A Mother’s Loss

(For the Mothers who lost a child from an unjustified police shooting)

To lose a child under any circumstances is heart-wrenching for any parent. This is especially true when it is done by a representative of government. When the police kill, particularly a child, more specifically a man-child of color, it raises many questions about justification. As the rash of such police killings has created a national debate, it is important to recognize law enforcement in America has evolved into a militarized institution. Like many American institutions, it has been awarded with various forms of immunity, a type of exceptionalism. The contradictory dichotomy between becoming a hero or villain is based on the intent of the police officer who takes a civilian life, and how the law interprets that intent. The problem is that, when a person takes and passes the civil service exam and is sworn in as law enforcement personnel, they are granted the presumption of immunity. Yet the philosophy endemic and common to all law enforcement agencies is that they are guardians of a social order, as defined by law. Impressed upon this philosophy is the evolving of an ideology and a culture that reinforces an ideal, almost a belief system. Such a belief system creates a socio-political environment of a “them” and “us” paradigm, setting them apart and above the civilian population. Here is where the problem begins, which is especially significant when the horrific history of race is added to this evolving institutionalized culture. Just as all police officers are not villains or heroes, the culture of the Blue-line makes it difficult to distinguish them apart, especially when they consistently rally around each other whether right or wrong. Within a known racially biased judicial system, they in essence protect the ideal of their immunity and the sanctity of their institutionalized culture.

It is with this understanding that a Mother must know when they lose a child to a police shooting, it is more than the individual cop they have to confront, it is the culture and institution that they represent. In this regard, while it is not necessary here to offer insight into the well-documented historical relationships between the system of slavery and the development of the police system, I must quote from Steve Martinot, “White Identity, Constitutionality, and its Double Legal System,” where he recounts:

“Both the police and the impunity of slave masters belong to the same paradigm of dual system of law, sanctioned by the law, in producing the subjection of people of color. What contemporary juridical procedure has done, by valorizing police impunity, is to regenerate the double system of law of the slave system … Thus, both manifest the component elements of white racial identity: paranoia … violence …, and white solidarity …”

Hence, the reality of the situation is our community is not confronting individual cops or police agencies, but a historical cultural dynamic that has been institutionalized, not unlike the prison industrial complex and the school to prison pipeline as trinity of repression. It is apparent that these oppressive conditions are not circumstantial, it is policy driven and codified in law. For example, the well-known disparity in sentencing for crack possession compared to cocaine possession, or the number of Black folks stopped and arrested for marijuana possession compared to white folks being stopped and arrested. As a recent Times/CBS poll discovered, 45 percent of Black people, compared to 7 percent of white people, believed they had experienced a specific instance of police discrimination because of their race. Such is the case that 31 percent of white folks recognize police are more likely to use deadly force in Black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. If there is to be a remedy to this national problem, it is essential that Mothers of children lost to unjustified police shootings create a national database to identify the extent of the problem. To ensure a national dialogue on this problem demands congressional hearings on how best to De-Centralize and De-Militarize police forces across the country.

In this way, this struggle has the potential to demystify the invincibility of the police culture of impunity and immunity. Obviously, this debate needs to strengthen the argument the police are to represent the interests of people above the profits of the capitalist system. Essentially, Mothers who have lost children to police killings and the community must take a position that law enforcement is not above the law. Secondly, passing a civil service exam does not exempt law enforcement personnel from prosecution for the unjustified killing of innocent civilians. Since the culture of law enforcement supports the impression they are above the law, people must argue that legislation be passed that Community Review Boards have investigative and subpoena power, and are capable of demanding the prosecution and/or firing of police officers who have been found to violate people’s civil and human rights. In this way, the community, especially Mothers of lost children, will be able to take control of the narrative in defining the relationship between the community and law enforcement. This may seem extreme; however, Martin Luther King, Jr. is reported to have instructed: “The question is not whether we will be extremists but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?” I believe all will agree there is nothing more extreme than the unjustified killing by police of Black children and men.

I am sorry for all the losses of these children, and Black boys, based on the failure of the Black Panther Party to pass on to the next generation lessons from the Cointelpro onslaught on the BPP. It is extremely unfortunate that such an important institution (police force) embedded in our community maintains a culture that seemingly epitomizes a “them” and “us” dysfunctional relationship. Obviously, community policing, in which police officers live and work in the community, would be best to engender a better relationship with law enforcement. But because of all that has been expressed above, the potential for that to happen is a far-fetched ideal. However, the fight for community policing empowers the community to take control of crime and punishment in the community. We can only hope that by virtue of Mothers’ losses and the struggle to remedy such tragedy, we will win a more improved and appreciated relationship by lessening dependence on the police, and not cultivate negatively perceived belief in the police as an occupying force to keep the natives in control.

I would like to close by making one other observation. There is a need for the inhabitants of our community to take control of the community to lessen the need for police patrols. Street violence and drug dealing that puts everyone’s lives in jeopardy, including cops, is the responsibility of the community. This is a collective failure, despite all of the political and socio-economic policies and decision-making that reinforce impoverishment, joblessness, homelessness and hopelessness … crime in the community is a principle enemy. Collectively, we must confront Black on Black crime to preserve the future of our youth. This means that our youth must be recruited and trained to become community activists in the fight opposing political policies that disenfranchise and impoverish the community. The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense held that criminal activity in the community was reactionary, and potentially counter-revolutionary. We have lost several generations since the Cointelpro destruction of the Black Panther Party to prison and the grave as a result of police repression. We must make every effort as part of challenging the current wave of police killings to eliminate the need for police entrenchment in the community. This requires the community’s responsibility to end Black on Black crime.

This is the hard discussion that must be held as part of the national debate to eliminate these police killings, further eliminating the need for the overwhelming police presence in the community. A Mother’s loss of a child to police or street violence makes this demand on all of us, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. instructed:

“Every step toward this goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.

The First Line of Defense IS Power to the People!

Fist Up! Fight Back!

Remember: We Are Our Own Liberators!

Jalil A. Muntaqim
Attica 1/5/15

Anthony Jalil Bottom #77A4283
Attica Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 149
Attica NY 14011-0149

The Empire Hits!

Bill Dunne,Political Prisoner

The U.S. Parole Commission conducted a hearing for a 15 year
reconsideration of my case on 5 November 2014. The last 15 year
continuance (“hit”) was set to expire in December, 2014. The hearing examiner went through the usual things: offender characteristics; the circumstances of my 1979 offenses; a1983 escape attempt; ancient disciplinary infractions.  

I was thinking a good outcome would be a one-year date, a bad one, five years (and, having long experience with the agency of
repression, expecting the worst!).  Then the examiner went unusual.  He unleashed a tirade about anarchist connections and anti-authoritarian views.  He recommended another 15 year hit on the basis thereof.  Four weeks later, I got a Notice of Action (NOA) from the Parole Commission adopting the recommendation and setting my next reconsideration for November of 2029.
The commission made much of the facts that I was on parole and the 1979 conspiracy included three armed bank robberies to finance the escape of a federal prisoner who had killed a customs agent. It also changed the assault of a Seattle police officer during the escape to attempted murder, using this change to raise my offense behavior category and guideline range.  It did so notwithstanding that I was not at the scene of the shooting. the shooter was paroled ten years ago, and having established the old category in 2000 and defended it through seven hearings and appeals. The real reason for the higher offense behavior category is that its guidelines have no upper limit.  I’ve already served more than the top guidelines under, the lower category.
The commission then added a specific amount of time to my parole
guidelines for each disciplinary infraction I’ve had.  That came to
(erroneously, but ad arguendo) 32-132 months.  Next, it singled out five of those infractions from 31, 31, 30, 25, and 19 years ago (attempted escape, knife, handcuff key, “uncompleted” handcuff key, escape paraphernalia -- the second and last bogus) as indicative I was a more serious risk than my parole prognosis showed.  These infractions, the commission alleged without saying why, further justified exceeding the guidelines by so much as the 15 year hit.  It thus used the infractions to both raise and exceed the guidelines contrary to its own rules.
The commission required my codefendant to serve some 198 months on identical charges stemming from the jailbreak conspiracy, and our
offender characteristics are virtually identical. The 132 month maximum the commission’s rescission guidelines say should be added to my parole guidelines thus suggests a sentence in the range of 330 months for me.  The commission and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) both agreed I had 344 months in at the time of the hearing.  (I actually had 421 months in, but they say the other 77 months went to the state time I got as a result of the same events.)  The commission also ignored the statutory injunction that “old law” prisoners like me should be paroled after 30 years, which would put me out no later than 18 March 2016, even under their erroneous calculation. The commission shifted into political police mode, saying, “the Commission finds your continued association and affiliation with anarchist organizations is evidence you still harbor anti-authoritarian views that are not compatible with the welfare of society or with the conditions of parole.”  

The NOA says zero about what it means by “anarchist,” “association,” “affiliation,” or “anti-authoritarian views” or why they might be problematic for society or parole.  The examiner did mention a
few specifics and waved some printouts, but did not explain what was so wrong with their content.  He said I’d get copies, but so far I have
not. There is no BOP or commission rule forbidding information by or about prisoners being published on the net.
The commission’s hearing examiner mentioned three sites: Prison Radio, LA-ABCF (Los Angeles Anarchist Black Cross Federation), and Denver ABC. None of them advocate violence or criminality.  

They are posted by mostly working class and poor people who want to make their communities and the world better places.  

The examiner denounced “Running Down the Walls,” but did
not say why.  RDTW is a running event sponsored every year by LA-ABCF for more than the last 20 in which people from many communities participate to express their opposition to the overuse of incarceration, especially for political purposes.  The Prisoners’ Committee of the ABCF, of which the examiner also disapproved for no stated reason, advises the ABCF on effective ways to support political prisoners, none of which involve illegality.  Nor is the committee’s advice always solicited or followed. Prison Radio produces broadcasts of news and information about prison
issues from a radical left perspective but advocates no violation of the
law.  All of these web sites post information about particular cases,
prisoners, situations, and events their operators think the bright light
of public scrutiny would help reach a more positive resolution.  They
make their posts based on their own analysis and choices; they are
self-directed and independent.  As for anti-authoritarian, that’s
supposed to be the position of the government itself: “anti” authoritarian regimes such as Putin’s Russia, etc., and pro democracy.  The commission’s decision was the reverse.
The commission also said efforts to contact my codefendant were evidence I am likely to “reengage in similar criminal activity” if released, but does not say how so.  My codefendant was released from prison 10 years ago and from parole five years ago.  I don’t think he’s had so much as a traffic ticket in that time.  One would think the commission would want me to learn from him whatever it was he did to convince them to release him from both prison and parole.  No hearing examiner could tell me, and I asked at many hearings.
The commission apparently feels anything it deems anarchist -- and, by implication, any radical left--political activity or connection warrants
denial of parole. It denied me because it feels I am thus involved.
I’ve already served more time than could be reasonably assessed for my offense behavior and disciplinary record.  My codefendant’s offense role and offender characteristics are virtually identical.  Hence, the time demanded of me should be comparable plus prescribed disciplinary time. That total would be less time than I’ve already served.  Nor is politics any basis for parole denial.  The notion that mere correspondence with anarchists or my codefendant evidences criminal intent is simply frivolous: no print or pictures or audio to felonious intent were ever alleged, and there are no rules against such contact.  Nor has the commission ever objected before to these long-standing connections, and the BOP approved them.  Neither the “anarchist organizations” nor my
codefendant has any criminal history during the relevant times.
The commission’s blatant use of such demonstrably inadequate and
inappropriate reasons to deny my parole is remarkable. I have already filed an administrative appeal and will continue the appeal via habeas corpus against both the BOP and commission.  Not only are the unsupported, conclusory, and irrelevant claims cited for denying me parole a violation of the commission’s own rules, their use constitutes a gross infringement on the First Amendment.  That use violates what remains of my right to hold and express positive, progressive politics as well as that of the people and groups whose speech and association are undermined by such government attacks on political expression via the internet.

I am confident that any comrades who have supported me by putting information by or about me or my politics into the public domain to protect me from the depredations of power, have done so in good faith and not in any way that could legitimately be construed as “not compatible with the welfare of society.”  I’m confident we will not cave to such pressure to self-censor.

Bill Dunne #10916-086
FCI Herlong
Post Office Box 800
Herlong, California  96113

JEICHO IS HONORED TO HAVE AS OUR 

FIRST GUEST WRITER 

FORMER POLITICAL PRISONER 

LYNNE STEWART

 

THE GRAND JURY

One of my most prophetic statements is that the “law” is what “they” want it to be at any given time. Witness the Dred Scott decision, the Japanese internment cases of World War II, and the Scottsboro and other legal lynching cases.

In 2014, stemming from the series (ongoing since 1619) of unprosecuted crimes against the African American population, we confront the lawlessness, now inherent, of an ancient legal institution, the Grand Jury. My history here may be fuzzy (due to my jail time of four-plus years and subsequently battling the big C)—but hey, there’s always Wikipedia! Nonetheless, my own experiences as a practicing criminal defense lawyer for over 30 years will help in this short essay.

In New York State, people accused of serious crimes (felonies) can be brought before the court by a number of avenues. Most common is the presentation of the case, by the District Attorney, in a rudimentary way, to a Grand Jury, who will then vote on an indictment. (The famous or infamous statement that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich being entirely true.)

As I recall, the Grand Jury was an outgrowth of the Magna Carta, a medieval document that was fought for by the nobles (male and white and born to privilege) in which they won the right to not be thrown in and left forever in a dank and dark prison by the king. They now had the right (habeas corpus) to demand to be heard and judged by their “peers” (equals). Of course, we are not talking “fair” here, just the way it operated.

The functioning of the Grand Jury has not changed a great deal since those days. It is still possible for a defense attorney to present her client and allow him to tell his story (usually in a self-defense case), and there are even those rare instances
where the Grand Jury will vote no indictment.

However, the abuse by the Grand Jury in cases such as Michael Brown and Eric Garner, where there is only prosecution testimony, and that is in total control of the District Attorney or prosecuting authorities, is obvious when there can be no presentation of an opposition scenario—they have killed the obvious witnesses. And so, the Grand Jury does what it is best at, following the instructions and demands of the District Attorney, Missouri or Staten Island, N.Y. It is the ham sandwich approach, and there is no blame, no accountability. The police and prosecutors are a single entity, and they have an agenda.

The Grand Jury, in my not so humble view, should be abolished. It is an anachronism, and the miniscule number that benefit from it are not worth the rubber stamp it has become, particularly in the murder of people of color by the police.

A far better solution (short of the revolution we all hope and dream of) is to make those suspected of those heinous crimes stand TRIAL. Let the 12 jurors decide their fate in an open and fully presented evidentiary case. It’s not a perfect solution but far, far better that the endless parade of murderers going free because their victims don’t matter.

Lynne Stewart
— January 3, 2015