Progressive News, Opinion, and Analysis
I’m writing to follow up on Becky’s post. When you watch the video you’ll learn that Rhode Island currently spends 40.5 million dollars annually policing, and adjudicating and incarcerating the users of marijuana. We could save 11 million of that through decriminalizing possession of marijuana under 1 oz, and instead treat addiction while preserving families and communities.
Hope to see you Tuesday, in the State House rotunda, 3:30 pm.
There’s a rally Tuesday at the State House, at 3:30, to call attention to marijuana porhibition in Rhode Island. Legislators at the RI State House are considering bills to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana (under 1oz.). Concerned residents across the state are invited to attend a rally to support marijuana decriminalization, a sensible measure which would remove current criminal penalties with a $150 civil fine.
Contact Becky Mer at OpenDoors of RI at bmer@opendoorsri.org
https://secure2.convio.net/mpp/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1237
The perplexing “missteps” by the Sanford police in the handling of the Trayvon Martin killing are adding up at an alarming rate. We recall that a narcotics detective, and not a homicide detective, was first to assess the scene and engage Zimmerman, or that the lead investigator, Chris Serino, had called for the arrest of George Zimmerman, but was overturned by the state Attorney’s Office claiming there was not enough evidence.
Sanford mayor, Jeff Triplett, against the urgings of his own police and local prosecutors, decided to release the 911 phone call tapes. Until now it was not known that the Sanford police dept. had advised the mayor in this regard.
Additionally, recently release video of George Zimmerman in temporary custody at the Sanford police headquarters 35 mins. after the shooting appears to challenge the veracity of his, and his family’s, claim that he was brutally assaulted by Trayvon Martin. On the video Zimmerman appeared to have no contusions or lacerations on the back of his head or to his nose, nor was there any observable blood stains on his clothing. Zimmerman has claimed that his nose was broken during a scuffle with Martin, and medical experts assert that a broken nose in this instance would have produce significant bleeding. Law enforcement expert, Lou Palumbo, after viewing the video noted that Zimmeran appeared “fully ambulatory.”
New witnesses continue to emerge with detailed accounts that also dispute Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. One witness who wished to remain unidentified placed Zimmerman as situated on top of Trayvon.
…The larger man got off, then there was a boy that was now dead on the ground … He [Zimmerman] didn’t appear hurt…
Richard Kurtz, the funeral director who prepared the body of Trayvon, stated that he saw no irregularities to Trayvon’s body that would be consistent with the account of a physical struggle the likes of which Zimmerman testified to. Zimmerman’s “story just does not make sense,” said Kurtz.
Arguably the most crucial component to the entire case is a Sanford law which, according to Ken Padowitz, a former homicide prosecutor, states that because Zimmerman was handcuffed and taken to the police station by default means that he actually was officially under arrest, but was apparently never booked.
Somebody at that police department made a decision to not go through normal procedure.
Under Florida’s codes of criminal procedure unless George Zimmerman is charged within a 175 days of this apparent arrest he can never be charged for the murder of Trayvon Martin.
The clock of justice is ticking… literally.
Below is a list of local actions taking place in support of justice for Trayvon and his family:
Every week in Rhode Island thousands of people are ushered through the court system, and every year nearly 20,000 will be released from prison. There are 30,000 people currently on probation, as we have one of the highest rates of government supervision in the nation. Over 100,000 Rhode Islanders have some manner of conviction on their records. The effects of those convictions can vary greatly.
A culture of criminal background checks has cast a cloud of discrimination upon many people and their families. HB 7760 and 7864 [concerning pre-interview criminal background checks] accept the fact that we live within one community- and we need to look carefully at policies that can go awry of their original intent regarding the safety of all.
I am in some ways typical of a person with a criminal record, particularly as we can only be evaluated on an individual basis. My past is terrible. The things I did two decades ago are despicable, and some have argued that I should continue to be punished and a life of homelessness or unemployment is appropriate. However, whether I lived out such an existence in prison or the community, I would become a burden on the state. On the one hand, my crimes are far more severe than most of the convicted; yet on the other hand, I bring more capacity to the table than most of the convicted.
In 2005 I was released from prison after 11 years, 8 months and restricted by an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet for one year. Prior to my release (as a pre-condition of getting parole), I was only able to find one job, and it took me two hours to get to work. After a few months, and with school starting soon, I sought a job closer to home in Woonsocket, at a Sears department store warehouse. I did not check the “box” asking if I had been “convicted of a felony in the past seven years.”
My interview at Sears went well. I submitted to a drug test, and upon the second interview I mentioned he would need to speak with my parole officer before taking the job. When we got into my very distant past, it was clear I was not getting the job despite my willingness to work hard for under $8 per hour. Others like me generally do not get that far, as many have been convicted in the past seven years. He may have been more comfortable if my history were less severe, yet if that lighter crime were more recent, I probably would not have made the interview.
Last summer I transferred my probation to New Orleans and looked for an apartment. I introduced myself as a Tulane Law Student. After going through the process, I asked if they discriminated against anyone. The agent assured me they did not, and requested my non-refundable $50 application fee. I asked about “people with convictions.” She did not know; they use a third party to do their background checks, but she was helpful enough to find their policy: Anyone with a felony conviction within the past seven years is barred from living in River Garden, one of the largest housing complexes in New Orleans. And anyone who ever had a crime of violence or property damage cannot live there. This is a common policy.
Last year we introduced the “Ban the Box” bill to This Committee. We have gained the support of many, as I expect you will continue to see in the legislative process. Some of you likely recall who came out in opposition: a lobbyist who represents background check companies. They could not provide any evidence of people with criminal records creating less effective workplaces, yet evidence of these policies decimating communities is overwhelming. They are likely familiar that their companies frequently violate the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which has standards for checking people’s information. Background checks have a consistent error rate, evidenced by the approximately 100,000 voters barred from the polls in Florida in 2000 because their names were similar to others who were barred by felony convictions.
Background check companies are blunt data miners who rarely recognize corrections or expungements, and certainly cannot assess the actual job applicant- whether 20 days or 20 years after conviction. This Legislature has held many hearings on expunging criminal records, even reforms proposed by the Attorney General. Those expungements are useless where background check companies do not update material. Their goal, understandably, is profit rather than safety.
When NY Governor Cuomo was Attorney General, he filed a series of discrimination suits against companies based on FCRA, Title VII, and New York anti-discrimination laws. He elicited millions of dollars in settlements and voluntary reforms in their hiring policies. Appropriate law in Rhode Island could provide guidance and protection for our own companies, allowing them to avoid the type of hiring policies that the EEOC has condemned. The EEOC is stepping up its enforcement, and recently negotiated a $3.1 million settlement with Pepsi, including a change to their hiring practice, as they had conducted blanket denials based on criminal records.
My prospects of returning to Rhode Island and raising my daughter are largely tied to what this legislature does in the coming years. Nearly a third of public school students have a parent who is under government supervision like myself; would I be barred from volunteering? Barred from school property? Will I be allowed to work based on my skills and efforts? Will I be allowed to rent or buy a home anywhere I like? This nation has been on a dangerous slope over recent decades, and if we do not reverse course we will have a caste society that forces me to create a different economy, a different school system, and a different community. This is not what I want, and I am confident that it is not what the people of Rhode Island want. Ultimately, we will all sink or swim together.
These comments were submitted to the House Labor Committee and entered into the record at its hearing on Wednesday on a bill that would make concerning pre-interview criminal background checks, or as it has been called “Ban the Box” because it would make it illegal to have a box on a job application asking if one has been convicted of a felony.
Add Rhode Island Deputy Public Defender Barbara Hurst to the list of people who think the state should decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. In fact, she endorsed legalizing and taxing marijuana too.
She sent a letter to the Senate committee considering a bill tonight that would make possession of less than an ounce of pot punishable by $150 ticket instead of up to a year in jail.
“The RIPD is of the opinion that the changes contained within these two pieces of legislation, while taking different approaches, make sensible and timely modifications to our state’s criminal justice and enforcement policies The RIPD is also of the opinion that the collateral benefits to be realized from these changes would be added revenue to the state, and a more efficient allocation of limited criminal justice resources.
Seventy years of marijuana prohibition have turned a little-known medicinal herb into a product that’s been used by nearly half of all Americans, including President Barack Obama and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Given this widespread use and acceptance the state has no business making responsible, adult marijuana consumers into criminals. And independent scientific research consistently concludes that marijuana is far safer than alcohol- both in risk of addiction and toxicity.”
Ending the prohibition on marijuana, she said in her letter, could save the state some $12 million.
Read the full letter HERE.
Marijuana would be legal, and available at designated stores, if a bill being heard at the State House tonight were to become law.
“It would be a brave new world,” said Rep. Edith Ajello, a Providence Democrat who is sponsoring the legislation. “It would be taxed. There would be stores that sold marijuana, legally licensed by the state just as stores are licensed to sell alcohol.”
Ajello, it should be noted, doesn’t think that brave new world will come to fruition this session. Not only does she not think her bill would pass this year, she doesn’t think the federal government would allow the change.
But a related bill, which would decriminalize marijuana, might. This bill, she said, has healthy support in both chambers and is similar to the law in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
That decriminalize bill, sponsored by Rep. John Edwards, D- Tiverton, Portsmouth, would lessen the punishment for possession of less than an ounce of pot a ticket and a $150 fine. Oh yeah, and “forfeiture of the marijuana,” according to the bill that will also be heard tomorrow night.
Law enforcement is expected to oppose the legislation.
Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York have all decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot. In total, 13 states have such reduced penalties for possession.
Ajello said she expects marijuana will be legal in the near future once more people realize how harmless it is.
I do think it is where we will be,” she said. “Marijuana is not thought to be any more dangerous than alcohol and we have legalized and taxed alcohol. I think ultimately we can move through decriminalization to legalizing and taxing.”
The recent article by Michelle Alexander appearing in the New York Times, “Crash the System,” has stirred up a great deal of interest among the activist community. Most of the people I have heard from, however, have been those who never faced imprisonment- including many lawyers and law students… i.e., people who actually read the New York Times or have it shared with them on their Facebook wall. Alexander’s article dangles a theory of overloading and “crashing” the criminal justice system: by everyone refusing the plea bargain and going to trial.
This crashing maneuver is nothing new to prisoners. The article itself spawned from a conversation between Alexander and Susan Burton, a formerly incarcerated woman who has since become a trailblazing activist and organizer on criminal justice reform. Having spoken with those who have done time in other states, I know most elements of the system are essentially the same no matter where you go.
When I was facing my own sentence, being held without bail for nearly three years, I counseled hundreds of men regarding plea bargains and trials. I could typically anticipate the first offer from the state, what he should counter-offer, and what the state will settle on. It was very formulaic, and a disappointment whenever someone took the first offer just to get out of the hideous conditions of pretrial detention (yet another tactic). And there was always that guy yelling, “People need to take everything to trial. Shut down that whole damn system.” And there is another guy saying, “I came in alone, I’m going out alone.”
In hindsight, I could have never organized these men to refuse plea bargains and go to trial for several reasons. First, there is something distinctly personal about one’s own sentence. Unlike conditions of confinement that affects everyone inside, the individual sentences can range from weeks to decades for actions that have nothing to do with each other. That early phase of confinement, in jail or “Intake,” is rife with suspicion, ego, and predatory tactics. Nobody is prepared to take a bullet for the person in the cell next to them.
Some of the commentary I have read by activists (who do not live in Highly Policed Communities) suggest that the nation’s arrested (mostly poor People of Color) should take this on. As if we have now found the secret method of change in a nice March On Washington and Occupy Wall Street way. They would put the onus of changing an oppressive system on the lashed backs of the oppressed. Sadly, due to the impotence of the American public at large, it will likely end up being just that. Others have asked the legal community what they can do in this situation, suggesting that a lawyer holds the key to a plea bargain and could actually counsel people to take a stand.
A lawyer’s job is to arm a client with as much knowledge as possible so they can make the best decision. This does not always happen, particularly in the world of young Public Defenders with massive caseloads. Not only does the typical lawyer have little knowledge about the totality of the system, from police tactics to prison conditions, parole hearings to probation violations, or employment discrimination to voting rights… most attorneys would not have time to truly explain this to an accused person.
Public Defenders, AND prosecutors, need to develop an ethical standard about collateral consequences, sentencing enhancements, and reduced standard of guilt (on violation hearings) so that people can intelligently accept/reject a plea. As of now, the accused generally hears “If you sign this, you can go home today.” Or “If you go to trial and are convicted, they will throw the book at you.”
One lawyer mentioned to me that he is currently pursuing a strategy against a sentencing enhancement by arguing how, when he was sentenced before, nobody said anything about getting extra time if he were convicted again. Every state has “bonus” time, such as Three Strikes in California, where people can get as much as 20 years to Life tacked on “just because.” Thus, the enhancement is often higher than all their previous sentences combined. This is a good legal strategy, similar to the successful argument in Padilla, holding that someone cannot be deported for a prior guilty plea when they were not told that the plea can result in deportation. Those in best position to fight a criminal conviction by taking it to trial are often facing lighter crimes at a young age.
My first plea was for marijuana possession. Four of us were traveling in a car, we were pulled over, and the police found a bag after nearly ten minutes. No warrant, of course. My friends all had families to report to, so I claimed it to be mine. When I went to court, the Public Defender met me in the hallway and never mentioned the Fourth Amendment. Instead she explained how if I pay a few hundred dollars the charge will go away if I stay out of trouble for a year. And I won’t have to do any time on it. Up until that point, I had contact with the police just about every year since I was 11 years old. It did not seem to matter to her whether or not I might have contact over the next year. This was a standard deal. Bargaining was not a concept in this plea.
My second plea, within a year of the last, was slightly more complicated, as they offered me five years suspended and five years probation. Same procedure in the hallway, but I insisted two things: I didn’t steal the car, and I was not intoxicated. The prosecutor amended the charge to Receiving Stolen Goods Over $500, and kept the sentence. I took it.
Many years later, when trying to get a driver’s license, the DMV told me I was convicted of refusing a breathalyzer. I felt this was ludicrous considering the police brought me unconscious into the hospital after a car wreck. But it was too late to challenge this, so I was told. The total tab to get back on the road was over $3000, including DWI classes and extra insurance. And yet today, this little bonus conviction doesn’t even show up on my record. Such is the ways of the system.
My final plea is the most telling. I called their bluff. I knew what I was actually guilty of, under law, and they initially agreed to this, and would ask the court to impose the maximum sentence. When I went to court for the official sentencing, they pulled the rug out and wanted a more severe charge. Apparently the Attorney General wanted to keep his statistics up. I demanded a trial. I told my lawyer, “Going through life as a convicted murderer is likely to be much different than being labeled a convicted manslaughterer.”
My lawyer asked what I would take on second degree murder. I told him 15 years. He said they would never go for it. I said “get a jury, let’s go to trial.” He started to explain how summer was coming, nobody wants to do trials, people go on vacation… I reminded him I had been held without bail for almost three years. I wanted my “Speedy Trial,” which is supposed to be within 180 days. My lawyer went back upstairs.
The guys in the holding pen were scared for me. “Man, you’re rolling some big dice.” The few who knew me had to remind me I knew the law and wouldn’t get rolled over. Manslaughter itself carried up to 30 years, and I knew if I lost a trial I would get just that, and hopefully be out in 15 or 20 on parole. I would rather get 30 for manslaughter than 25 for murder. I knew it would have a domino effect on my entire life.
It only took about fifteen minutes for my lawyer to come back down. The prosecutor was going to ask the court to impose 25 years for second degree murder- they knocked off five. If I pled guilty, the judge could still do whatever he wanted. If he went higher, naturally I would have screamed out in the courtroom about “fraud, deceit” and other such things that would get my “plea” thrown out. Upstairs, the prosecutor who previously recommended a manslaughter conviction, labeled me before the court in as vile terms imaginable. He could have said the same things about Osama bin Laden, as there really isn’t much else to say. After hearing statements all around, the judge gave me 45 years, with 20 years to serve. I didn’t scream out, or anything. I was already numb. That chapter of my life was officially over.
Two decades later and I can say with certainty that the label on me does not rest. The label says nothing about what I actually did, but its easy for journalists and others to use- people can attach a set of images and presumptions to it. My lawyer was not overly concerned about this label, nor any collateral consequences. A nice enough guy, it just wasn’t in the cards to discuss anything other than the actual number of years in prison. We did not talk about life on parole, or on probation, and how that will impact me. Ultimately, even a Jailhouse Lawyer like myself who spent years studying the rules of evidence and constitutional provisions, did not make a fully informed choice regarding my plea.
The eighteen year old me could have been part of crashing the system. I had a perfect case for trial that carried a light sentence overall. A good lawyer would have taken the extra hour to get it dismissed. A good lawyer would explain to young people that if one takes the statutory maximum sentence, suspended, and goes home today on probation, they are very likely to serve at least five years on that probation violation… because something is likely to happen between ages 20 and 30- particularly in Highly Policed Communities amongst my Black and Brown brothers and sisters. The nineteen year old me, facing serious charges, needed the benefit of those who keep the system in check. Unfortunately, I’ve found that those without criminal records are waiting on me to keep the system in check.
At a hearing on a bill that would protect people from being profiled by police based on their race, Rep. Leo Medina, D- Providence, no stranger to law enforcement, told the story of the time he was pulled over late at night and essentially harassed by an East Providence police officer.
Then Chairman of the Rhode Island Human Rights Commission Michael Evora testified about why some of law enforcement’s objections to the bill contradict best practices used by police in Rhode Island. “I respectfully submit,” he said, “that in some instances the term officer safety is used as a subterfuge.”
Last week here on RI Future, I shared a short podcast about Racial Profiling in RI from the perspective of youth and community organizers working with Providence Youth Student Movement. Here is an extended series of excerpts from my conversation on Sonic Watermelons with Sangress Xiong and Yonara Alvarado, and Franny Choi.
Xiong, Alvarado, and Choi are among community members, law enforcement officials and members of the legislature who will gather today at the State House for a meeting of the House Committee on Judiciary; the Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act of 2012 (H-7256) is one of the bills to be discussed.
All of tonight’s agenda items deal with “Motor and Other Vehicles,” and most are about motorists driving under the influence. A couple other bills that might be of interest to RI Future readers include H-7222, which “would authorize a bail commissioner to order that a person’s license be suspended immediately upon the report of a law enforcement officer that the person has refused a chemical test for driving while under the influence of alcohol” and H-7203 which, if passed, would “bar checkpoints as a means to detect motorists under the influence.”
For more information about today’s hearing, click here. To read more about my interview with Xiong, Alvarado, and Choi, click here.
***
Hear Sonic Watermelons live every Wednesday
6-8 PM (EST) on www.bsrlive.com.
PROVIDENCE, RI – On Wednesday, March 7 at 4:30 PM, community members and advocates are expected to show up en masse to share their views on racial profiling in RI at a hearing at the State House before the House Committee on Judiciary. But folks have been speaking out on the topic for years, including youth and adult advocates from Providence Youth Student Movement (PrYSM), an organization founded to support Southeast Asian Youth in Providence.
Hear more about their work here in this podcast of excerpts from my February 15 interview with PrYSM youth leaders, ?Sangress Xiong and Yonara Alvarado, and PrYSM staffer Franny Choi. It aired lived on my weekly program, Sonic Watermelons on Brown Student and Community Radio.
During the interview, Xiong, Alvarado and Choi talk about recent campaign actions, like the February press conference introducing House Bill 7256, the making of the local documentary called Fitting the Description, and other recent activities that they have participated in with PrYSM and the Coalition Against Racial Profiling. Alvarado (who is Latina) says she became passionate about the topic after being in the car and witnessing racial profiling when her uncle was stopped by an officer, and subsequently feeling less faith in whether officers are best serving the community; Xiong, who is Hmong (Southeast Asian), helps explain how a practice once known as “Driving while Black” has expanded to include not only the Latino/Hispanic community, but the Southeast Asian community in Providence as well – including friends and neighbors of his.
I also spoke with the three guests about the benefits and limitations of using digital media tools to collect stories from people who’ve been subjected to racial profiling, and for doing outreach about legislative efforts like the Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act that will be reviewed and discussed at next Wednesday’s House Judiciary hearing. The ten-page bill deals primarily with conduct during motor vehicle stops and searches, and among the provisions are:
In addition to collecting the probable cause information, the bill would require officers to collect data on race during stops – and departments to maintain and report this data at intervals over a 4 year period. Choi says collecting data is key to ending racially divisive practices, and – along with the ACLU in their work on the topic – points to a local, southern RI city for proof of its inclusion in the bill as being “effective legislation.”
In Narragansett, says Choi in the excerpts, the department began collecting information without the legislation, and found a drop in “racial disparities in stops” after instituting the policy. The ACLU also found recent actions and improvements in Johnston. At the end of the day, says Choi, “when you’re pulling someone over, have a reason to pull them over.”
***
To connect with PrYSM about their work on Racial Profiling, visit www.prysm.us or email franny@prysm.us. For more information about the Coalition Against Racial Profiling or next Wednesday’s hearing, contact Nick Figueroa of the Univocal Legislative Minority Advisory Coalition (ULMAC) by email at policy@ulmac.org. Anyone can attend the hearing and sign up to testify, but Figueroa highly encourages anyone who would be testifying for the first time to contact him in advance for information and tips on the process of giving testimonies and what to expect in the hearing. For example, four other bills are scheduled to be discussed on the same night and in the same hearing (meeting), so 4:30 may be the start-time for the hearing, but not necessarily when the Racial Profiling Bill is addressed.
Additional clips from the interview will be made available on VenusSings.com and IsisStorm.com, where you can also follow show updates about Sonic Watermelons, which airs live every Wednesday, from 6-8 PM (EST) at www.bsrlive.com.
Despite the cold rainy weather, about a half a dozen Occupy Providence members took part in the #F29 Shut Down the Corporations at Pfizer in Groton, CT. The national action was called by Occupy Portland to protest members of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a front group that writes model pro-corporate legislation.
The coordinated inter-occupy direct action against ALEC and Pfizer in Groton resulted in a civil disobedience where 8 people were arrested after Pfizer refused to send a representative out to discuss their ALEC initiatives. It was a success by any standard. The coalition, which consisted of occupiers from Occupy New London, Occupy Shoreline (CT), Occupy Hartford, Occupy Worcester, Occupy New Haven, Occupy Boston, Occupy Providence and more, gathered in Groton to march to the Pfizer facility, and then participated in a dynamic teach-in to work on ways to build non-violent protest in the Occupy movement.
Occupy Providence’s Susan Walker said, “We couldn’t believe how many police cars and officers were there. It was a little intimidating at first. But we walked right up to the crowd and joined about 100 other protesters in mike checks about Pfizer and ALEC. The energy was great. The costumes and signs were creative- an activist costumed as Big Bird with a sign ‘Hey Pfizer, Test This Bird’ was my favorite.”
CT residents were angry because Pfizer negotiated $161 million in tax incentives to build the facility, bulldozed a residential neighborhood, and then laid off 1500 local workers once the tax incentives abated. Not only that, but they resented that Pfizer is a heavy hitter with ALEC in legislating for corporate greed.
The march ended back at the main gate where access was denied. Several Occupiers approached the gatehouse and asked for a representative to come out and speak to us as was requested in an advance letter that was sent. They were denied. The group decided to march around the facility and approach all the gates and ask to speak to a Pfizer representative.
The police had painted a blue line demarcating a boundary protesters weren’t supposed to cross. One protester later mused “blue line from the blue pill (Viagra) company- did Pfizer plan it that way?”
In unified action of civil disobedience, the whole group crossed the line, and got within 20 feet of the heavily guarded gate. Eight protesters then walked straight up to the gate house, linked arms, refused to leave, and were arrested one by one.
Civil Disobedience arrestees were singing Solidarity Forever as the paddy wagon hauled them away. Occupiers chanted and mike checked for a little longer.
Walker noted, “I found the vibe of the police presence really interesting. It was intimidating at first. I think it was almost a 1:1 ratio of officers to occupiers. Early on occupiers had chanted, “The Police Need a Raise! The Police Need a Raise!” which was a pressing local issue. The officers were respectful and seemed to have our safety in mind.”
As the march around the facility continued, police made sure we stayed on the sidewalk, that traffic could flow, and even blocked traffic so we could cross streets.
Walker continued, “I’m willing to bet some of the officers know families who were hurt by Pfizer’s layoffs, or who were displaced when they built the facility in the first place. But these are guesses, not facts. It’s a fact that those arrested were treated well and released promptly. I really got the feeling some of the officers felt like they were marching with us.”
After a break, the group reconvened at the New London All Souls Unitarian Church for a teach-in by a War Resisters League member from Voluntown, CT. In the workshop, an energized 30-40 people from over 7 different occupations worked together to develop a stronger, more effective movement. It included 3 first time occupiers whose excitement was palpable, one commented, “This is the most empowering day of my life.”
After protesters introduced themselves, CT Brian led the group reading off #F29 highlights from around the country from Twitter, starting with a report from Tucson, where they forced a G4S prison deportation bus to cut a hole in their own fence to get the deportees on the road.
This an interesting snapshot video of a twitter reading at 3:15 ET.
#F29-#CT #OP-Snapshot-3:15 National Actions http://youtu.be/1cC4BhIpFxQ
The facilitator broke down the elements of successful activism into 8 components- constructive work/alternatives, common understanding, non-violence discipline, demonstrations, allies, negotiation, research/Info gathering, and legislative/electoral reform and let the participants break into groups to work on the aspect most resonant to them.
Then each study group was given a list of questions, like for the demonstrations sub-group focused on “how we can best demonstrate our concern”.
Each small group reported back to the whole group their observations. The demonstration group reported that they felt the ALEC protester was a good model as it was focused on a key issue that connected with the central messages of Occupy. A person from one of the last standing of the New England encampment, Occupy New Haven camp resident Danielle DiGirolamo, reported on Alternatives- that much of this has started with natural medicine and alternative energy becoming more mainstream and Susan Walker added that “basically we feel there are a lot of alternatives to what the corporations are spoon feeding us.”
Then the group was asked to order the different parts of a campaign with respect to the sequence they should occur in. They selected- Common understanding, Research, Allies, combined Training/Education, create Constructive alternatives, Negotiation, Non Violent Discipline, Legislative Action, to which the facilitator commented, not the usual order but “I’d say that’s perfect.” At the end materials on non-violent training were distributed.
Protesters nationally were successful in raising awareness about ALEC a legislative shadow organization as Occupies around the world united for systemic change.
Check out the embedded video from the Occupy Portand Video Collective.
The large Anti-Corporate greed protest in LA included masked Anarchists and possible young actress marching behind a banner of People Over Profits in the middle of a large crowd. One tweet reported that- when the March arrived at Walmart, many workers from WalMart stepped outside. The police responded by telling them to go back to work or risk arrest. An interesting accidental exposure of the Police bias to protect corporate property before people.
Perhaps the management had called. A t that time the LAPD was not threatening the protesters with arrest, only the Walmart workers, seeming to be more of an attempt to suppress worker solidarity with any movement that dares to unite people behind pro-worker programs- living wage, right to organize, right to strike to name a few. Had Walmart succeeded in forming the Grass Roots Union they sought, management wouldn’t have been so quick to suppress what could have been interpreted as a walkout.
Walker summed up her experience this way. ” It’s inspirational that Occupy Providence got to participate in a national coordinated day of action against ALEC. The bottom line: retailers, for-profit prisons and pharmaceuticals are writing legislation, and paying legislators to get it passed. The prisons are writing the laws? Really? It’s not OK. “
By Robert Malin & Susan Walker
According to a study by Northeastern University, African American and Latino motorists were more than twice as likely to be searched after being pulled over for a traffic stop in Rhode Island.
Think there’s racial profiling in Rhode Island? The study certainly seems to suggest as much, and a number of state legislators and the RI-based Coalition to Stop Racial Profiling have teamed up to do something about it.
The legislators, led by Grace Diaz, D-Prov, introduced a bill into the House called the Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act. The bill, according to a fact sheet put together by the ACLU, would:
The Coalition, on the other hand, put together with the help of the Providence Youth Student Movement and Youth in Action this short documentary called “Fitting the Description.” Check it out:
There is a documentary film project under way about the Station Nightclub fire of February 20, 2003. In 2010, Paul Lonardo helped Gina Russo write a book called From the Ashes about the loss of her fiancé, and of her survival from the fire. Local documentary filmmaker David Bettencourt is working on adapting and expanding Gina’s story for a more comprehensive film project about the fire called The Station (website coming soon). You may know David Bettencourt from You Must Be This Tall: The True Story of Rocky Point, and the Neutral Nation movie It’s a Bash (with an appearance by yours truly).
The planned release date for The Station will be February 2013, in time for the 10 year anniversary of the fire that took the lives of 100 people. In an email from Paul Londardo, he explained the impetus behind the documentary:
We hope to get as many people involved in this project as possible so that the tragedy and the 100 lost lives are never forgotten. We want to make this an accurate historical document as well, so participation is important. In addition to the documentary film, a web series will be produced which will be made available on-line after the film’s release. These will be shorter, personal stories which did not make it into the film and they will be made available on line, released in weekly intervals as part of the project.
If you are interested in being sharing your story, please contact Paul Lonardo at Palonardo@aol.com or 401-743-3812.
Striking a vital blow against accountability, Attorney General Peter Kilmartin endorsed the “50-state” settlement on foreclosure fraud yesterday, led by the Iowa Attorney General, Tom Miller. The settlement essentially allows banks to skip away from the crimes they committed in the course of foreclosing on a few million people’s houses.
To recap: this settlement has been over a year in the making, and is intended to clean things up in the real estate market, absolving banks of responsibility for their misdeeds in exchange for money that will go to principal reduction, and also doing some short sales and refinancing and payoffs to unjustly foreclosed borrowers. These are good things, but there is a problem.
Nationally, we’re talking about $25 billion, which sounds like a lot, but last year JP Morgan’s bonus pool was around $10 billion. HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan says there is about $700 billion in negative equity in the country. Realistically, the program might help a million people, but there are 10.7 million mortgages underwater, and millions of people already foreclosed upon, also according to HUD.
Not only is the money not commensurate with the damage they caused, but it’s not going to be much help cleaning up, either. Kilmartin estimated Rhode Island would see “millions” from the settlement. The registrar of Essex County, Massachusetts, hardly the epicenter of the foreclosure epidemic, estimated last year that only 16% of the mortgages in his registry were valid, and of the rest, 27% were fraudulent. Over the past decade, the RI real estate market has been around $5 billion per year. Roughly similar numbers for the state of Rhode Island would have around a billion dollars in fraudulent mortgages per year, or around $8-10 billion total, give or take. It will take a lot more than a few million to clear all those titles and restore the damage done.
Why is the settlement so low? Maybe it’s because there hasn’t, until recently, been even a credible threat of prosecution for the crimes committed. Just to review, we’re talking about actual crimes — fraud, forgery, perjury — acts for which you or I would spend time in jail.
What’s also astonishing here is where this $25 billion will come from. It turns out that almost all of it will come from the owners of the securitized mortgages, the pension funds and other investors who bought these terrible bonds from the banks. Those owners will be dinged some of their interest payments, making their bonds even less valuable then they already are. It appears that most of the money will not come from the banks that caused the problem and profited so much from it. So much for even the simulacrum of accountability.
For everyone who thinks, “Oh, well, the banks were just foreclosing on people who didn’t pay their mortgage, anyway,” there is a big problem ahead. The bank’s self-invented mortgage registry (MERS) was not maintained, and was probably inadequate to the job it was assigned: keeping track of ownership. (Not to mention that it was probably an illegal enterprise in the first place, but put that aside for a moment.) This means that pretty much any property whose mortgage passed through MERS won’t be able to get a clear title. In turn this means a lot of claims on the title insurance companies, some of whom are likely to go under because of the mounting pile of claims. It also means time spent in court by people who can’t get a clear title to the property they own and money spent on lawyers to argue about them. Years from now, when you find yourself shelling out a few thousand dollars to clear the title to your house, you can comfort yourself in knowing that not only did none of the people who caused that problem have to pay any price at all, but most of them got rich doing it. What a country!
A new poll of 714 Rhode Island Voters indicates overwhelming support for medical marijuana, compassion centers, and decriminalization of less than one ounce of the plant. The medical marijuana law, gone unused by Rep. Bob Watson (if he were to qualify) garnered support of 72%, including a whopping 82% of Dems, 61% GOP, and 57% of those beloved Seniors that every politician craves. Only 30% of people over 65 were opposed. With that support, it should be no surprise that support for the Compassion Centers (approved by the legislature three years ago) was equally high- and the poll suggests that Chaffee stands to gain some support if he were to stop Pot-Blocking the Compassion Centers. Half the voters said they would view the Governor more favorably, while only 19% would view him less favorably.
A meager 24% are opposed to making small amounts of marijuana punishable by only a fine, and apparently would rather pay to imprison someone over a bag of the most common illegal intoxicant, being used by millions of Americans every day. In contrast, 65% of RI voters would like to see the highly anticipated change in the law, and 58% would be more likely to vote for a politician who supported such a reform (24% said “less likely,” with 18% not sure). Political gurus: you know the score. Few have ever seen a bill with this much sponsorship and public support that has not become law. It appears the onus is upon Speaker Gordon Fox to assure all the votes are held, as few individuals other than he could keep this bill from reaching the Governor’s desk. It remains to be seen how many courageous people take to the hearing, saying things heard last year such as: ‘I’m a wife, a mother, I have a job, pay a mortgage, and I smoke pot.’ H 7092, sponsored by Rep. Edwards, has a list of co-sponsors that makes you search for the opposition. Minority Leader Newberry? Sponsor. Favorite Villain Rep. Palumbo? Sponsor. The aroma smells the same in the Senate, with S 2253. Stay tuned.
The more interesting proposition is one which gained the support of millions of voters in California on the first try: Full Regulation of Marijuana. Such a bill has gone to a hearing for the past two years; admittedly, the legislation may need to be more detailed, or empower the proper regulatory agency to oversee a several hundred million dollar economic development project that America has never seen. I could not find such a bill filed yet in the Assembly, but I may have overlooked it. The poll of voters, by the way, shakes out 52-41% in support. If this were projected numbers in an election, the front page would call it a “landslide.” Interestingly, the women are much less enthusiastic about Regulation despite being more supportive than men on the Compassion Centers. There was no difference in support among party lines, with the Independent/Other having lower support than the two dominant factions. On this question, the Over 65 crowd was the most out of step with everyone else, as they oppose Regulation 55-36%. I’m not sure if these numbers would be identical in 10 years, and age reflects our changing opinions, or if the idea of marijuana criminalization will go Bye Bye like Ms. American Pie.
One question that was not asked, that would be of interest, is support for the Good Samaritan Act. This bill (successful elsewhere) is basically designed to encourage one drug user to save the life of another. Studies and experience in the medical field has shown that drug overdose, a serious killer in America even when the newspaper is not so explicit, can often be prevented by the most unlikely hero, another user. However, faced with the fear of prison (and possibly being linked in with their death) the other user will flee rather than call 911 or administer naxalone. Under this bill, nobody is going to be charged with drug possession if the evidence arises when its a medical response. Surely a certain percentage of RI voters would rather see people dead or in jail, but I suspect that a vast majority would encourage people in tough times to choose life.
Life, Compassion, and Decriminalization- that is what the people are leaning towards. Don’t let the fear-mongering media fool you.
Recent talk continues about the state buying a troubled asset, the Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls. The thinking is that the state could purchase the outlandishly overvalued prison, refinance it, and operate a modest profit margin while saving the bondholders on Wall Street. Naturally, such a deal would take decades, if ever, to pay off. As is, a scheduled increase in finance payments should bankrupt the prison within a few years. Like many such large projects, the income is made on the construction and the taxpayer dollars being redirected into the inside investors- a prison is not a “business” that sells a profitable service to customers.
The Wyatt prison operates at about half the cost of the ACI. They also get hundreds of thousands of dollars in free city services. Their subsidized, tax-free, “privatized” efficiency is done primarily by paying their labor on par with WalMart, rather than negotiating with the RI Brotherhood of Correctional Officers. If the state were to buy the Wyatt, there would likely be a considerable push to pay similar salaries and benefits, and the Brotherhood will likely demand those be union jobs. Furthermore, the payouts by Wyatt to prisoners’ widows (such as Jason Ng) would come out of the state coffers. The Wyatt will be guided by 14th Amendment protections under state ownership, which can grow costly, as (surprise) prisoners happen to be human beings and there are limitations on what forms of punishment and neglect can be inflicted upon them. Ultimately, and thoughts on turning a profit should be forgotten.
The desires to own a prison suggest little has been learned by the Bailouts and Foreclosure Crisis. Many people in government appear determined to override market forces and subsidize poor business models. It is much easier for a government official to do than an individual investor because, after all, it is not their money. And all you need to do to keep the Wyatt in business: increase sentences, arrest more people, create new crimes, and put more police on the street. For every dollar that the Wyatt makes, a dollar is spent by the taxpayers. Wyatt’s Wall Street owners need you to keep their pockets lined.
This week the Senate Judiciary voted to eliminate Good Time for people convicted of murder or serious sex offenses (1st degree child molestation, 2nd degree child molestation, kidnapping of a minor, and 1st degree sexual assault). (Good Time is the 10 days per month a prisoner receives for good conduct. In a month where the prisoner gets in trouble, they get no Good TIme, and will get 1-3 months worth of Good Time subtracted from their total.) At the same time, as blogged by Tom Sgouros, A.G. Kilmartin let Wall Street off the hook on the foreclosure crisis. The Attorney General also has a “White Collar Crime” proposed bill that isn’t about white collar crime- it is about corrupt public officials exclusively. He has absolutely no response to the financial crisis that is rampant with actual criminal activity.
It has long been accepted that White Collar crime is more serious than street crime. Even the political debates, which focus on fear and leave rationality behind, don’t have space to waste on street crime- but the Bailout, foreclosure crimes, and mass healthcare fraud make the cut. Yet when it comes to taking action and making the world a safe and secure place, we come back to the tried-and-true.
The “Woodmansee” legislation will put more pressure on the parole board to either release someone, or serve a long and costly incarceration. As prisoners age they get more expensive. Rhode Island will find out. Still unwilling to do something as little as make marijuana possession a civil penalty, the General Assembly’s thirst for prisoners may never cease. Even as the state crumbles around them. It is understandable to want to kill those who have committed terrible crimes, or in lieu of that, lock them up forever. Two factors need to be factored into that impulse: money and morality.
Plea bargains do as much, if not more, for the taxpayers than they do for the accused. It is no small thing to plead guilty to a serious offense, to give up any slim hope of exoneration, or being convicted of a lesser charge. Pleading guilty means admitting to the facts laid out by the Attorney General, and these are not agreed upon in the bargain. They may be inaccurate, and they may come back to haunt someone who is looking for work years later. Pleading guilty also means saving the taxpayers the cost of a trial. Lawyers on both sides should be spending dozens of hours in preparation for a trial. Their investigators would be spending days in preparation. Expert witnesses would be found, and paid. Although the Attorney General’s office and Public Defender are salaried, rather than hourly, enough trials would bring the entire system to a halt. More staff would be hired at a few more million per year. And to avoid this, the Attorney General offers a seemingly lighter sentence than would be had from a judge angry at the audacity of taking it to trial.
Judging by the Attorney General’s attitude towards prisoners, that they all should serve as long a sentence as legally possible (and in some cases, such as Woodmansee’s, spitting in the law’s face)… it is impossible to see any space for rehabilitation in the Attorney General worldview. This is not particular to him. A.G. Lynch, and most A.G.’s around the country, also have lobbyists who fight against any relaxation in the street crime laws, and also actively pursue increases in these laws. Thus, they should not be taken seriously when engaging in, or talking about, reentry or rehabilitation.
Eliminating Good Time based on someone’s crime reinforces the notion that someone will always be the sum of a single day. That they can not change. That they are their crime. This analysis is rampant throughout the criminal justice system, and is not very useful in assessing rehabilitative needs. As someone who has been out for nearly seven years from a second degree murder conviction, I would still be on parole if not for Good Time. And that is assuming the parole board would have looked as favorably on my situation, if my release date were September, 2013.
I’ve been asked recently if the Woodmansee Law, which will surely go through (yet not affect Michael Woodmansee, of course) will be applied retroactively. It is not uncommon for states to feel that court decisions, including those ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, do not bind them. So it is possible that RI will apply this rule to several hundred prisoners at the ACI. It will not hold up in court however, as prisoners have a “liberty interest” in Good Time credits; once given, they cannot be arbitrarily revoked.
Rhode Island has not hit rock bottom on “Getting Tough” on street crime. It may take more budget, more staff, more prisons. There is some debate of whether anything political can change course without a cataclysmic event. Whereas a minority of the General Assembly do bring some wisdom to the table rather than a “base mobilizing” approach to extremist positions, we shall see.
It is often bemoaned that candidates only talk about certain issues, only debate the same topics, and hardly ever disagree on anything of true substance. “My economic package is better than yours.” “I’m tougher on our enemies than the other guy.” Blah, blah, blah. When we consider that Obama, Bush, and McCain all agreed on (1) the Bailout of the banks, (2) hundreds of thousands of American soldiers patrolling multiple Middle Eastern nations, (3) the Patriot Act, (4) maintaining the Drug War, (5) paying mercenary armies like Blackwater, (6) appointing industry insiders to regulatory positions, (7) accepting billions of dollars in campaign donations, and so many other things… what do they have left to disagree about?? The level of discrimination against gay people. A few percentage points on the tax bill.
So the key to getting your issue on the map is to ask the candidate in public, with voters and media in the room. Even if you are creating your own media, the key is to get them “on the record.” Wait in line for the microphone and ask away. Obviously this is easier to do in a local race than a big national one, but those interactions are going to have more impact anyway. People need to see that the president is, in many ways, inconsequential because there is little difference between candidates.
Go look in the mirror and practice how to load up a question. Here, try these on for size:
“With prison spending exceeding education spending, and legal discrimination against 200,000 people in our state due to their felony record, where they are barred from employment, where computers are deleting applications that reflect a felony record, where public housing is denying the reunification of families… do you think we should continue to use prisons as a solution for mental illness, homelessness, and substance abuse? Or do you think we should find an alternative?”
Check out the tactic of leading in with some facts. Frame the question. Make it so they must agree… in public at least.
“Considering that education is the oldest form of self-empowerment and the only known pathway for stability, not only for an individual but for a community, do you think prisoners and former prisoners should be allowed to get an education?”
Follow-up: “And what do you say to the person who feels that a former prisoner’s education is taking a classroom seat away from someone who was not in prison, and more deserving?”
Who can be against education?
“In a society where defense attorneys are sometimes earning millions of dollars each year defending drug clients, do you find any conflict of interest for a legislator, who has ties to the defense attorneys through their own firm or their close associates, to make laws that create more clients?”
“With all the failed results from rehabilitation and re-entry programs designed without the input of those who have direct experience, do you think it is time to listen to former prisoners (those who are truly the primary stakeholder in rehabilitation) about what works and doesn’t work… or should we keep giving money to so-called experts and the politically connected entities?“
“Do you think people released from prison should be encouraged to get more involved in their community by voting, holding jobs, and raising their children… or should they be pushed into the shadows of an underclass where drugs and violence are essential for survival?”
Here’s one I have for Attorney General Eric Holder, who is coming to do a talk on voting at my law school. Let’s see if he selects it, and answers….
“In Louisiana there are 66,000 people on probation and parole who cannot vote, and over 10% of New Orleans is barred from voting. Considering as Felony Disenfranchisement laws have a disparate impact on People of Color, do you believe theJustice Department should consider enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in states, such as Louisiana, that are covered under Section 5 of the Act?”
Film it, post it, share it. Let the follow-ups begin, and let the candidates show their knowledge, intelligence, leadership, and compassion for all their constituents shine… or not.
What question would YOU ask?
The Providence Journal (and everyone else) is reporting that Rep. Bob Watson was arrested again for possession of marijuana early Sunday morning.
When the police arrived, they saw a white Volvo sedan in the lot, with its rubber tire missing from the rim on the front driver’s side. The driver’s side door was open and a man who identified himself as Robert Watson was standing beside it, according to the police. There were no passengers in the car.
“The officers observed what appeared to be a pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana on the driver’s side floor of the Volvo,” Buckley said. “The officers also discovered a clear sandwich bag containing a green, leafy substance believed to be marijuana in the area of the driver’s seat.”
This is after his April, 2011 arrest in Connecticut for DUI and possession of marijuana when stopped at a sobriety checkpoint.
Police stopped Watson, a Republican state representative from the wealthy town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island at a police checkpoint in East Haven on Friday and there was a “strong odor of marijuana” coming from Watson’s car, East Haven Sgt. Gary DePalma said.
Which was after a comment made that offended the Guatemalan community (anyone who has ever watched Watson perform at his best on the House floor knows that this is pretty typical for him).
“I guess that if you are a Guatemalan gay man who likes to gamble and smoke marijuana, you probably think we are onto some good ideas here.”
Shortly after his April arrest, Rep. Watson was ousted as Minority Leader in the House on a vote of 6 to 2.
Considering this new arrest, his denial of the April charges and his statement regarding that arrest seem, ummm, less than authentic.
I honestly don’t really care whether or not Rep. Watson smokes pot. And I give him credit for being a sponsor on the 2005 medical marijuana legislation. I do care, however, that he was driving erratically, under the influence, and could have hurt or killed someone. That isn’t cool at all.
But with this new arrest, my guess is that his days in the General Assembly are numbered. While I’m not privy to any information regarding a Republican primary challenger (oddly, Republican Party insiders don’t like talking to me), there is at least one Democrat who formally kicked off his campaign in November, Dr. Mark Schwager.
Schwager served on the East Greenwich Town Council for two terms, from 2006 to 2010. He ran for former Sen. Michael Lenihan’s seat in the Nov. 2010 election, but lost in that contest to North Kingstown’s Dawson Hodgson.
In the 2010 election, Schwager lost to Hodgson by 928 votes (of a total of 11,084 cast).
| Candidate | Total votes | Pct |
| Dawson Tucker HODGSON (REP) | 6006 | 54.20% |
| Mark SCHWAGER (DEM) | 5078 | 45.80% |
Dr. Mark Schwager is well-known in East Greenwich politics. In addition to the two terms he served on the East Greenwich Town Council and was recently appointed as the town’s Fire District Commissioner, by a unanimous vote. Speaking about his campaign against Watson, he said:
“I just think it’s a better race for me,” he said. “I’m very involved in East Greenwich, in municipal politics and government and community service. I know the area really well, the issues really well. My kids have been through the school system. I have my medical practice here. I was on the Council here. So I’m just very focused on this community.”
Time will tell.
As for money, Bob Watson had $5,167.25 as of September 30, and Mark Schwager had $12,395.75 as of September 30. The last quarter 2011 reports aren’t due until the 31st, and it will be interesting to see if Rep. Watson catches up.
And how is this for irony…
…released [Watson] at 4:20 a.m. Sunday morning.
4:20… now that’s funny.
Have you or anyone you know ever been racially profiled? Sick and tired of police abusing their power?
Well the Providence Youth Student Movement (PrYSM) has been working very hard on the Racial Profiling Prevention Act since last fall. To gather support, the Racial Profiling Coalition is holding a press conference on this Wednesday, Jan. 25th at 3:00pm inside of the State house (room TBA). PrYSM will be premiering the short documentary we made with Youth In Action’s Next Generation Media Team, about firsthand experiences of racial profiling.
Please come and make a difference for our community. You can also share your personal stories about racial profiling at racialprofilingstories.
We’re also calling for submissions to our Photo Project! So please, send in a picture of yourself holding a sign saying “Do I look suspicious?”, “Do I fit the description?”, or any other saying you’d like. We’ll display them at the State House and online on our blog!
