constitutes a misuse of the blind trust device. [Emphasis added]

This presents a host of not just interest conflicts but potential illegal market manipulation committed in totality on the state level. If Raimondo manipulated the public in portraying the investments of the pension in a fashion to personally benefit her, that would constitute a serious malfeasance for investigation by the Attorney General. Furthermore, as this matter has involved court proceedings in a variety of cases, there could be potential perjury charges brought.

We will continue to explore these documents and bring highlights in further reporting.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Following this report, it was indicated by readers that the aforementioned RICO Act is the federal as opposed the Rhode Island definition of the law. It is worth noting that, due to the interstate and international nature of the pension fund investments, the federal definition is still applicable and relevant. That law, Rhode Island General Laws Title 7 Chapter 15, says the following:

§ 7-15-1  Definitions. – (a) “Enterprise” includes any sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated for a particular purpose although not a legal entity.

(b) “Person” includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property.

(c) “Racketeering activity” means any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson in the first, second, or third degree, robbery, bribery, extortion, larceny or prostitution, or any dealing in narcotic or dangerous drugs which is chargeable as a crime under state law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, or child exploitations for commercial or immoral purposes in violation of § 11-9-1(b) or (c) or § 11-9-1.1.

(d) “Unlawful debt” means a debt incurred or contracted in an illegal gambling activity or business or which is unenforceable under state law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the law relating to usury.

§ 7-15-2  Prohibited activities. – (a) It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any income derived directly or indirectly from a racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt, to directly or indirectly use or invest any part of that income, or the proceeds of that income in the acquisition of an interest in, or the establishment or operation of any enterprise.

(b) It is unlawful for any person through a racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to directly or indirectly acquire or maintain any interest in or control of any enterprise.

(c) It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt.

(d) Provided, that a purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, is not unlawful under this section if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or her or their accomplices in a racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after the purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent (1%) of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not, either in law or in fact, confer the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

…

§ 7-15-7  Investigative demands. – (a) Issuance. Whenever the attorney general has reasonable cause to believe that any person or enterprise has knowledge or is in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material pertinent to an investigation of a possible violation of this chapter, he or she may, prior to and/or following the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding on the violation, issue in writing and cause to be served upon the person or enterprise a civil investigatory demand by which he or she may:

(1) Compel the attendance of the person and require him or her to submit to examination and give testimony under oath; and/or

(2) Require the production of documentary material pertinent to the investigation for inspection and/or copying; and/or

(3) Require answers under oath to written interrogatories.

(b) Power to issue. The power to issue investigative demands does not abate or terminate by reason of the bringing of any action or proceeding under this chapter. The attorney general may issue successive investigatory demands to the same person in order to obtain additional information pertinent to an ongoing investigation.

(c) Confidentiality. In the event the attorney general initiates a civil investigatory demand prior to a criminal indictment for violation of this chapter, then the commencement, contents, and results of the civil investigatory demand is held in the strictest confidence by the attorney general and shall remain so until the time that a civil action is commenced, indictment for violation of this chapter returned, or removal of the confidentiality is ordered by a justice of the superior court.

(d) Contents of investigative demand. Each investigatory demand shall:

(1) State the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged racketeering violation of this chapter which is under investigation and the provisions of law applicable to the conduct;

(2) Prescribe a reasonable return date no less than twenty (20) days from the date of the investigative demand, provided that an earlier date may be prescribed under compelling circumstances;

(3) Specify the time and place at which the person is to appear and give testimony, produce documentary material, and furnish answers to interrogatories, or do any or a combination of the above;

(4) Identify the custodian to whom any documentary material is to be made available;

(5) Describe by class any documentary material to be produced with such definiteness and certainty as to permit the material to be fairly identified;

(6) Contain any interrogatories to which written answers under oath are required; and

(7) Advise in writing the person upon whom the demand is served that the material or statements may constitute a basis for prosecution against the person.

(e) Prohibition against unreasonable demand. No investigatory demand shall:

(1) Contain any requirement which would be unreasonable or improper if contained in a subpoena or a subpoena duces tecum issued by a court of this state; or

(2) Require the disclosure of any material which would be privileged from disclosure if demanded by a subpoena or a subpoena duces tecum issued by a court of this state.

(f) Service of investigative demand.

(1) An investigative demand may be served by:

(i) Delivering an executed copy to the person to be served, or if the person is not a natural person, to any partner, executive officer, managing agent, general agent, or to any agent of the person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on behalf of the person;

(ii) Delivering an executed copy to the principal office or place of business of the person to be served; or

(iii) Mailing by certified mail, return receipt requested, an executed copy addressed to the person to be served, or if the person is not a natural person, addressed to its principal office or place of business in this state, or if it has none in this state, to its principal office or place of business.

(2) A verified return by the individual serving any demand or petition setting forth the manner of service is prima facie proof of service. In the case of service by certified mail, the return shall be accompanied by the return post office receipt of delivery of the demand.

(g) Authorization to examine. The examination of all persons pursuant to this section shall be conducted by the attorney general or a representative designated in writing by him or her, before an officer authorized to administer oaths in this state. The statements made shall be taken down stenographically or by a sound recording device and shall be transcribed.

(h) Rights of persons served with investigative demands. Any person required to attend and give testimony or to submit documentary material pursuant to this section is entitled to retain, or, on payment of lawfully prescribed cost, to procure, a copy of any document he or she produces and of his or her own statements as transcribed. Any person compelled to appear under a demand for oral testimony pursuant to this section may be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel. Counsel may advise the person in confidence, either upon the request of the person or upon counsel’s own initiative, with respect to any question asked of the person. The person or counsel may object on the record to any question, in whole or in part, and shall briefly state for the record the reason for the objection. An objection may properly be made, received, and entered upon the record when it is claimed that the person is entitled to refuse to answer the question on grounds of any constitutional or other legal right or privilege, including the privilege against self incrimination. The person shall not otherwise object to or refuse to answer any question, and shall not by him or herself or through counsel interrupt the oral examination. If the person refuses to answer any question, the attorney general may petition the superior court for an order compelling the person to answer the question. The information and materials supplied to the attorney general pursuant to an investigative demand are not permitted to become public or be disclosed by the attorney general or his or her employees beyond the extent necessary for legitimate law enforcement purposes pursuant to this chapter.

(i) Witness expenses. All persons served with an investigative demand, other than those persons whose conduct or practices are being investigated or any officer, director, or person in the employment of the person under investigation, are paid the same fees and mileage as paid witnesses in the courts of this state. No person is excused from attending the inquiry pursuant to the mandate of an investigative demand or from giving testimony, or from producing documentary material or from being required to answer questions on the ground of failure to tender or pay a witness fee or mileage, unless demand for the witness fee or mileage is made at the time testimony is about to be taken and unless payment of the witness fee or mileage is not made.

(j) Custody of documents. (1) The attorney general shall designate, from within the department of attorney general, an investigator to serve as racketeer document custodian and any racketeering investigators that he or she determines are necessary to serve as deputies to that officer.

(2) Any person on whom any demand issued under this section has been served shall make the material available for inspection and copying or reproduction to the custodian designated in the demand at the principal place of business of the person, or at any other place that the custodian and the person subsequently agree and prescribe in writing or as the court may direct, pursuant to this section on the return date specified in the demand, or on any later date that the custodian may prescribe in writing. The person may, upon written agreement between the person and the custodian, substitute copies of all or any part of the material for originals of the materials.

(3) The custodian to whom any documentary material is delivered shall take physical possession of it, and is responsible for its use and for its return pursuant to this chapter. The custodian may cause the preparation of any copies of the documentary material that are required for official use under regulations which are promulgated by the attorney general. While in the possession of the custodian, no material produced shall be available for examination, without the consent of the person who produced the material, other than for legitimate law enforcement purposes pursuant to this chapter. Under any reasonable terms and conditions that the attorney general prescribes, documentary material while in the possession of the custodian shall be available for examination by the person who produced the material or any authorized representatives of the person.

(4) Whenever any attorney has been designated to appear on behalf of the state before any court or grand jury in any case or proceeding involving any alleged violation of this chapter, the custodian may deliver to the attorney any documentary material in the possession of the custodian that the attorney determines to be required for use in the presentation of the case or proceeding on behalf of the state. Upon the conclusion of any case or proceeding, the attorney shall return to the custodian any documentary material withdrawn which has not passed into the control of the court or grand jury through its introduction into the record of the case or proceeding.

(5) Upon the completion of the investigation for which any documentary material was produced under this chapter, and any case or proceeding arising from the investigation, the custodian shall return to the person who produced the material all the material, other than copies of it made by the custodian pursuant to this section, which has not passed into the control of any court or grand jury through its introduction into the record of the case or proceeding.

(6)(i) When any documentary material has been produced by any person under this chapter, and no case or proceeding arising from it has been instituted within a reasonable time after completion of the examination and analysis of all evidence assembled in the course of the investigation, the person is entitled, upon written demand made upon the custodian, to the return of all documentary material. Provided, that no documentary material shall be tendered, delivered, or made available to any other state, federal, or municipal agency.

(ii) Anyone who knowingly and willfully violates the provision of this subdivision shall, in addition to any civil liability, be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) and/or imprisonment for no longer than one year.

(7) In the event of the death, disability, or separation from service of the custodian of any documentary material produced under any demand issued under this chapter or the official relief of the custodian from responsibility for the custody and control of the material, the attorney general shall promptly designate another racketeering investigator to serve as custodian of the documentary material, and transmit notice in writing to the person who produced the material as to the identity and address of the designated successor. Any designated successor has all duties and responsibilities as to the materials imposed by this chapter on his or her predecessor in office as to them, except that he or she is not responsible for any default or dereliction which occurred before his or her designation as custodian.

(k) Enforcement of investigative demands for production. Whenever any person fails to comply with any civil investigative demand served upon him or her under this chapter requiring the production of documentary material, or whenever satisfactory copying or reproduction of that material cannot be done, and the person refuses to surrender the material, the attorney general may file in the superior court and serve upon the person a petition for an order of the court for the enforcement of the demand.

(l) Refusal of persons served to testify or produce documents. Whenever any natural person neglects or refuses to attend and give testimony or to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce documentary material if in his or her power to do so in obedience to an investigative demand served upon him or her under this chapter, he or she may be adjudged in civil contempt by the superior court until any time that he or she purges him or herself of contempt by testifying, producing documentary material or presenting written answers as ordered. Any natural person who commits perjury or false swearing in response to an investigative demand pursuant to this section is punishable pursuant to the provisions of chapter 33 of title 11.

(m) Motion to quash. Within twenty (20) days after the service of an investigatory demand upon any person, or at any time before the return date specified in the demand, whichever period is shorter, the person served may file in the superior court and serve upon the custodian a petition for an order of the court modifying or setting aside the demand. The time allowed for compliance with the demand in whole or in part as deemed proper and ordered by the court shall not run during the pendency of the petition in the court. The petition shall specify each ground upon which the petitioner relies in seeking relief, and may be based on any failure of the demand to comply with the provisions of this chapter or on any constitutional or other legal right or privilege of the person.

(n) Right of persons producing documents. At any time during which any custodian is in custody or control of any documentary material delivered by any person in compliance with an investigatory demand, the person may file in the superior court and serve upon the custodian a petition for an order of the court requiring the performance by the custodian of any duty imposed upon him or her by this chapter.

(o) Duty to testify. (1) If, in any investigation brought by the attorney general pursuant to this section, any individual refuses to attend or to give testimony or to produce documentary material or to answer a written interrogatory in obedience to an investigative demand or under order of court on the ground that the testimony or material required of him or her may tend to incriminate him, that person may be ordered to attend and to give testimony or to produce documentary material or to answer the written interrogatory, or to do an applicable combination of these. The above order is an order of court given after a hearing in which the attorney general has established a need for the grant of immunity, as subsequently provided.

(2) The attorney general may petition the presiding justice of the superior court for an order as described in subdivision (1) of this subsection. The petition shall set forth the nature of the investigation and the need for the immunization of the witness.

(3) Compelled testimony shall not be used against the witness as evidence in any criminal proceedings against him or her in any court. However, the grant of immunity does not immunize the witness from civil liability arising from the transactions about which testimony is given, and he or she may nevertheless be prosecuted or subjected to penalty or forfeiture for any perjury, false swearing, or contempt committed in answering or in failing to answer or in producing evidence or failing to do so in accordance with the order. If a person refuses to testify after being granted immunity from prosecution and after being ordered to testify, he or she may be adjudged in civil contempt by the superior court until any time that he or she purges him or herself of contempt by testifying, producing documentary material or presenting written answers as ordered. The above does not prevent the attorney general from instituting other appropriate contempt proceedings against any person who violates any of the above provisions.

February 9, 2016

Providence to halt enforcement of anti-panhandling ordinance

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In a major step towards reducing the criminalization of the poor in Rhode Island, the City of Providence has advised the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island that it would halt enforcement of an anti-panhandling ordinance that has led to the harassment and arrest of homeless individuals. The ACLU had called for this action in a letter delivered to Mayor Jorge Elorza two weeks ago, in which it pointed out the ordinance’s dubious constitutionality and its impact on the rights of the poor and the homeless.

Advocates for the homeless have been critical of a seemingly aggressive enforcement by the City of laws that target innocuous activity of the homeless in public. In its letter, the ACLU had noted that the City’s ban on so-called “aggressive solicitation” directly targets the homeless, and that a number of similar ordinances have been recently struck down by the courts for infringing on First Amendment rights. The ACLU therefore requested that the City immediately halt its enforcement. In response, the City agreed to that request and also to terminate any pending prosecutions.

“The Mayor remains committed to making Providence a place that supports its residents, especially those who are most in need, and we look forward to our continued work together in this regard,” Providence City Solicitor Jeffrey Dana stated in a letter to the ACLU of RI.

ACLU of Rhode Island executive director Steven Brown said today: “This is a very positive development, and we applaud the City for recognizing that this ordinance cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. We are confident that officials will make sure that any harassment of the homeless by police for peacefully soliciting donations, even if it doesn’t lead to an arrest for panhandling, will cease.”

Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless executive director Jim Ryczek added: “The Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless welcomes this development on the part of the city. We hope this is the first step in better understanding homeless people and working with them to appropriately identify their needs and acquire safe and affordable housing. We look forward to continued progress on other problems facing the city in relation to its homeless citizens. As always, we stand ready to help the City of Providence better serve its homeless constituents.”

Megan Smith, an outreach worker at House of Hope CDC, said: “We are hopeful that Providence’s decision to halt enforcement of the aggressive solicitation ordinance demonstrates that the City recognizes panhandling for what it is: a means of survival for our poor and homeless neighbors, not a criminal activity. While there is much more work that must be done to shift policy from criminalizing poverty to finding collaborative solutions, this represents an important step forward.”

The ACLU letter had also called on the City to repeal an ordinance that bans “loitering on bus line property,” but the City claimed that no arrests had been made under that law.

The ACLU’s action is part of the organization’s ongoing efforts to challenge and repeal laws that disproportionately affect the rights of the homeless. In December, the ACLU of Rhode Island filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Cranston ordinance that bars the solicitation of donations from motorists. The ACLU argues that the ordinance violates free speech rights and is selectively enforced by the City. That suit is pending.

A copy of the ACLU’s letter is available here.

A copy of the City’s letter is available here.

February 5, 2016

Reps Regunberg and Metts seek to curb solitary confinement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rep. Aaron Regunberg and Sen. Harold M. Metts have introduced legislation to reform the controversial use of solitary or “segregated” confinement in the Rhode Island prison system, saying the practice causes psychological damage and often exacerbates the very problems it is intended to address.

“The United Nations has condemned the use of solitary confinement, saying it can amount to torture,” said Representative Regunberg (D-Dist. 4, Providence). “And the research is very clear that prolonged solitary confinement causes psychological problems that can damage inmates’ chances of rehabilitation. It’s a vicious cycle that is destructive rather than corrective, and it particularly impacts already vulnerable populations, including the very high proportion of our prison population affected by mental illness. Add this to the fact that segregation units are by far the most expensive facilities to operate, and it should be clear that we need to put responsible limits on, and devise humane alternatives to, the use of solitary confinement in the prison system.”

Said Senator Metts (D-Dist. 6, Providence), “We cannot in good conscience call our prison a ‘corrections’ institute when the system relies on a punishment that is essentially designed to cause mental breakdown, particularly when so many of those subjected to it are already mentally ill. We have a moral imperative, as well as a constitutional mandate, to ensure we are not employing cruel or unusual punishment, and it is time we recognized that solitary confinement, in many cases, is cruel. Its use must be limited, and our prison system must stop using it on people who are particularly susceptible to the lasting effects it can have. We have to strive to find a better balance between rehabilitation and punishment.”

Many studies have found that long-term solitary confinement can produce psychological damage with symptoms such as hallucinations, hypersensitivity to noise or touch, paranoia, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increased suicide risk and uncontrollable rage or fear. The risks are higher for juveniles, whose brains are still developing, and for those with mental illness.

Those effects can result in inmates having more difficulty complying with prison rules, defeating the purpose of solitary confinement. Even those who aren’t mentally ill when they enter solitary confinement can be left with lasting psychological effects that they take with them when they are released from prison into the community.

“Solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment,” said S, a current inmate at the ACI who has asked to remain unidentified for fear of retribution. “I have seen people get years in segregation, and get locked in solitary for non-problematic reasons, like identifying as LGBTQ, filing lawsuits, or sharing political views. I have witnessed people in solitary confinement break down, start talking to themselves, become paranoid, play with their own feces, and worse. When you go to High Security [the solitary confinement facility] for causing a problem, they don’t help you, they don’t give you any mental health services, they just lock you in a cell for 23 hours a day. So when you go back to the normal facilities, you’re worse off.”

The legislation would prohibit the use of solitary confinement — also called “segregated confinement” — for specific vulnerable populations, ensure that conditions in segregation are humane, and limit the use of solitary confinement for all inmates to 15 consecutive days, and no more than 20 days within any 60 day period.

The bill (2016-H 7481) has support from a wide array of inmates’ rights activists, mental health advocates, civil rights groups and families of incarcerated individuals.

“Solitary is a very dehumanizing experience that leaves a person broken and unable to function,” said John Prince, a member of Direct Action for Rights and Equality with first-hand experience of solitary confinement in the ACI. “You hear nothing, see nothing, have nothing to think about almost 24 hours a day. You lose all perspective of time. Human beings are not meant to live like that for weeks or months on end. My experiences in solitary were extremely painful, and I have many friends who were left unable to relate to people, even their families, after prolonged segregation. There have to be limits that keep this from being used for long periods or on people who are likely to suffer lasting damage from it.”

“Even mentally healthy people lose their faculties in solitary confinement, but for people with mental illness, it is a particularly unhealthy situation that impairs an individual’s ability to maintain healthy relationships,” said Michael Cerullo, a psychotherapist with extensive clinical experience in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system. “Without positive relationships in the community and with oneself, meaningful rehabilitation is significantly compromised. People with mental illness suffer serious trauma that cannot be undone when they are released either back into the prison population or back into the community, and that damage has ill effects on them and the people around them. We have to stop using this counterproductive approach with human beings challenged by mental illness for their sake and for the sake of the whole community.”

“Across the country, states are reducing their reliance on solitary confinement,” said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU. “Long-term isolation costs too much, does nothing to rehabilitate prisoners, and exacerbates mental illness — even in those who were healthy when they entered solitary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court noted not only the extreme toll solitary confinement takes on those subjected to it, but that those who are affected may never recover well enough to reintegrate well into the community. Yet, the use of solitary confinement persists. States that once relied heavily on solitary confinement are now instead focusing on policies that promote safe communities and fair treatment — at the same time saving their states millions and reducing violence in the prisons. It’s time for us to do the same here in Rhode Island.”

The House bill has 38 cosponsors, including Representatives Scott A. Slater (D-Dist. 10, Providence), Jean Philippe Barros (D-Dist. 59, Pawtucket), Raymond A. Hull (D-Dist. 6, Providence, North Providence) and David A. Bennett (D-Dist. 20, Warwick, Cranston).

[From the press release]

February 1, 2016February 1, 2016

#NoNewRoads: How Bernie Sanders Should Preempt Michael Bloomberg

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rumors have been floating that former Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, might run for president. Bloomberg has presented his potential run as a middle-ground between rightwing candidates like Donald Trump and progressive leaders like Bernie Sanders. Whatever critiques there might be of Bloomberg, the fact is that he’s led on some issues. Bernie Sanders should work hard to undermine Bloomberg’s base of support on a key issue where the Bloomberg administration led: transportation.

Michael Bloomberg was a big proponent of stop-and-frisk policies, which should be a concern for any progressive voter. Stop-and-frisk did recover caches of weapons, perhaps preventing some crimes, but only by harassing large numbers of people of color with an indiscriminate dragnet. The vast majority of people stopped-and-frisked were found to have committed no crime whatsoever, and federal courts found that the policy systematically violated the rights of people of color. Bloomberg’s candidacy would certainly be considerably better than any of the Republican candidates, but in an election year when voters have the ability to choose a candidate like Bernie Sanders, it shouldn’t be hard for progressives to make the choice: Sanders has led on issues of mass-imprisonment, ending the drug war, and restoring respect for people of color in a way that few American candidates, and no mainstream American candidate, ever has. Alongside Bloomberg’s iffy positions on civil rights stand some genuine achievements in transportation and land use. Bloomberg’s New York became a leader on environmental issues related to transportation, and the Sanders’ campaign needs to sharpen its messaging on this subject in order to undermine that leg of support.

A signature advantage for Bloomberg is that his administration smartly approached transportation policy to augment environmental and social benefits for New Yorkers. This Streetfilms video shows the almost magical transformation of many New York intersections under the tutelage of Janette Sadik-Kahn and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Even for someone like me who “Feels the Bern”, and who doesn’t fully trust Michael Bloomberg on a range of other issues, it’s hard to not be impressed:

Sanders’ campaign has called for infrastructure investment as a major plank of his get-people-back-to-work message. I have disagreements with Sanders’ approach. I think that transportation funding should come from user fees. None of the candidates–Sanders included–has taken this position. But even as Sanders approaches the funding mechanisms differently than most urbanist voters would like, he can still draw from his past experience and speak to the need to economize on what the country spends on out of that funding.

The United States spends more money on expansion of its road system than on maintenance, and despite some hopeful examples to the contrary, has often maintained design mistakes like urban highways into their second lifecycle, often at the behest of corporate giants like Microsoft and against the wishes of local voters and small businesses. Sanders, who was a four-term mayor of a leading urbanist place, Burlington Vermont, doesn’t need to stretch himself into any pretzels to speak eloquently to why this is a mistake. But at present, Sanders is not doing enough through his campaign to explain how America’s infrastructure crisis is one of overspending. His campaign needs to say clearly: #NoNewRoads.

As a mayor, Bernie Sanders ‘out-Republicaned Republicans‘. He did so by introducing radical concepts like competitive bidding, by successfully lowering property taxes, and by successfully guiding the city towards new development while also protecting the rights of poor people in public housing. Sanders inspires people like me not just with his social-democratic approach to some issues, but his genuine understanding of when free markets work well. Transportation is an opportunity for Sanders to bring that cost-saving approach into focus.

Sanders wants a new single-payer healthcare system, but has also spoken eloquently to the fact that Americans spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. Just as we waste money on healthcare procedures that bring poor results, we also are wasting precious resources on transportation boondoggles that do not add up to longterm economic growth. It’s time for the Sanders campaign to speak more forthrightly on this. In the second Democratic debate, Sanders again stuck to this spending issue:

…[W]hy do we remain the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right? Why do we continue to get ripped off by the drug companies who can charge us any prices they want? Why is it that we are spending per capita far, far more than Canada, which is 100 miles away from my door, that guarantees health care to all people?

It will not happen tomorrow. But when millions of people stand up and are prepared to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies, it will happen, and I will lead that effort.

Medicare for all, single-payer system is the way we should go.

On imprisonment, the focus on fiscal conservatism has been mixed into Sanders boldly progressive message. From the second Democratic debate:

We’re spending $80 billion locking people up disproportionately, Latino and African American. We need very clearly major, major reform in a broken criminal justice system from top to bottom. And that means when police officers out in a community do illegal activity, kill people who are unarmed, who should not be killed, they must be held accountable. It means that we end minimum sentencing for those people (UNINTEL). And it means that we take marijuana out of the federal law as a crime and give space for freedom to go forward with legalizing marijuana.

Sanders has even brought his hawk-eyed approach to spending to military waste. From the second debate, again:

This nation is the most powerful military in the world. We’re spending over $600 billion a year on the military. And yet significantly less than 10% of that money is used to be fighting international terrorism.

We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars (UNINTEL), 5,000 nuclear weapons. I think we need major reform in the military making it more cost effective but also focusing on the real crisis that faces us. The Cold War is over and our focus has got to be on intelligence, increased manpower, fighting international terrorism.

A “no new roads” approach, sometimes called a “fix-it first” approach, would also be surprisingly within the mainstream. In a recent interview, Urban Cincy blog author Randy Simes points out that even fairly conservative and car-oriented DOTs like Ohio’s ODOT are looking to “fix it first” for financial reasons. Part of what worries transportation advocates about Bernie Sanders’ messaging on transportation funding is that this fix-it-first way of doing things might evaporate at the state level if more money became available. Sanders should make it clear to the transportation community that his focus on transportation funding does not mean a return to business-as-usual for road expansions, and that DOTs still need to start prioritizing and limiting their spending to bring the U.S. back on track.

Talking about the true roots of America’s transportation crisis–overspending on bad projects–should hone close to an attitude about public finance that Bernie Sanders has already embraced his entire life. It will clearly energize existing, young, liberal voters, while also reaching out to moderates who are concerned about costs. It takes away the false choice of progressive vs. practical, and puts them in one candidate together. Supporting the #NoNewRoads campaign will also bring Sanders close to a group of people the Clinton campaign has been attempting to separate him from: Obama lovers. Sanders has supported many of the positive achievements of the Obama era while also criticizing the president from the left, but on this issue he would be in line with our current president: President Obama invited Strong Towns, the organization that coined #NoNewRoads, to the White House to speak on rural development issues. Sanders can demonstrate that he’s able to work with fiscal conservatives, champion climate change action, and shore up support from supporters of President Obama, all at once. Win-win-win.

Donald Trump may think that we can slap a billion dollars on anything and make it better, but Bernie Sanders has shown on a range of issues that he’s much smarter. Sanders is a “man of the people” says one article: he walks to work and takes the middle seat on planes. The Sanders campaign should speak smartly on transportation so as to draw on the approach he’s taken in the past. Let’s #FeelTheBern for #NoNewRoads.

~~~~

January 27, 2016January 27, 2016

CoyoteRI testifying to decriminalize prostitution in New Hampshire

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As the executive director of CoyoteRI (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics), I will be testifying for the committee hearings on House Bill 1614, a bill that seeks to decriminalize prostitution, on Thursday in New Hampshire. The main reason I want to see prostitution decriminalized is because it is the only harm reduction model proven to reduce violence and exploitation in the sex industry.

In August 2015 Amnesty International voted to adopt a policy to protect the human rights of sex workers. The resolution recommends that Amnesty International develop a policy that supports the full decriminalization of all aspects of consensual sex work. The policy will also call on states to ensure that sex workers enjoy full and equal legal protection from exploitation, trafficking, and violence.

“We recognize that this critical human rights issue is hugely complex and that is why we have addressed this issue from the perspective of international human rights standards. We also consulted with our global movement to take on board different views from around the world,” said Amnesty’s Salil Shetty.

Amnesty’s research and consultation was carried out in the development of this policy in the past two years concluded that this was the best way to defend sex workers’ human rights and lessen the risk of abuse and violations they face.

The violations that sex workers can be exposed to include physical and sexual violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, extortion and harassment, human trafficking, forced HIV testing and medical interventions. They can also be excluded from health care and housing services and other social and legal protection.

Amnesty’s policy has drawn from an extensive evidence base from sources including UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, UNAIDS and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health. We have also conducted research in four countries.

The consultation included sex worker groups, groups representing survivors of prostitution, abolitionist organizations, feminist and other women’s rights representatives, LGBTI activists, anti- trafficking agencies and HIV/AIDS organizations.

Amnesty International considers human trafficking abhorrent in all of its forms, including sexual exploitation, and should be criminalized as a matter of international law. This is explicit in this new policy and all of Amnesty International’s work.

In 2003 New Zealand passed the “Prostitution Reform Act,” which decriminalized all aspects of adult prostitution. Upon a 5 year review, New Zealand has just about rid the sex industry of exploitation. Sex Workers reported that they had better relationships with the police.

It is crucial that sex workers can work together and share work space to ensure their safety. Many sex workers, utilize 3rd party support staff to help keep them safe. Under current US laws 3rd party support staff are legally classified as traffickers. Sex Workers need “equal protection under the law”. Sex Workers need to be able to report violence and exploitation to the police, without fearing that they are in danger of being arrested and further persecution.

Criminalization of prostitution is a failed policy. It hasn’t stopped anyone from “buying or selling” sex, but it has caused a lot of collateral damage. From our failed “Safe Harbor Laws” to the insane Homeland Security training of hotel staff, who have been told to report people who have too many condoms. We need to ask, where are the big pimps and traffickers?

Could it be that the majority of US Sex Worker are under their own control? Even the minors interviewed in Surviving the streets of NY: Experiences of LGBTQ Youth, YMSM & YWSW Engaged in Survival Sex study by the Urban Institute, say that “they did not have pimps and they taught each other how to find clients, while avoiding police and social workers..

To add insult to injury, researchers have found that “the biggest threat to underaged Sex Workers is the police.” Jenny Heineman, a sociologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas worked with the federally funded Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children program, in collaboration with research teams across the U.S. Says “More than half of the young people I interviewed stated that they regularly perform sex acts for police officers in exchange for their not being arrested”.

In the Special Report: Money and Lies in Anti-Human Trafficking NGOs we find that the US is funding US trafficking NGOs, over 600 million a year to “create awareness on human trafficking” yet these NGOs do not provide any direct services to trafficking victims or sex workers.

We can do better than this which is why I support New Hampshire’s House-Bill 1614.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387