>From: Mark Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >This is from Mumia Abu Jamal re: his urging everyone to read the latest >amicus briefs. > >As you know, the latest three have been turned down by Judge William H Yohn >for reasons known only to him; most certainly not the reasons that he >stated in his formal refusal! > > It's urgent that they be read so that people can make their demand to the > Judge to accept them. An appeal to the Judge's decision is underway at >this time. > > This is what Mumia says: > > On The Amicus Briefs >It is always a remarkable experience to read amicus briefs in my case. It >may surprise you to know that I learn from them, for they illustrate things >about my own case that I never knew or had long forgotten. Each of them >performed that function for me. > >If they did that for me, imagine what they can do for you. What these >skilled and uncompromising lawyers did was something truly remarkable-they >read the court record and faithfully and correctly, I think, argued that >they found clear constitutional, judicial, prosecutorial and defense >violations. > >After almost two decades this is the first time that lawyers looking at the >case (from two continents) have highlighted the constitutional violation >represented by the court's denial of my right of self-representation and >the denial of my right to the assistance of a non-lawyer, John Africa. The >briefs are more than a procedural or case history. They are history lessons >about fundamental human rights that were violated by the state with >impunity. > >So I invite you to read and learn what it means to have a court-appointed >lawyer who seems like a prosecutor and a judge who is one. > >Learn as I did what happened in back rooms when I wasn't there and no one >cared. > >Learn how jurors are really chosen; how they are moved, replaced and >imposed as foreman of a hanging jury. > >Without a doubt this happens every day in America, but you >will rarely have a better opportunity to read a record such as this. > >If you read these briefs, then you've learned these important things and >then you know it is time to act. > >Find out why an American court found them "unnecessary" and "unhelpful". > >Please contact the nearest office of International Concerned Family & >Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal. Join us. > >Ona Move >Long Live John Africa >Mumia Abu Jamal >8/22/00 > > The amicus briefs can be read in their entirety at: >www.mumia.org and at: >http://mojo.calyx.net/~refuse/mumia/court.html > >Free Mumia and all political prisoners! >Fatirah >====================================> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Please circulate, distribute and send out to everyone!!! > > >TRIBUNAL 2 2000 in Philadelphia, PA Saturday, December 9, 2000 ! > >Friday, December 8, 2000, Fundraising Concert in Philly! > >Working meetings on Sunday, December 10, 2000 in Philly! > > >TRIBUNAL 2 for Mumia Abu-Jamal 2000 will be held in Philadelphia PA on >Saturday, December 9, 2000. INTERNATIONAL CONCERNED FAMILY & FRIENDS OF >MUMIA ABU-JAMAL (ICFFMAJ) is calling for all individuals/organizations to >help in the mobilization, building, planning for TRIBUNAL 2 for Mumia >Abu-Jamal. > >Please contact the ICFFMAJ office via phone at 215/476-5416 or e-mail >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please play a vital role by being part of a >working committee. We want TRIBUNAL 2 2000 to be a success like the People's >Tribunal for Mumia Abu-Jamal of December 1997. We are asking for all to >represent-including for the international community to have strong >representation in Philadelphia. > >Donations are desperately, urgently needed. Please send your donations to >International Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, P.O. Box 19709 >Phila, PA 19143. Checks,money orders, etc. should be made out to ICFFMAJ. > >ICFFMAJ requests that all who have been victimized, and/or experienced >harrassment/butality because of their stance, work for Mumia Abu-Jamal; >contact the ICFFMAJ Philadelphia, PA. If you have been attacked by cops - >STAND UP AND BE ACCOUNTED FOR! It is illegal and immoral. A class action law >suit is pending. > >Mumia Abu-Jamal request that everyone read/comprehend the amicus briefs that >have been filed recently on his behalf. Especially the Chicano brief. This >quite clearly exposes the cointelpro attacks sustained in court against >Mumia Abu-Jamal and is evident that Mumia should have been set free much >earlier! >The Chicano brief and the brief filed by members of the British Parliament >are quite essential however just recently Judge Yohn as turned down these >briefs including others and deemed them as "unnecessary". ICFFMAJ requests >that organizations (and others) IAC, Refuse & Resist, Bruderhof community, >etc. put out their analysys/perspectives on the briefs on their websites, >emails, newspapers, communications, etc. to expose this type of cointelpro >tactics. >===================================> > >Check it! > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >"SHAKA SANKOFA" SPEAKING LIVE & MUMIA -ABU-JAMAL SPEAKING LIVE >TWO GREAT INNOCENT MEN SPEAKING LIVE FROM DEATH ROW >CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE SAVESHAKA.0-DEC.COM >=======================================> > >GARAGE SALE FOR MUMIA FREEDOM BUS - THIS SATURDAY > >Saturday, August 26, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. >Arise! Bookstore, 2441 Lyndale Ave S., Minneapolis > >The last sale we had was so great, we decided we HAD to do it again!! So >come by on Saturday, and spend your money on some great deals, and help to >fund the Philly Freedom Bus that will be taking Twin Cities activists to >stand with Mumia on his first day in Federal Court. And if you have any >last minute donations of items we can sell, we'd still appreciate your >contributing them to the cause; try to bring them by early in the day. > >And as a bonus, if you love to help recycle good used goods and aid a good >cause at the same time, there will be an additional garage sale at the same >time right down the street! The CISPES Anti-War Committee will have their >sale set up at Todos los Santos Church, from 8am to 6pm. (And if you REALLY >want to feel like you've helped the cause, you could go buy some items at >one sale, and then go donate them to the other :-) > >Twin Cities Coalition to Defend Mumia Abu-Jamal >Organizing meetings: >Every Wednesday at 7:00 P.M. >Arise Bookstore (address below) >24-hour Hotline: 651-649-4579 >Web: http://www1.minn.net/~meis > >TCCDMAJ >c/o Arise! Bookstore >2441 Lyndale Ave. S. >Minneapolis, Mn. 55405 >===================================> > >Some Thoughts on the New Media Attacks on Mumia >by C. Clark Kissinger > >In the week of the Republican National Convention, three major media attacks >on Mumia appeared. The most significant was the essay in Time magazine >(7/31/00) by Steve Lopez. But there was also a column in the Chicago Tribune >by Eric Zorn (7/31/00) and the editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer >(8/1/00). > >The first thing to note about these attacks is that they are a tribute to >the progress that we have made in the movement for justice for Mumia. These >writers all felt the need to inoculate their readership against the growing >Mumia movement. If Mumia had not become an issue in society, and a such >major issue in the new debate on the death penalty, there would be no need >for these attacks to appear. > >The second thing to note is that all three attacks were framed in terms >designed to split, rather than attack head on, the rising movement against >the death penalty. "Wrong Guy, Good Cause" says Lopez in Time. "The wrong >emblem," says the Inquirer. Zorn says the effort should be going to "one of >the genuinely innocent residents of Death Row," not to Mumia. > >And, all three complain about the Republican Convention being called the >"Executioners' Ball"! It seems that truth really stung them, since there is >no ignoring the fact that three Republican governors alone, the Bush >brothers plus host governor Tom Ridge, preside over 30% of the death row >inmates in the United States. > >Let's take a look at the Lopez essay in Time, since it is in many ways the >most representative. Lopez puts forward what the prosecution side has now >settled on as their strongest public arguments: >1) The factual evidence is conclusive. >2) Mumia had a good lawyer, but he deliberately sabotaged his own trial. >3) If Mumia is really innocent, why doesn't he just tell us what happened >that night? > >All this is topped off with a generous serving of Maureen Faulkner. > >Here we should point out once again that Maureen Faulkner is not a party to >this case. Why doesn't Lopez pose Mumia against Judge Sabo, whose bias set >the tone of the whole fraudulent trial in 1982? Why doesn't Lopez set Mumia >against Ed Rendell, who was the District Attorney not only when Mumia was >tried, but when the MOVE house was bombed in 1985 killing eleven people and >burning down 61 homes? The answer is that Maureen provides an emotional >sop -- someone to sympathize with -- since people can hardly sympathize with >the ugly records of Sabo and Rendell. > >Let's look at Lopez's second point first. Here Lopez got a thorough briefing >from the DA's office. A major issue in Mumia's current appeal in federal >court is the ineffectiveness of his court-appointed lawyer. This lawyer >(Anthony Jackson) was totally unprepared for trial by his own admission, >failed to interview a single witness before putting them on the stand, >failed to bring potentially exculpatory evidence before the jury, failed to >call any witnesses in mitigation during the penalty phase, engaged in >totally improper discussions with the judge and prosecutor in the judge's >chambers, and was subsequently disbarred. These facts provide a powerful >argument for why Mumia is entitled to a new trial. > >The only response that the state has to the total malfeasance of the defense >attorney and the court's refusal to allow Mumia to defend himelf is to claim >that it's all Mumia's fault! According the prosecution's feeble argument, >Mumia had an outstanding attorney who did his best to represent Mumia's >wishes, but was crippled by Mumia's insistence on making it into a political >trial. > >According to Lopez, Mumia's court-appointed attorney (now an ex-attorney) >was a regular Clarence Darrow. "I went to see the attorney, who told me that >he had handled about 20 homicides but that Abu-Jamal demanded a political >rather than legal defense." > >Let's take a look at this. First Lopez scales down the usual claim a little. >The prosecution and their hired pens have been claiming for years that Tony >Jackson had been the defense attorney in 20 capital cases. Now it's scaled >down to 20 homicides, but the fact remains that nobody has been able to name >a single one of them. Not even Tony Jackson. Let's take a look at what >Jackson had to say about his seven years as a lawyer before Mumia's trial. >Jackson testified under oath in 1995: > >Q. And in the seven years since you graduated law school and were admitted >in 1974, and the time that you started the defense of Mr. Jamal, as I >understand your answers to Mr. Grant, you worked for the District Attorney's >Office for a brief period of time, for a Federal monitor, and for a public >interest office: is that correct? > >A. Yes, sir. > >Q. And in those seven years when you held those positions, do you recall how >many death penalty hearing you were involved in? > >A. One as co-counsel and I believe -- excuse me -- two others as counsel. > >(July 31, 1995, page 76) > >When asked to name one of the three cases, Jackson couldn't remember, and >went on to admit that for the three years prior to being Mumia's case he was >working for a public interest law office that handled civil suits. There is >simply no way that Tony Jackson could have defended 20 homicide cases in >this period, nor did he dare make that claim under oath. > >Further, in the 1995 hearings, the points that Jackson stressed were that he >was unprepared for the trial, that he asked for more time and was denied it, >and that he was not given enough money by the court to hire the necessary >experts. These are the reasons that Jackson gave under oath for his less >than adequate performance at trial. > >So what about Lopez's claim that Mumia wanted to pursue a political >strategy? That's true. It was a political case from the beginning. Both the >prosecution and Mumia wanted to pursue political strategies, but only the >prosecution got the chance to do so. Mumia was effectively prevented from >pursuing any strategy at all. He was prevented from representing himself. He >was saddled with a defense attorney that he did not trust for good reasons >(see the amicus brief filed by the Chicana/Chicano Studies Foundation for >details). He was prevented from having a lay advisor whom he did trust at >the defense table with him. And he was regularly removed from the courtroom >whenever he attempted to cross examine witnesses. > >According to Lopez, "He made political speeches, was removed from the >courtroom." Here is a typical "political speech": > >THE DEFENDANT: Miss Durham, why did you wait until February the 2nd to make >your statement? > >THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Jamal, it is obvious to the Court that you intend to >disrupt the proceedings in front of the jury. > >THE DEFENDANT: I am not disrupting. It's obvious I intend to defend myself. > >THE COURT: And once again I am removing you from the courtroom. > >(June 24, 1982, page 89) > >In contrast to Mumia's attempts to cross-examine witnesses and his demands >that he be allowed to conduct his own defense, it was the prosecution who >quoted from political statements made by Mumia twelve years earlier in its >argument to the jury that Mumia should receive the death sentence. > >Next let's look at Lopez's third point, that "no one can dispute this >crowning absurdity: the only two people who know exactly what happened on >Dec. 9, 1981, have refused to utter a single word of explanation." Well I >can dispute it. > >First, Mumia refused to testify in his original trial for very good reasons. >On the last day of guilt phase of the trial, he was brought back into the >courtroom and told that he had the "right" to take the stand and testify. >This was his response: > >THE DEFENDANT: My answer is that I have been told from the duration of this >trial, the beginning of the trial, the inception of the trial, that I had a >number of constitutional rights. Chiefly among them the right to represent >myself. The right to select a jury of my peers. The right to face witnesses >and examine them based on information they have given. Those rights were >taken from me. It seems the only right that this judge and the members of >the court want to confer is my right to take the stand, which is no right at >all. I want all of my rights, not some of them. I don't want it piecemeal, I >want my right to represent myself and I want my right to make closing >argument. I want my rights in this courtroom because my life Is on the line >and I don't want no gift. > >(July 1, 1982 p. 41) > >Here Mumia was absolutely correct. The "right" to speak and be >cross-examined, in the absence of his other supposedly guaranteed rights, is >a sham and hollow mockery of justice. > >In the sentencing phase, on the last day of the trial, Mumia summed it up: > >Every so-called "right" was deceitfully stolen from me by Sabo. My demand >that the defense assistance of my choice, John Africa, be allowed to sit at >the defense table was repeatedly denied. While, meanwhile, in a City Hall >courtroom just 4 floors directly above, a man charged with murder sits with >his lawyer, and his father, who just happens to be a Philadelphia policeman. >The man, white, was charged with beating a black man to death, and came to >court to have his bail revoked, after being free for several weeks. His >bail was revoked after a public outcry in the black community about the >granting of bail at all. Of course, my bail, a ransom of $250,000.00, was >revoked one day after it was issued. For one defendant everything is >granted. For another, everything is denied. . . . > >I am innocent of these charges that I have been charged of and convicted of, >and despite the connivance of Sabo, McGill and Jackson to deny me my >so-called rights to represent myself, to assistance of my choice, to >personally select a jury who's totally of my peers, to cross-examine >witnesses, and to make both opening and closing arguments, I am still >innocent of these charges. > >(July 3, 1982, page 13-16) > >The prosecution and their hired pens think it is very clever to demand now >that Mumia give a public accounting of what happened on the night that both >Mumia and Officer Faulkner were shot. This is nothing but a demand that the >prosecution be given a free preview of the defense case as a condition for >(maybe) getting a new trial! Not even a first-year law student would fall >for that. If you want to hear Mumia's testimony, then give him a fair trial >with all his procedural rights. > >And does anyone think for a minute that if Mumia did give the details of his >testimony in advance of a trial, that all these journalists attacking Mumia >would suddenly say, "Well, that sure does put a new light on things. I can >certainly see now why he deserves a new trial"? Of course not. They would >simply brand anything that Mumia said as self-serving propaganda that was >not made under oath in a court of law! > >And what about the testimony of Billy Cook, Mumia's brother. Billy indeed >did not testify in 1982 sham trial. The reason is pretty obvious. He was one >of two Black men involved in a physical altercation with a white police >officer who was killed. Billy had every reason to fear that if he came >forward to testify for the defense, he would also be charged in the killing >of Officer Faulkner. If the state was so hot to get his testimony, why didn' >t they subpoena him and put him on the stand? > >In 1996 Billy approached Mumia's new defense team about testifying in the >hearings for a new trial for Mumia. But then the state announced that if he >did come into court he would arrested on an old warrant. This was no idle >threat, since Veronica Jones was arrested as she stepped off he witness >stand after testifying for Mumia. > >Billy backed out at the last minute, fearing what might happen to him if he >testified for Mumia and was then taken into police custody. Our pen-for-hire >Lopez might not think that is a very good reason, but young Black males in >Philadelphia may have a different assessment. > >As to Lopez's first claim, that the facts are conclusive, he simply repeats >the well-known prosecution claims as if they were fact (ignoring the >mountains evidence that contradict the "official story"), with one >interesting exception. The claim that Mumia confessed is now totally >missing! Missing from Lopez, missing from the Inquirer editorial, missing >from Eric Zorn's column. Can it be that the phony confession story has >finally become too absurd for even those who accept the prosecution's story >to repeat with a straight face? > >Lopez winds down with the now ritual attack on the various prominent people >who have come forward to demand justice for Mumia ("a parade of > celebrities"). He talks about everyone from masked Danish protestors to the >Beastie Boys, but he studiously avoids the detailed report published by >Amnesty International. Entitled "A Life in the Balance: The Case of Mumia >Abu-Jamal," the report examines the gross improprieties in Mumia's 1982 >trial, and concludes that he deserves a new and fair trial. > >This is the same Amnesty International that the U.S. government regularly >cities when criticizing other governments around the world. Have they >suddenly lost all credibility when they point out abuses in the United >States? Or is this just too embarrassing for Lopez to mention? > >Finally, what about Lopez's claim that the prominence of Mumia case will >only hurt the struggle against the death penalty? In responding to Marc >Cooper earlier this year I wrote: > >"How would the execution of Jamal -- and Jamal will be executed without a >continuing and intensified movement -- help to end the death penalty and >promote social justice? Wouldn't a victory in the case of Jamal save an >advocate for those on death row and the oppressed more generally, wouldn't >it energize the movement for social justice, wouldn't it provide hope for >the hopeless, and wouldn't it be a big defeat for the entire agenda and >machinery of punishment and death that sets the terms in this country? It's >not the war, but it's a hell of an important battle and it's one we'd better >go all out to win." > >The truth of the matter is that Mumia Abu-Jamal is not only an eloquent >critic of the death penalty, but a spokesperson for a whole new generation >of critics, many of whom have been brought into the battle through his case. >The death penalty is never fought in the abstract, but in the actual cases >that are thrown up by history and which come to concentrate the issues >before society. > >The danger to the death penalty movement is NOT that millions of people >worldwide have become awakened to the reality of state-sponsored death in >the United States through the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The danger lies in >those who would, in the name of opposing the death penalty in a more >pristine manner, lend their voices to the ugly forces intent on strapping >Mumia to a gurney and silencing his voice forever. > >(August 21, 2000) >=====================================> > >International Concerned Family & Friends of MAJ > P.O. Box 19709, Philadelphia, PA 19143 > Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6160/ > E-mail - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To communicate directly w/Mumia please > write to him at: > Mumia Abu-Jamal > AM 8335 > SCI-Greene > 175 Progress Drive > Waynesburg, PA 15370 > > > > > > > > > > > >-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates >of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee! >Apply NOW! >http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/3/_/22961/_/967400200/ >---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> > >Knowledge is Power! >Elimination of the exploitation of man by man >http://www.egroups.com/group/pttp/ >POWER TO THE PEOPLE! > >Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Change Delivery Options: >http://www.egroups.com/mygroups > > _______________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________
