Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Organizing Behind Prison Walls - event

> O R G A N I Z I N G B E H I N D P R I S O N W A L L S :
> D E A T H R O W P R I S O N E R S F I G H T B A C K
>
> This exciting topic is a featured plenary at the
> Campaign to End the Death Penalty's (CEDP) annual convention on November
> 11-12 in Chicago. The CEDP works hand in hand with death row
> prisoners across the country to expose what's wrong with the death
> penalty AND to organize against the death penalty. The speakers on
> this panel will share their unique perspectives and experiences with
> organizing behind prison walls.
>
> Campaign to End the Death Penalty's 6th Annual
> Convention: Thirty Years is Enough: End the Death Penalty
> Saturday, November 11 - Sunday, November 12
> Ida Noyes Hall, University of Chicago
> 1212 E. 59th St., Chicago

Racial solidarity threatens prison officials

From 1993 to today

Racial solidarity threatens prison officials

Published Oct 30, 2006 8:17 PM
Four hundred seven prisoners took over a portion of a prison in Lucasville, Ohio, for 11 days in April 1993. When it was over, one guard and nine prisoners had been killed, making it the longest prison uprising with loss of life in recorded U.S. history.
It seemed that only Ohioans were riveted to the drama as it unfolded. This was partly because the events in Lucasville took place at the same time that 83 Branch Davidians were being incinerated by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents in Waco, Texas.
What held the Lucasville rebellion together was unity between Black and white prisoners, as reported by Staughton Lynd in “Lucasville: The Untold Story of a Prison Uprising” and elsewhere.
George Skatzes, at that time a member of the racist Aryan Brotherhood, was approached by a Black prisoner within the first hours of the takeover because he had been known to mediate disputes among prisoners. White and Black prisoners were on opposite sides of the gym and the atmosphere was tense.
Skatzes, who had never been a public speaker, put his arm around the Black man and said to the assembled inmates: “This is against the administration. We are all in this together. They are against everyone in here who’s blue [the color of the prisoners’ uniforms]. ... If they come in here, they’re going to kill all of us. They’re going to kill this man and me, no matter what color we are.”
Later, when Skatzes was out in the prison yard as a spokesperson, he announced: “We are oppressed people; we have come together as one. We are brothers. ... We are a unit here, they try to make this a racial issue. It is not a racial issue. Black and white alike have joined hands in SOCF [Southern Ohio Correctional Facility] and become one strong unit.”
The Ohio State Highway Patrol officers who entered portions of the prison after the siege told afterward of signs and slogans written on the walls: “Black and White Together,” “Black and White Unity,“ “Convict Unity” and “Convict Race.” This forging of unity across racial barriers adds to the reasons why the Ohio system of (in)justice has been so determined to make an example of the Lucasville Five.
The imam of the Sunni Muslims, Siddique Abdullah Hasan, negotiated with prison authorities during the siege, as did another member of the Aryan Brotherhood, Jason Robb. Their efforts contributed to a negotiated settlement to the siege. This settlement included a 21-point agreement that the warden had to sign, after which the remaining five hostages were released and prisoners came out in groups of 20. Their reward for preventing a bloodbath, ironically, is the death penalty.
Skatzes was also convicted and is on death row. Together the five prisoners falsely convicted in connection with the deaths that took place during the uprising are known as the Lucasville Five. The other two of the Five are Black, so the Five reflect the make-up of the prison population in Ohio: roughly 60 percent Black and Latin@ and 40 percent white.
The solidarity among the Lucasville Five has held strong. As reported by Lynd, they share legal materials and are actively concerned for each other’s health. They have gone on hunger strikes together to protest the conditions of their confinement.
One of the fasts was accompanied by a list of demands that started with proper medical treatment for George Skatzes. After about another week, only Skatzes and Hasan were still fasting. The prison approached both individually to state that the concerns would be addressed.
But neither of them would eat until told directly by the other that he was ready to eat again. Hasan said: “I chose to stay on the fast to let them know that I was down with George’s struggle, too, and I would not sit quiet and let the system mess over him. ... [T]hey got the message and know that we are one.”
The Lucasville Five’s convictions are based entirely on perjured testimony extracted from other prisoners under threat that they would be sent up on capital charges if they didn’t sculpt the facts to the prosecution’s liking. A growing number of supporters are calling for their convictions to be overturned and them to be set free.
Messages of solidarity, along with stamps and envelopes to facilitate responses, can be sent to S.A. Hasan (#R130-559), Keith Lamar (#317-117), Jason Robb (#308-919), James Were (#173-245) at the Ohio State Penitentiary, 878 Coitsville-Hubbard Rd., Youngstown, OH 44505-4635 and to George Skatzes (#173-501), P.O. Box 788, Mansfield, OH 44901-0788.
Hasan is the co-sponsor of a Web site, prisonersolidarity.org and also has a Web site at www.ohiodeathrow.com/carlos_sanders.htm. Keith Lamar has written a book, “Condemned,” which can be obtained from his address above. Much of the material for this article is derived from Staughton Lynd’s “Lucasville: The Untold Story of a Prison Uprising.

Protest at the Mexican Consulate in Seattle

Please post widely

From Tacoma LPSG:

The Tacoma LPSG is not initiating the protest below, but we are doing all that we can to support it. Not only because we are a human rights organization but also because many of the people involved in the Oaxaca struggle are indigenous people and belong to indigenous organizations. In the direction given us by Leonard Peltier, he has stated many times that the struggle of his support organizations are not just about his case, but are also about human rights and the struggles of indigenous people. So we are asking that all people who believe in a free and just world to please come out for this protest if they are able to do so. Thank you

Tacoma LPSG

PROTEST AT THE MEXICAN CONSULATE

IN SUPPORT OF THE STRUGGLE IN OAXACA

AND AGAINST THE DEADLY REPRESSION

THURSDAY, 2, 2006

11:00 AM TO 3:00 PM

AT:

Mexican Consulate
2132 3rd Ave
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 448-3526

PLEASE ALSO SEND LETTERS OF PROTEST TO THE CONSULATE AND MAKE PHONE CALLS TO THE CONSULATE, EXPRESSING YOU VIEWS TO THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT!

Please bring signs and your friends to this important protest.

INTERNATIONAL ZAPATIST CALL FOR ACTION


OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY INDIGENOUS CLANDESTINE COMMITTEE - MILITARY COMMAND OF ZAPATISTA ARMY OF NATIONAL LIBERATION. MEXICO. 30 OF OCTOBER OF 2006.

TO THE TOWN OF MEXICO:
TO THE TOWNS OF THE WORLD:
TO ALL THE OTHER IN MEXICO AND NORTH OF THE RIO GRANDE:
TO ALL THE INTERNATIONAL SIXTH:
COMPANIONS: SISTERS & BROTHERS:

AS IT IS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, YESTERDAY, 29 OF OCTOBER OF 2006, The
FEDERAL FORCES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF VICENTE FOX, ATTACKED THE TOWN OF OAXACA AND IT'S WORTHIER REPRESENTATIVE, THE POPULAR ASSEMBLY OF THE TOWNS OF OAXACA, The APPO.

AS OF TODAY, THE FEDERAL POLICE FORCES HAVE ASSASSINATED AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE, AMONG THEM A MINOR OF AGE; LEFT MANY PEOPLE HURT, AMONG THEM SEVERAL OAXAQUEÑA WOMEN; AND MANY WERE ARRESTED AND TRANSFERRED ILLEGALLY TO MILITARY PRISONS. ADDED TO ALL THIS ARE THE DEAD, ARRESSTEES AND MISSING WHO FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE MOBILIZATION THAT DEMANDS THE RESIGNATION OF ULISES RUIZ FROM THE OAXACAN GOVERNMENT.

THE FEDERAL POLICE FORCES ATTACK DOES NOT HAVE MORE OBJECTIVE THAN TO MAINTAIN ULISES RUIZ IN POWER AND TO DESTROY THE POPULAR ORGANIZATION OF THOSE OF FROM BELOW IN OAXACA.

THE OAXACA TOWN RESISTS. NO HONEST PERSON CAN REMAIN IN IMMOVABLE & SILENT WHILE AN ENTIRE TOWN, MAINLY INDIGENOUS, IS ASSASSINATED, BEATEN AND JAILED.

WE, THE ZAPATISTAS, WILL NOT SHUT UP AND WE WILL MOBILIZE IN SUPPORT OF OUT BROTHERLY TOWN AND COMPANION OF OAXACA.

THE SIXTH COMMISSION OF THE EZLN HAS ALREADY CONSULTED ZAPATISTA COMMAND AND THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN DECIDED:

FIRST. - THROUGHOUT THE FIRST OF NOVEMBER OF 2006, THE HIGHWAYS AND ROADS WILL BE CLOSED THAT CROSS THE TERRITORIES WHERE THE EZLN MAINTAINS PRESENCE IN THE SOUTHEAST STATE OF CHIAPAS.

CONSEQUENTLY, WE EXHORT THAT EVERYONE ABSTAIN FROM TRAVELING CHIAPAS HIGHWAYS THAT DAY AND TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS FOR IT.

SECOND. - THROUGH THEIR SIXTH COMMISSION, THE EZLN HAS INITIATED
CONTACTS AND CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER POLITICAL AND SOCIAL
ORGANIZATIONS, AS WELL AS WITH GROUPS, COLLECTIVES AND PEOPLE OF THE OTHER CAMPAIGN, TO INITIATE DAYS OF SOLIDARITY WITH OAXACA AND TO SUMMON JOINT ACTIONS TO ALL OF MEXICO FROM BELOW AND MAKING NATIONAL HALT DAY ON THE 20 OF NOVEMBER OF 2006.

THIRD. - THE EZLN MAKES A CALL TO THE OTHER CAMPAIGN IN MEXICO AND NORTH OF THE RIO GRANDE, SO THAT THIS FIRST OF NOVEMBER OF 2006 IT IS MOBILIZED, WHERE IS POSSIBLE, CLOSING OF TOTAL, PARTIAL OR INTERMITTENT, REAL OR SYMBOLICALLY, THE STREETS, ROADS, HIGHWAYS, TOLL BOOTHS, STATIONS, AIRPORTS AND ANY MASS MEDIA.

FOURTH. - THE MESSAGE THAT WE THE ZAPATISTAS SENT AND WILL SEND TO THE TOWN OF OAXACA IS ONE: THEY ARE NOT ALONE. ¡ULISES RUIZ OUT OF OAXACA!

IMMEDIATE EXPULSION OF FEDERAL FORCES OCCUPYING OAXAQUEN TERRITORY!

LIBERTY AND FREEDON TO THOSE DETAINED!

CANCELLATION OF ALL THE ORDERS OF APPREHENSION!

PUNISHMENT TO THE ASSASSINS!

JUSTICE! FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY!

From the north of Mexico.
By the Revolutionary Indigenous Clandestine Committee
- Military command of the Army Zapatista of National Liberation.
By the Sixth Commission of the EZLN.

Justice for Brad Will: Sign the Petition

As most of you are aware, our friend Brad Will was shot and killed in
Oaxaca Mexico last Friday, October 27th while covering the civil unrest there. 3 others were killed as well.

Brad's brutal death must be addressed. Here is a small step we can take.

Please sign and pass on this petition to all your friends. Let's try to
get a few hundred signatures by Friday, November 3rd.

To sign the petition, simply click the link below, sign, and pass on to
your friends! (or paste into your browser).
http://www.gopetition.com/online/9996.html

The petition is being sent to U.S. Embassy in Mexico, Consular Agent in Oaxaca, Mark A. Leyes

To view the press release on the death of Brad by U.S. Ambassador Garza, go the U.S. Embassy website:
http://mexico.usembassy.gov/mexico/ep061027Will.html

Several news sources are currently covering the story:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue43/article2223.html
www.democracynow.org/index.pl
www.eluniversal.com.mx/
indymedia.org/en/index.shtml
www.jornada.unam.mx/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/world/americas/29mexico.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Nov. 1st-Cuban 5 Picket at the NYTimes

Nov. 10th-Puerto Rican Film Night/Juan mari Bras

Monday, October 30, 2006

Zapatista statement on APPO


OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY INDIGENOUS CLANDESTINE COMMITTEE - MILITARY COMMAND OF ZAPATISTA ARMY OF NATIONAL LIBERATION. MEXICO. 30 OF OCTOBER OF 2006.

TO THE TOWN OF MEXICO:
TO THE TOWNS OF THE WORLD:
TO ALL THE OTHER IN MEXICO AND NORTH OF THE RIO GRANDE:
TO ALL THE INTERNATIONAL SIXTH:
COMPANIONS: SISTERS & BROTHERS:

AS IT IS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, YESTERDAY, 29 OF OCTOBER OF 2006, The FEDERAL FORCES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF VICENTE FOX, ATTACKED THE TOWN OF OAXACA AND IT'S WORTHIER REPRESENTATIVE, THE POPULAR ASSEMBLY OF THE TOWNS OF OAXACA, The APPO.

AS OF TODAY, THE FEDERAL POLICE FORCES HAVE ASSASSINATED AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE, AMONG THEM A MINOR OF AGE; LEFT MANY PEOPLE HURT, AMONG THEM SEVERAL OAXAQUEÑA WOMEN; AND MANY WERE ARRESTED AND TRANSFERRED ILLEGALLY TO MILITARY PRISONS. ADDED TO ALL THIS ARE THE DEAD, ARRESSTEES AND MISSING WHO FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE MOBILIZATION THAT DEMANDS THE RESIGNATION OF ULISES RUIZ FROM THE OAXACAN GOVERNMENT.

THE FEDERAL POLICE FORCES ATTACK DOES NOT HAVE MORE OBJECTIVE THAN TO MAINTAIN ULISES RUIZ IN POWER AND TO DESTROY THE POPULAR ORGANIZATION OF THOSE OF FROM BELOW IN OAXACA.

THE OAXACA TOWN RESISTS. NO HONEST PERSON CAN REMAIN IN IMMOVABLE & SILENT WHILE AN ENTIRE TOWN, MAINLY INDIGENOUS, IS ASSASSINATED, BEATEN AND JAILED.

WE, THE ZAPATISTAS, WILL NOT SHUT UP AND WE WILL MOBILIZE IN SUPPORT OF OUT BROTHERLY TOWN AND COMPANION OF OAXACA.

THE SIXTH COMMISSION OF THE EZLN HAS ALREADY CONSULTED ZAPATISTA COMMAND AND THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN DECIDED:

FIRST. - THROUGHOUT THE FIRST OF NOVEMBER OF 2006, THE HIGHWAYS AND ROADS WILL BE CLOSED THAT CROSS THE TERRITORIES WHERE THE EZLN MAINTAINS PRESENCE IN THE SOUTHEAST STATE OF CHIAPAS.

CONSEQUENTLY, WE EXHORT THAT EVERYONE ABSTAIN FROM TRAVELING CHIAPAS HIGHWAYS THAT DAY AND TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS FOR IT.

SECOND. - THROUGH THEIR SIXTH COMMISSION, THE EZLN HAS INITIATED CONTACTS AND CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS, AS WELL AS WITH GROUPS, COLLECTIVES AND PEOPLE OF THE OTHER CAMPAIGN, TO INITIATE DAYS OF SOLIDARITY WITH OAXACA AND TO SUMMON JOINT ACTIONS TO ALL OF MEXICO FROM BELOW AND MAKING NATIONAL HALT DAY ON THE 20 OF NOVEMBER OF 2006.

THIRD. - THE EZLN MAKES A CALL TO THE OTHER CAMPAIGN IN MEXICO AND NORTH OF THE RIO GRANDE, SO THAT THIS FIRST OF NOVEMBER OF 2006 IT IS MOBILIZED, WHERE IS POSSIBLE, CLOSING OF TOTAL, PARTIAL OR INTERMITTENT, REAL OR SYMBOLICALLY, THE STREETS, ROADS, HIGHWAYS, TOLL BOOTHS, STATIONS, AIRPORTS AND ANY MASS MEDIA.

FOURTH. - THE MESSAGE THAT WE THE ZAPATISTAS SENT AND WILL SEND TO THE TOWN OF OAXACA IS ONE: THEY ARE NOT ALONE. ¡ULISES RUIZ OUT OF OAXACA!

IMMEDIATE EXPULSION OF FEDERAL FORCES OCCUPYING OAXAQUEN TERRITORY!

LIBERTY AND FREEDON TO THOSE DETAINED!

CANCELLATION OF ALL THE ORDERS OF APPREHENSION!

PUNISHMENT TO THE ASSASSINS!

JUSTICE! FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY!

From the north of Mexico.
By the Revolutionary Indigenous Clandestine Committee
- Military command of the Army Zapatista of National Liberation.
By the Sixth Commission of the EZLN.

Insurgent Subcommander Marcos. Mexico, October of 2006.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Brad Will RIP, a companero and a journalist



Brad Will, a friend and a friend to the international struggle for justice, was murdered. I meet Brad when went we traveled cross country and attended a radical conference in Ohio together. I remember him dancing to a contemporary dance piece during the Active Resistance conference in Chicago in the 1990s adding well done and creative art to the events.
Brad continued to dance. He danced against wrecking balls that tried to rip apart squats in New York City. He crisscrossed the global south recording and publizing the struggle for justice. He did not forget the struggle here, the last time I saw him was in NYC during the Still We Rise demonstrations against the RNC. He greeted me with his trade mark warm smile as always and was so proud of his improved Spanish skills. He was excited that he could better serve the struggles that inspire him.
He inspires us, to challenge ourselves to learn and grow to be better in service to our liberation and the liberation of others. He inspires us to live full lives, to take risks in the here and now, to never stop our dance that we must do when we listen to the voices of those fighting oppression, to never stop our dance to unite with those yearning for freedom by following the sounds of aching hearts, to never stop the dance that moves us to join those who cry in pain in the struggle, to never stop the dance that follows the rhythm of the multitudes' beating hearts for justice.
I will miss you Brad. I will miss your spontaneity, your warmth and your joy.
Brad I will dance with you, even if I am never as graceful as you are, even if I stumble and I fall and even if I am feeble at times, I will dance with you brother, forever. I love you, Brad.
Camilo Viveiros
From: Autonomista1@aol.com
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:19:55 EDT
To: aap@lists.riseup.net
Subject: [aap] Brad Will, a companero and a journalist

Today we received some horrible news. Brad Will from Indymedia New York was killed by "white guards" today in Oaxaca's barricades. please post widely.

Here are some news and a picture that is hard to watch by those of us who knew him full of life, hope and dedication to our common cause.

http://indybay.org//newsitems/2006/10/27/18323886.php
http://indybay.org//newsitems/2006/10/27/18323885.php
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas

Brad spent time in Argentina, reporting on the autonomist movements and won a space in our hearts. We protest his death and honor his memory.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Daniel McGowan T-Shirts: Stock up for your events and tabling!

Friends,

We just got a batch of Support Daniel shirts back from the printer. You can see the beautiful image designed by Kristine Virsis and order them at http://www.supportdaniel.org/morehelp/shirts.html

We have the image printed on sweatshop-free American Apparel shirts. The black, pink, and olive green shirts are 100% cotton and the heather lake blue shirt is a 50/50 cotton/polyester blend. We have them in sizes XS - XL. The S to XL are unisex shirts which run slightly small for men and slightly large for women.

The shirts are $15 plus shipping/handling and orders over 10 shirts get a bulk discount. You can order via PayPal on our website or find out how to order by mail by emailing us at friendsofdanielmcg@yahoo.com Please also contact us if you are ordering internationally.All proceeds from the sale of these shirts go to Daniel's legal defense fund.


If you live in NYC, you can get shirts from our friends at the following locations:
-bluestockings books, 172 Allen Street (between Stanton & Rivington Street), Lower East Side, New York.
-Mayday Books: 155 First Avenue (in the Theater for the New City between 9th & 10th Street), New York.
-Moo Shoes: 152 Allen Street (between Stanton & Rivington Street), Lower East Side, New
York

Thanks for your support!
Family and Friends of Daniel McGowan

Marcos Revolutionizes Indigenous Rights in Northern Mexico




Marcos Revolutionizes Indigenous Rights in Northern Mexico
a report by Brenda Norrell
MAGDALENA, SONORA, Mexico – Subcomandante Marcos was welcomed as a hero of the Indigenous rights movement, as Tohono O’odham, Mayo, Navajo and other Indigenous told of the oppression that threatens their survival.
During the northern Indian borderlands tour of the Other Campaign, Marcos listened as Tohono O’odham opposed encroachment on their lands in Mexico, the Bush administration’s planned border wall which is threatening the survival of their ceremonies and a proposed hazardous waste dump and the cancer it would bring.
O’odham in Mexico Lt. Gov. Jose Garcia, among the event organizers, said Indigenous People are in need of good leaders and need to follow the example of the Zapatistas.
“Instead of fighting with bullets, they are fighting with words”, Garcia told the listening gathering of more than 500 people outdoors at the Rancho el Penasco on Oct. 21.
Mayo Governor Victoriano Huichileme told of the struggle of his people in Sinoloa on the western coast, of their desperate need for jobs, education and homes.
O’odham in Mexico told Marcos of the threat they now face, as the government of Mexico plans a hazardous dump near their ceremonial site at Quitovac, less than 40 miles south of the international border.
Brenda Lee, O’odham from Quitovac, Mexico, said the people living closest to the planned hazardous waste dump were never informed of the dump so they could not speak out against it.
“We believe we are of nature and want to continue to live a natural life. We do not want this contamination”, Lee told Marcos at the gathering.
Mike Flores, Tohono O’odham and member of the International Indian Treaty Council, said the Treaty Council is an arm of the American Indian Movement and provides Indian people with the opportunity to take their issues to the United Nations.
Flores, coordinator of the recent Border Summit of the Americas in the U.S., said O’odham are opposed to the border wall and militarization of Tohono O’odham tribal land along the U.S./Mexico border.
With the rampant spread of Border Patrol agents and National Guardsmen on tribal land in the United States, O’odham rights to practice their religion are being violated by the oppressive military. The border wall would separate the O’odham communities on both sides of the border and be a barrier on their traditional ceremonial route.
Flores said American Indians at the northern and southern borders of the United States are both targeted by the Bush administration. In the north, Mohawks and other tribes are battling threats to their territories and treaties. The Bush administration is attempting to nullify the Jay Treaty, which recognizes the rights of First Nations’ passage and commerce at the northern border.
“George Bush wants to nullify the Jay Treaty, single-handedly, and we can’t let that happen”, said Flores, tribal councilman for Gu-Vo District of the Tohono O’odham Nation in Arizona.
Flores urged Indigenous People to purge their minds of colonized thinking, which is not the way of thought of Indigenous Peoples.
Among those traveling with Marcos was a survivor of the brutal police violence at San Salvador Atenco, where police attacked and beat Zapatistas and townspeople. One 14-year-old girl was killed. Amnesty International recently released a report on the rape and large-scale sexual assault of the women carried out by the Mexican police while the women were in custody.
Marcos, now known as Delegate Zero on his listening tour through Mexico, gathered with northern tribes at the Rancho el Penasco, an ecotourism ranch that promotes biodiversity. During the listening session, presentations and translations were offered in Spanish, O’odham and English.
Mayos from Sinoloa on the western coast told Marcos that they have little opportunity to receive an education in Mexico, while Navajo from the United States called for a halt to the corporate machinations that are causing death for Indigenous Peoples.
O’odham Lt. Gov. Jose Garcia said, “This gathering brought our people together in unity and gave us the chance for ours voices to be heard.”
Garcia said the underlying message of all the Indigenous present was that the government of Mexico has not honored the voices, or recognized the existence and rights of the Indian people of Mexico.
Garcia, who has traveled numerous times to Chiapas since the Zapatistas’ movement for Indigenous rights began, said Mexico never adopted the San Andres Accords and watered down the Indigenous Rights Bill of Rights in Mexico’s Congress. He said both reveal that Mexico continues to ignore and repress Indigenous Peoples
Michelle Cook, Navajo, said the state and federal governments in the United States are not listening to Indian people. Cook demanded that corporate profiteering cease and the World Trade Organization and World Bank “desist from their activities which kill our people.”
Cook thanked Marcos and the Zapatistas for coming and listening, adding that the Navajos’ own state and federal governments in the United States are not listening.
After listening, Marcos said it was good to be present and listen to the voices of the Indigenous Peoples. Naming the tribes of this region, Marcos reminded those gathered that there are always repercussions for people speaking out with truth.
Louise Benally, Navajo resisting relocation at Big Mountain, Ariz., sent a message to Marcos and the Zapatistas.
“I was hoping to be a part of the on-going events against the border wall and militarization. However, I am unable to attend.
“We are not in support of what is going on with this uncontrollable government; we do not support what is happening at the border. Our hearts are with all of you, we are standing with you in spirit!”
Before the evening of listening, a traditional prayer was led by Salt River Pima. Members of the American Indian Movement, Tohono O’odham, Pima and Hopi/Zia Pueblo from the United States and O’odham from Mexico, provided security at the entrance and organized patrols. After consulting with AIM security, local Mexican police forces agreed to remain outside the indigenous AIM security parameters. Mexican police were surprised with hot coffee before leaving their posts at the highway on Sunday morning.
News reporters and documentary filmmakers poured into the evening listening session from Sweden, Italy, Japan, China and the United States, representing a wide range of media, from Indymedia to the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, Ariz. and an independent Swedish film crew.
During Marcos’ overnight stay here, O’odham prepared favorite Sonoran foods of red chile stew, the favorite large and thin O’odham tortillas, pinto beans and strong coffee. Tucson restaurant owner Maria Garcia, wife of Jose Garcia and among the event organizers, arrived with huge pots of red chile and beans.
While several hundred supporters arrived with Marcos’ delegation in a large bus and several cars, Indigenous traveled by bus from distant communities, including Mayo from Sinoloa, Yaqui and O’odham from the coast and Tarahumara from Chihuahua.
Crossing the border to attend, hundreds of people arrived from the United States, including human rights groups and EZLN members from Oakland, Calif. Among the large delegations were members of “No More Deaths,” in Tucson, Ariz., which provides water, food and emergency care in the desert in the U.S,. in an effort to prevent migrant deaths, while seeking long term goals of peace at the border.
When Marcos and the delegation left on Sunday morning, ecotourism ranch owner Wenceslao Monrroy said Marcos said he had a good rest here, where sheep and goats often wander through the outdoor crowd.
Already, Monrroy had removed the previous plaque from the door of the private room where Marcos stayed as his guest at the hostel, also known as the Centro Cultural de Biodiversidad del Kiche.
“It will now be the ‘Marcos Room’”, he said of the room decorated in the folk art and carvings distinguishing Mexico for hundreds of years.
Marcos had planned to be here in June, but the attack by police in Atenco in the south delayed the northern Indian borderlands tour until October.
During the weekend here, food and support poured in from the Dry River Collective from Tucson; Cooperativa “Just Coffee,” in Agua Prieta and Sonora; Citizens for Border Solutions in Bisbee, Ariz.; Desarollo de Pueblos Indios Inmigrantes y Nativos in Sonora.
Earlier in the week, while meeting with the Kumiai (Kumeyaay) in Baja California, Marcos announced a meeting to bring together Indigenous Peoples from the north and south continents in the fall of 2007 in northern Mexico.
Marcos arrived at the O’odham gathering on Saturday, immediately after establishing a camp to protect the Cucapa and Kiliwa near Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. Facing extinction because of the loss of fishing rights, tribal members earlier entered into a “death pact.”
Narco News, providing coverage of the Other Campaign, reports of the new Zapatista camp and encouragement to the people.
“In protest against the forceful dispossession of their lands and the destruction of their culture, the Kiliwas took a death pact. The women have agreed to stop having children, and the Kiliwas will die with this generation. Marcos, however, intends to use the power of the Other Campaign to convince them that they are not alone, and that it is not worth it to die from a death pact when they can die fighting.”
During the last week of October, Marcos plans to meet with Indigenous in Yaqui, Seri, Mayo, Pima, Tarahumara and other communities in northwestern Mexico.
Brenda Norrell
U.N. OBSERVER & International Report
Please also see:
Marcos: The Zapatistas Will Defend the Cucapa and Kiliwa Peoples of Baja California http://www.narconews.com/Issue43/article2205.html
Amnesty International on the rape of the women of Atenco:
Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional http://www.ezln.org.mx
Amnesty: U.S. Inspiring Torture and ‘Killing Fields’,
a report by Brenda Norrell
www.indigenousaction.org - Independent Indigenous Media

Monday, October 23, 2006

support imprisoned Israeli activist

On October 15th our friend Layla Tripoli entered
prisonto begin serving a 3 month sentence. We are
asking for your support during her imprisonment.

For details about mailing addresses for support letter
andways to make a financial donation please turn to
thelast paragraph of this letter. Layla has been
active in Palestine for a long period.

She has participated in many demonstrations andactions
against the occupation and the separationwall. Any one
who has seen Layla in Palestine was amazed by how
easily she makes new relationships. Layla breaks the
separation between Israelis and Palestinians with her
deeds as well as her words. For that reason she was
marked by the Israeli authorities as a threat. She has
been interrogated by the Israeli intelligence many
times and has been harassed by the police and military
repeatedly. Layla has been arrested several times
during actions in Palestine.

She was tried for three different charges, the most
severe one was assaulting a police officer. In
addition she was charged with 11 additional charges
that were later dropped. Although Layla was innocent,
the police officers and soldiers got their stories
straight making her look guilty. Consulting her
attorney Layla decided to make a deal with the
prosecution. She pleaded guilty and in exchange got
the minimal sentence and a drop of the eleven other
charges.

During the last years Layla have worked mostly in the
village of Budrus , a village that was a symbol for
resistance against the separation wall. She has
developed a special relationship with the Awad family
there. Together with the family Layla initiated a
project that combines ecological principles
togetherwith the struggle against the separation
between Israelis and Palestinians. The family gives
workshops in Bio-Falha, an agricultural method that
combines theprinciples of organic agriculture together
withtraditional Palestinian agriculture. Those
workshops brought many Israelis to the villages and
created connections between them and the occupied
Palestinians. The project in Budrus fights the
occupation in the most direct way – by annihilating
the separation between Israelis and Palestinians. We
are asking you to support Layla during her
imprisonment. Layla has asked all support letters to
go through the support group. You can also send
support letter by email to: supportlayla@gmail.com

To transfer written letters, please contact the
support group. Since Layla is vegan she will have to
pay for most of her food during her imprisonment. For
financial donations to Layla's commissary in prison,
or for financial donations for the project in Budrus
please contact the support group.
For any other matters please contact:
supportlayla@gmail.comor or contact Lior at:
0549986508.

Her support group wants the following to be added to
the email if anyone forwards it:

If you plan to write Layla, please take in
consideration that all the letters will be read by the
authorities, so try to avoid writing about sensitive issues.


Pleas feel free to forward this email. Thank you for
your support.

Relatives of the Political Prisoners in Ankara

While the attacks, torture and arbitrary practices against the revolutionary prisoners are intensifying, the actions and activities of the Union of the Relatives of Prisoners (TUYAB) against isolation are continuing. TUYAB protested the isolation policy in the prisons by a manifestation on 15 October in Taksim/Istanbul.

Opening a banner with the slogan "End with the isolation in Guantanamo and in the F-Types" and wearing orange t-shirts with the slogan "No to the discipline penalties!", the relatives announced that they would continue with their struggle against repression and special treatment policy in the prisons.

The last process in the F-Type Prison of Tekirdað, No: 2 and Sincan Women's Prison was also protested at the demonstration. The revolutionaries who were imprisoned in September were tortured and were given penalties of prohibition of receiving letters and visitors, for having refused to be searched without their clothes when they were transferred to Tekirdag prison.

The female prisoners in Sincan prison were exposed to sexual violence and abuse. The protestors shouted the slogans "Revolutionary prisoners will not surrender!", "Revolutionary prisoners are our honour!", "End with the torture of isolation in the F-Types!".

The same night, the relatives departed to Ankara in order to carry the topic of isolation to the agenda of the Congress. The families who met with some deputies and democratic organizations drew attention to the isolation and violation of the rights in the F-Type prisons.

The relatives affiliated to TUYAB protested the isolation policy and gave information about their meetings with the deputies and the democratic organizations, by organizing a press-declaration in the Yuksel Street in Ankara on 19 October.

In the action, the relatives, who opened a banner with the slogan "No to the discipline penalties!", informed that they had demanded in the meetings that the violation of the rights in the prisons should end and cells for 12 people should be opened.On the other hand, a group of intellectuals and artists went to Ankara on 19 September in order to demand that the isolation policy should end.

They opened a banner with the slogan "We are all isolated, end with the isolation policy!" and they marched to the building of the Ministry of Justice. They stated that Lawyer Behic Asci was still on death fast and they declared that they will continue their struggle until that the isolation policy ends

Source: MLKP
Until All Are Free - We Are All Imprisoned!
For more info on political prisoners & other struggles:

BBC poll on torture

One-third support 'some torture'
Nearly a third of people worldwide back the use of torture in prisons in some circumstances, a BBC survey suggests.

Although 59% were opposed to torture, 29% thought it acceptable to use some degree of torture to combat terrorism.

While most polled in the US are against torture, opposition there is less robust than in Europe and elsewhere.

More than 27,000 people in 25 countries were asked if torture would be acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives.

Some 36% of those questioned in the US agreed that this use of torture was acceptable, while 58% were unwilling to compromise on human rights.


The percentage favouring torture in certain cases makes it one of the highest of all the countries polled.

The majority of those questioned in the BBC World Service poll - 19 of the 25 countries surveyed - agree that clear rules against torture in prisons should be maintained because it is immoral and its use would weaken human rights standards.

"The dominant view around the world is that terrorism does not warrant bending the rules against torture," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), whose organisation helped conduct the survey.

Saving lives?

All of the countries surveyed have signed up to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of torture and cruel and degrading behaviour.

But countries that face political violence are more likely to accept the idea that some degree of torture is permissible because of the extreme threat posed by terrorists.

Israel has the largest percentage of those polled endorsing the use of a degree of torture on prisoners, with 43% saying they agreed that some degree of torture should be allowed.

However, a larger percentage - 48% - think it should remain prohibited.

The question
Most countries have agreed to rules prohibiting torturing prisoners. Which position is closer to yours?
Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives
Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights

Other countries that polled higher levels of acceptance of the use of torture include Iraq (42%), the Philippines (40%), Indonesia (40%), Russia (37%) and China (37%).

The Israeli figure conceals a stark difference in attitude within the country, split along religious lines.

A majority of Jewish respondents in Israel, 53%, favour allowing governments to use some degree of torture to obtain information from those in custody, while 39% want clear rules against it.

But Muslims in Israel, who represent 16% of the total number polled, are overwhelmingly against any use of torture.

Meanwhile opposition to the practise is highest in Italy, where 81% of those questioned think torture is never justified.

Australia, France, Canada, the UK and Germany also registered high levels of opposition to any use of torture.

The survey was carried out for the BBC World Service by polling firm Globescan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Views on torturing prisoners
Country Against all torture * Some degree permissible * Neither/Don't Know
Australia 75% 22% 3%
Brazil 61% 32% 8%
Canada 74% 22% 4%
Chile 62% 22% 16%
China 49% 37% 13%
Egypt 65% 25% 9%
France 75% 19% 6%
Germany 71% 21% 7%
Gt Britain 72% 24% 4%
India 23% 32% 45%
Indonesia 51% 40% 8%
Iraq 55% 42% 1%
Israel 48% 43% 9%
Italy 81% 14% 6%
Kenya 53% 38% 9%
Mexico 50% 24% 27%
Nigeria 49% 39% 12%
Philippines 56% 40% 5%
Poland 62% 27% 12%
Russia 43% 37% 19%
S Korea 66% 31% 3%
Spain 65% 16% 19%
Turkey 62% 24% 14%
Ukraine 54% 29% 18%
US 58% 36% 7%
Average 59% 29% 12%
*27,000 respondents in 25 countries were asked which position was closer to their own views:
  • Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.
  • Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.
Source: BBC/Globescan/PIPA


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/6063386.stm

Published: 2006/10/19 02:07:46 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Black Panthers reunite 40 years later

By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer Sat Oct 14,

BERKELEY, Calif. - The Black Panther Party officially existed for just 16 years, but its reach has endured far longer.

Co-founder Bobby Seale never expected to be around to see that reach 40 years later.

"A lot of times I thought I would be dead," he says.

Seale and other former members will commemorate the party's founding when they reunite in Oakland this weekend. They plan a mix of events, including workshops on topics ranging from Hurricane Katrina to ethnic studies in higher education, as well as presentations on party history.

"Grass roots, community, programmatic organizing for the purpose of evolving political, electoral, community empowerment," Seale says. "This was my kind of revolution. This was what I was after."

The Panthers were born Oct. 22, 1966, the night Seale and Huey Newton completed the party's 10-point program and platform. At the time, Newton was a law student and Seale was working for the Oakland Department of Human Resources as a community liaison.

When they were finished, they flipped a silver dollar to see who would be chairman. Seale called heads. Heads it was.

Later, when he saw Newton looking sharp in a black leather jacket, he decided that members should wear something similar as a kind of uniform. They added berets after watching a movie about the French resistance in World War II.

The Panthers' most controversial accessories were the then-legal weapons they carried when they began monitoring police activity in predominantly black neighborhoods.

In 1967, as state legislators were considering gun restrictions that eventually passed, armed Panthers showed up at the state Capitol in protest, grabbing national attention.

The militant approach, which frightened many white Americans, set the Panthers apart from other activist groups.

"They filled a critical kind of void in the civil rights struggle," says Charles E. Jones, chairman of the Department of African-American Studies at Georgia State University. "At a time when folks began to reassess the utility of nonviolence and turning the other cheek, the Black Panther Party offered an alternative."

The Panthers are often remembered for gun fights with police that left casualties on both sides.

Still, former members point out that they were about more than guns. They ran breakfast programs for children, set up free health clinics, and arranged security escorts for the elderly and testing for sickle cell anemia — along with holding their police conduct review boards.

At its high point, the party had about 5,000 members across the country, Seale says.

Looking back, he still thinks the guns were necessary. A year before the Panthers were founded, he says, another group called Community Alert Patrol tried monitoring police activity, armed with tape recorders, walkie-talkies and law books.

"After a month of them doing this, they in effect got their law books taken and torn up, their tape recorders and their walkie-talkies smashed up, with billy clubs their heads were cracked up and drug downtown and locked up," he says.

A number of factors led to the Panthers' demise, starting with government opposition, Jones says. In 1967, the FBI launched a counterintelligence program against what it termed "black hate groups" as well as other activists.

Internal disagreement on tactics and leadership weakened the party further and, "ultimately, people just got burned out. It's hard being a full-time revolutionary in the United States," Jones says.

Several Panthers were arrested on a variety of charges and some still remain in jail.

Seale and others were charged with conspiring to murder a party member who was believed to be a police informant, but those charges were later dropped. Seale, who turns 70 this month, moved back to Oakland in the 1990s and keeps busy with speaking engagements.

Newton was convicted of manslaughter in the 1967 death of an officer shot when police stopped a car Newton was driving. That verdict was overturned. Newton struggled with addiction and was shot to death by a drug dealer in Oakland in 1989.

Continued interest in the Panthers is "a fascinating phenomenon," says Jones, editor of an anthology, "The Black Panther Party (Reconsidered)." For him it comes down to "a certain kind of boldness. It really stems from their community organizing, their commitment to serving not only black folks but all oppressed people."

Portland Residents Protest Police Killings

Portland, OR—Around fifty people gathered at the North Park Blocks in
downtown Portland today to protest police brutality and the recent
death of James Chasse who died in police custody. The event was held
in conjunction with similar events around the country to highlight
police abuses, but was organized autonomously of the national
coalition. Most participants dressed in black to show support for the
families of people killed by police.

People started banging on plastic bucket drums and a parade formed
behind the banner "Cops and Klan go hand in hand." People paraded
through downtown streets chanting against police abuse and the system
that fosters it. Portland police remained mostly out of sight except
for a few plainclothes officers videotaping the crowd.

The parade ended in Pioneer Square where people unrelated to protest
held signs reading "free hugs." Many people accepted the free hugs.
People soon gathered again to talk about police abuse and why they
were there. The names of people killed by the police in the Portland
area were announced over the megaphone. One man spoke in detail about
how his cousin Fouad Kaady was murdered by police. These speeches
attracted more people from the square who were curious what was going
on.

The event ended without incident. Some participants expressed the
need to do more outreach and education to get more people involved in
the future. Others expressed the continued importance of people
standing in solidarity with the families and friends of people
victimized by the police.

--

The Torture of Jose Padilla, US citizen

http://www.shalomctr.org/node/1195Civil Liberties | Torture

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 04-60001-CR-COOKE/BROWN(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs.

JOSE PADILLA,
Defendant,
____________________________________/
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT
Mr. Jose Padilla, through undersigned counsel, moves this Court to dismiss the
indictment based on outrageous government conduct and in support thereof states:
BACKGROUND
Mr. Padilla was arrested on May 8, 2002, in Chicago O=Hare International Airport, as
he stepped off an airplane from Zurich, Switzerland. The arrest was purportedly authorized
by a material witness warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York in connection with the grand jury investigation into the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. Mr. Padilla was transported to New York where he was held in
custody. He was appointed counsel, and a motion was filed to vacate the material witness
warrant.
On June 9, 2002, President George W. Bush declared Mr. Padilla an Aenemy
combatant@ and directed Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to take custody of Mr.
Padilla from the Attorney General. Mr. Padilla was transferred to the Naval Consolidated

2
Brig at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, South Carolina (hereinafter ANaval Brig@),
where he was denied all access to counsel. The government argued that Mr. Padilla
should not be allowed to see a lawyer because he might pass illicit communications
through his attorney. The government also asserted that allowing Mr. Padilla access to
counsel or to learn that a court was hearing his case could provide him with the expectation
that he would some day be released:
Only after such time as Padilla has perceived that help is not on the way can
the United States reasonably expect to obtain all possible intelligence
information from Padilla Y Providing him access to counsel now Y would
break B probably irreparably B the sense of dependency and trust that the
interrogators are attempting to create.

Declaration of Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
sworn to January 9, 2003, p. 8, available at
http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/archive/Padilla
_vs_Rumsfeld/Jacoby_declaration_20030109.pdf#search=%22%22Jacoby%20Declaration
%22%22 (hereinafter AJacoby Declaration@).
In an effort to gain Mr. Padilla=s Adependency and trust,@ he was tortured for nearly
the entire three years and eight months of his unlawful detention. The torture took myriad
forms, each designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and, ultimately, the loss of will to
live. The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla=s torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion
of his captivity. For nearly two years B from June 9, 2002 until March 2, 2004, when the
Department of Defense permitted Mr. Padilla to have contact with his lawyers B Mr. Padilla
was in complete isolation. Even after he was permitted contact with counsel, his conditions
of confinement remained essentially the same. He was kept in a unit comprising sixteen
individual cells, eight on the upper level and eight on the lower level, where Mr. Padilla=s
cell was located. No other cells in the unit were occupied. His cell was electronically

3
monitored twenty-four hours a day, eliminating the need for a guard to patrol his unit. His
only contact with another person was when a guard would deliver and retrieve trays of food
and when the government desired to interrogate him.
His isolation, furthermore, was aggravated by the efforts of his captors to maintain
complete sensory deprivation. His tiny cell B nine feet by seven feet B had no view to the
outside world. The door to his cell had a window, however, it was covered by a magnetic
sticker, depriving Mr. Padilla of even a view into the hallway and adjacent common areas of
his unit. He was not given a clock or a watch and for most of the time of his captivity, he
was unaware whether it was day or night, or what time of year or day it was.
In addition to his extreme isolation, Mr. Padilla was also viciously deprived of sleep.
This sleep deprivation was achieved in a variety of ways. For a substantial period of his
captivity, Mr. Padilla=s cell contained only a steel bunk with no mattress. The pain and
discomfort of sleeping on a cold, steel bunk made it impossible for him to sleep. Mr. Padilla
was not given a mattress until the tail end of his captivity. Mr. Padilla=s captors did not
solely rely on the inhumane conditions of his living arrangements to deprive him of regular
sleep. A number of ruses were employed to keep Mr. Padilla from getting necessary sleep
and rest. One of the tactics his captors employed was the creation of loud noises near and
around his cell to interrupt any rest Mr. Padilla could manage on his steel bunk. As Mr.
Padilla was attempting to sleep, the cell doors adjacent to his cell would be electronically
opened, resulting in a loud clank, only to be immediately slammed shut. Other times, his
captors would bang the walls and cell bars creating loud startling noises. These disruptions
would occur throughout the night and cease only in the morning, when Mr. Padilla=s
interrogations would begin.

4
Efforts to manipulate Mr. Padilla and break his will also took the form of the denial of
the few benefits he possessed in his cell. For a long time Mr. Padilla had no reading
materials, access to any media, radio or television, and the only thing he possessed in his
room was a mirror. The mirror was abruptly taken away, leaving Mr. Padilla with even less
sensory stimulus. Also, at different points in his confinement Mr. Padilla would be given
some comforts, like a pillow or a sheet, only to have them taken away arbitrarily. He was
never given any regular recreation time. Often, when he was brought outside for some
exercise, it was done at night, depriving Mr. Padilla of sunlight for many months at a time.
The disorientation Mr. Padilla experienced due to not seeing the sun and having no view on
the outside world was exacerbated by his captors= practice of turning on extremely bright
lights in his cell or imposing complete darkness for durations of twenty-four hours, or more.
Mr. Padilla=s dehumanization at the hands of his captors also took more sinister
forms. Mr. Padilla was often put in stress positions for hours at a time. He would be
shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell. Noxious fumes would be
introduced to his room causing his eyes and nose to run. The temperature of his cell would
be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time. Mr. Padilla was
denied even the smallest, and most personal shreds of human dignity by being deprived of
showering for weeks at a time, yet having to endure forced grooming at the whim of his
captors.
A substantial quantum of torture endured by Mr. Padilla came at the hands of his
interrogators. In an effort to disorient Mr. Padilla, his captors would deceive him about his
location and who his interrogators actually were. Mr. Padilla was threatened with being
forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including U.S. Naval Base at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was threatened his fate would be even worse than in

5
the Naval Brig. He was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured
on the wounds. He was also threatened with imminent execution. He was hooded and
forced to stand in stress positions for long durations of time. He was forced to endure
exceedingly long interrogation sessions, without adequate sleep, wherein he would be
confronted with false information, scenarios, and documents to further disorient him. Often
he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake, and otherwise assault
Mr. Padilla. Additionally, Mr. Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some
form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth
serum during his interrogations.
Throughout most of the time Mr. Padilla was held captive in the Naval Brig he had no
contact with the outside world. In March 2004, one year and eight months after arriving in
the Naval Brig, Mr. Padilla was permitted his first contact with his attorneys. Even
thereafter, although Mr. Padilla had access to counsel, and thereby some contact with the
outside world, those visits were extremely limited and restricted. Significantly though, it
was not until Mr. Padilla was permitted to visit with counsel that one of his attorneys,
Andrew Patel, was able to provide Mr. Padilla with a copy of the Qur=an. Up until that time,
for a period of almost two years, Mr. Padilla was the right to exercise his religious beliefs.
The deprivations, physical abuse, and other forms of inhumane treatment visited
upon Mr. Padilla caused serious medical problems that were not adequately addressed.
Apart from the psychological damage done to Mr. Padilla, there were numerous health
problems brought on by the conditions of his captivity. Mr. Padilla frequently experienced
cardiothoracic difficulties while sleeping, or attempting to fall asleep, including a heavy
pressure on his chest and an inability to breath or move his body.

6
In one incident Mr. Padilla felt a burning sensation pulsing through his chest. He
requested medical care but was given no relief. Toward the end of his captivity, Mr. Padilla
experienced swelling and pressure in his chest and arms. He was administered an
electrocardiogram, and given medication. However, Mr. Padilla ceased taking the medicine
when it caused him respiratory congestion. Although Mr. Padilla was given medication in
this instance, he was often denied medication for pain relief. The strain brought on by
being placed in stress positions caused Mr. Padilla great discomfort and agony. Many
times he requested some form of pain relief but was denied by the guards.
The cause of some of the medical problems experienced by Mr. Padilla is obvious.
Being cramped in a tiny cell with little or no opportunity for recreation and enduring stress
positions and shackling for hours caused great pain and discomfort. It is unclear, though,
whether Mr. Padilla=s cardiothoracic problems were a symptom of the stress he endured in
captivity, or a side effect from one of the drugs involuntarily induced into Mr. Padilla=s
system in the Naval Brig. In either event, the strategically applied measures suffered by
Mr. Padilla at the hands of the government caused him both physical and psychological
pain and agony.
It is worth noting that throughout his captivity, none of the restrictive and inhumane
conditions visited upon Mr. Padilla were brought on by his behavior or by any actions on his
part. There were no incidents of Mr. Padilla violating any regulation of the Naval Brig or
taking any aggressive action towards any of his captors. Mr. Padilla has always been
peaceful and compliant with his captors. He was, and remains to the time of this filing,
docile and resigned B a model detainee.
Mr. Padilla also wants to make clear that the deprivation described above did abate
somewhat once counsel began negotiating with the officials of the Naval Brig for the

7
improvements of his conditions. Toward the end of Mr. Padilla=s captivity in the Naval Brig
he was provided reading materials and some other more humane treatment. However,
despite some improvement in Mr. Padilla=s living conditions, the interrogations and torture
continued even after the visits with counsel commenced.
In sum, many of the conditions Mr. Padilla experienced were inhumane and caused
him great physical and psychological pain and anguish. Other deprivations experienced by
Mr. Padilla, taken in isolation, are merely cruel and some, merely petty. However, it is
important to recognize that all of the deprivations and assaults recounted above were
employed in concert in a calculated manner to cause him maximum anguish. It is also
extremely important to note that the torturous acts visited upon Mr. Padilla were done over
the course almost the entire three years and seven months of his captivity in the Naval
Brig. For most of one thousand three hundred and seven days, Mr. Padilla was tortured by
the United States government without cause or justification. Mr. Padilla=s treatment at the
hands of the United States government is shocking to even the most hardened conscience,
and such outrageous conduct on the part of the government divests it of jurisdiction, under
the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment, to prosecute Mr. Padilla in the instant
matter.
ARGUMENT

A. Introduction

AWhoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not
become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also
looks into you.@

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil 89 (Walter Kaufmann trans., Vintage Books
1966) (1886).

8
In the instant motion Mr. Padilla respectfully asserts that the charges against him
should be dismissed by this Court. In so urging, he is fully cognizant that motions to
dismiss premised upon outrageous government conduct are rarely justified, and thus rarely
granted. United States v. Pemberton, 853 F.2d 730, 735 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curium). He
is also aware that the relief he requests is extraordinary and the dismissal of his indictment
would be seen in certain quarters as a calamity. However, Mr. Padilla is steadfast in his
assertion that in a Nation of laws and of respect for the dignity of all persons, his
prosecution is an abomination. The treatment of Mr. Padilla, a natural born citizen of the
United States, is a blot on this nation=s character, shameful in its disrespect for the rule of
law, and should never be repeated. As such, the government=s myriad and sundry due
process violations visited upon Mr. Padilla have divested it of jurisdiction to prosecute him
in the instant matter.
B. Outrageous Government Conduct
Mr. Padilla seeks to dismiss the indictment lodged against him based on the
government=s outrageous conduct in bringing him to court. The doctrinal origins of this
motion are found in the dicta of a decision authored by then-Justice Rehnquist: A[W]e may
some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is
so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from
invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction Y@ United States v. Russell, 411 U.S.
423, 431-32 (1973). The Russell majority indicated that governmental conduct would be
constitutionally impermissible only where it went beyond Athat >fundamental fairness,
shocking to the universal sense of justice= mandated by the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.@ Id. (quoting Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234,
246 (1960)).

9
C. Shocks the Conscience
A number of courts have read the Supreme Court=s warning in Russell to confine the
broad due process check on the conduct of law enforcement officers only to that small
category of cases in which the police have been brutal, employing physical or psychological
coercion against the defendant. See United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460, 1476 n.13 (D.C.
Cir. 1983) (per curium) (citing cases) (reversing district court dismissal for outrageous
conduct in government sting of public officials). This articulation of what constitutes
outrageous government behavior relies on the Russell Court=s citation to Rochin v.
California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), as an example of the type of government activity that
would so Ashock the conscience@ that it would violate due process. 411 U.S. at 432. In
Rochin, police officers broke into the defendant=s bedroom and unsuccessfully attempted to
prevent the defendant from swallowing contraband drug capsules. The police took the
defendant to the hospital where doctors forcibly pumped his stomach to retrieve the
capsules. 342 U.S. at 166. The Supreme Court held:
[W]e are compelled to conclude that the proceedings by which this conviction
was obtained do more than offend some fastidious squeamishness or private
sentimentalism about combating crime too energetically. This is conduct that
shocks the conscience. Illegally breaking into the privacy of the petitioner, the
struggle to open his mouth and remove what was there, the forcible
extraction of his stomach=s contents B as this course of proceeding by agents
of government to obtain evidence is bound to offend even hardened
sensibilities. They are methods too close to the rack and the screw to permit
of constitutional differentiation.

Id. at 172.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that due process is offended when
government conduct is so egregious that it Ashocks the conscience@ and violates the
Adecencies of civilized conduct.@ County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998)
quoting Rochin, 342 U.S. at 172-73. According to the Supreme Court, the due process

10
guarantees of the Constitution were intended to prevent government officials Afrom abusing
[their] power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression.@ Collins v. Harker Heights,
503 U.S. 115, 126 (1992) (quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Soc. Servs.,
489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989) and Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986)).
The Eleventh Circuit recognized in United States v. Edenfield, 995 F.2d 197 (11th
Cir. 1993), that even in the investigative or pre-indictment stage of a case, government
misconduct could violate Athat fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of
justice mandated by the due process clause of the fifth amendment.@ Id. at 200 (quoting
United States v. Tobias, 662 F.2d 381, 386-87 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) and Russell, 411 U.S.
at 432). In order to completely bar prosecution, government misconduct must be
Aoutrageous.@ Edenfield, 995 F.2d at 200. In evaluating the outrageousness of
government misconduct, a court must look at the totality of the circumstances, with no
single factor controlling. See Tobias, 662 F.2d at 387.
One example of outrageous government conduct meriting dismissal is found in
United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974). In Toscanino, the defendant was
wanted on a narcotics warrant out of the Eastern District of New York. Id. at 268. The
defendant was an Italian national living in Uruguay who had been abducted and forcibly
brought to the United States to face prosecution. Id. The defendant maintained, both
pretrial and after his conviction, that the entire prosecution against him was void due to the
fact that the United States illegally kidnapped him from his home in Uruguay and tortured
him during his transport to the United States. Id. at 269-70. The defendant=s motions to
vacate his conviction and dismiss the indictment were denied without a hearing, and those
denials were the sole issue on appeal. Id. at 271. The court remanded the case for an

11
evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant=s claims of forcible abduction and
torture could be sustained. Id. at 281.
In resolving the dispute, the Toscanino court had to reconcile long-standing
Supreme Court precedent holding that the manner in which a defendant is brought to the
territory of the United States was immaterial, and could not offend due process. See Ker v.
Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 (1866) (power of court to try defendant not impaired by the fact
that he was forcibly abducted); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952) (due process
merely requires the defendant=s presence at the time of conviction after being appraised of
the charges and after a constitutionally valid trial).
While acknowledging the continued validity of Ker and Frisbie, the court in
Toscanino, held that intervening Supreme Court precedent had diluted their strict
application. Toscanino, 500 F.2d at 874. The Court found that Rochin=s holding,
invalidating a state court conviction based on the brutal manner in which evidence had
been extracted from the defendant, as well as the holding in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643
(1961), that the Fourteenth Amendment=s Due Process Clause applied the protections of
the Fourth Amendment to defendants in state court proceedings, had eroded Ker and
Frisbie=s disinterest in the conduct of law enforcement in bringing a prosecution.
Toscanino, 500 F.2d 273-74. These developments led the court to conclude that Adue
process Y now requir[es] a court to divest itself of jurisdiction over the person of a
defendant where it has been acquired as the result of the government=s deliberate,
unnecessary and unreasonable invasion of the accused=s constitutional rights.@ Id. at 275.
See also United States v. Orsini, 402 F.Supp. 1218 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) (holding that defendant
had met his burden of offering credible evidence of gross government misconduct in his
seizure).

12
In ruling that the defendant=s allegations of outrageous government conduct, if
sustained on remand, should result in the dismissal of the indictment, the court in
Toscanino noted that in many cases involving due process violations center on unlawful
government acquisition of evidence and that, in those instances, the proper remedy would
be the exclusion of the tainted evidence. Id. However, it noted that where suppression of
the evidence would not suffice, the indictment should be dismissed so that the government
would not benefit from its illegal conduct. Id. (citing Won Sun v. United States, 371 U.S.
471, 488 (1963)). Similarly, in the instant matter, the government has averred that it will not
seek to introduce any evidence obtained from Mr. Padilla during his captivity in the Naval
Brig. However, that remedy is clearly inadequate to make whole the prejudice suffered by
Mr. Padilla at the hands of the government=s gross misconduct.
D. Torture Shocks the Conscience
While the precise contours of what Ashocks the conscience,@ can be difficult to
delineate with certainty, there can be little doubt that the deliberate and repeated torture of
an individual over the course of almost four years should and does shock even the most
calloused conscience. ANo one doubts that under Supreme Court precedent, interrogation
by torture like that alleged by [appellant] shocks the conscience.@ Harbury v. Deutch, 233
F.3d 596, 602 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing Rochin, 342 U.S. at 172); see also Palko v.
Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326 (1937), overruled on other grounds by Benton v. Maryland,
395 U.S. 784 (1969) (noting that the Due Process Clause must at least Agive protection
against torture, physical or mental@). Numerous cases illustrate the forgone conclusion that
torture is precisely the sort of outrageous conduct that shocks the conscience. See United
States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620, 633 (1980) (Brennan, J. dissenting) (equating torture with
conscience shocking behavior: AI still hope that the Court would not be prepared to

13
acquiesce in torture or other police conduct that >shocks the conscience= even if it
demonstrably advanced the factfinding process.@); cf. United States v. Mitchell, 957 F.2d
465, 470 n. 6 (7th Cir. 1992) (court=s conscience not shocked because Athe conduct of the
government Y clearly Y not comparable to official acts of torture, brutality or similar
outrageous conduct present in cases where conduct was found to shock the conscience@);
United States v. Chin, 934 F.2d 393, 399 (2d Cir. 1991) (sort of harm present in case can
hardly be said to Ashock the conscience@ as would physical coercion or torture).
As stated recently by Judge Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia, torture is inimical
to our system of justice and the judiciary should be a bulwark against the stain of torture in
our criminal justice system:
[T]he Court would like to make a very clear statement that torture of any kind
is legally and morally unacceptable, and that the judicial system of the United
States will not permit the taint of torture in its judiciary proceedings. This
Court takes very seriously its solemn duty and unwavering responsibility to
ensure that the human rights guarantees of the United States Constitution
and of those international documents on human rights to which the United
States is a signatory Y are upheld in word, deed, and spirit.

United States v. Abu Ali, 395 F.Supp. 2d 338, 379 (E.D.Va. 2005). While one can
quibble about what behavior shocks the conscience, it is beyond debate that
conduct amounting to torture clearly does so.
E. Torture
The definition of torture is somewhat elusive in that there is often disagreement as to
what conduct reaches the level of torture as compared with that of more generalized abuse.
See Jeremy Waldron, Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House, 105
Colum. L. Rev. 1681, 1695-96 (2005) (discussing disparate views of conduct in Abu Ghraib
and general difficulty in pinning down objective criteria defining torture). Nevertheless,
there are a number of sources supplying a definition of torture relevant to the consideration

14
of the instant motion. For instance, Congress has criminalized the commission of torture in
several statutes. 18 U.S.C. ' 2340, et seq. In those statutes, torture is defined as:
(1) Atorture@ means an act committed by a person acting under the color of
law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
(other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another
person within his custody or physical control;
(2) Asevere mental pain or suffering@ means the prolonged mental harm
caused by or resulting from B
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or
suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to
disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death,
severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-
altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the
senses or personality; and
(3) AUnited States@ means the several States of the United States, the District
of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the
United States.

18 U.S.C. ' 2340.
The United States has also entered into international agreements prohibiting torture.
For instance, in 1984 the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus the
international Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter ACAT@). Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20
(1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 113. Torture is defined in Article 1 of the CAT as follows:
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or
a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

15
The United States Senate ratified the CAT subject to certain stated
Aunderstandings,@ which include the following with respect to the meaning of torture:
(1)(a) That with reference to Article 1 [of the CAT], the United States
understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental
pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting
from:
(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or
suffering;
(2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to
disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(3) the threat of imminent death; or
(4) the threat that another person will imminently be subject to death, severe
physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering
substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses
or personality.
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in Article
1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender=s
custody or physical control.

Senate Resolution of Ratification of the Convention Against Torture, 136 Cong. Rec.
36,192, 36,198 (1990). Obviously, these elaborations on the CAT=s definition of torture
track the definition of torture found in 18 U.S.C. ' 2340.
Distilling these definitions, there is broad agreement that, at the very least,
intentionally inflicting mental or physical pain is considered torture. This is particularly true
if that infliction of pain is continued over a prolonged period of time. Perhaps more obvious
is the fact that the threat of imminent death would clearly be torture. The United States
Criminal Code also considers it torturous to administer or threaten to administer mind-
altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the
personality. This prohibition is also found in the Senate=s elaborations of the CAT=s
definition of torture. As such, although there can be differences of opinion regarding the
precise contours of torture, our nation=s laws, as well as common sense, can cabin certain
conduct all but the most oblivious would consider torture.

16
F. Mr. Padilla was Tortured
Mr. Padilla=s assertion that he was tortured is, by any definition, unassailable.
Through a substantial portion of his detention in the Naval Brig, Mr. Padilla was subjected
to prolonged and substantial physical and mental pain. He was assaulted, threatened with
imminent death, and subjected to myriad other deprivations during his captivity at the Naval
Brig. He was drugged and subjected to cruel interrogations. However, the most painful
and damaging form of torture experienced by Mr. Padilla was the extreme isolation he was
subject to, aggravated by the deprivation of sensory stimuli and sleep.
Extended periods of solitary confinement are the most severe deprivation of liberty B
short of the death penalty B that the government can impose. More than a century ago, the
Supreme Court recognized the extreme implications that accompany solitary confinement.
In considering a habeas corpus action by a prisoner sentenced to death, the Court held that
the Colorado state court had violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when it ordered the
imposition of solitary confinement on the petitioner pending the death sentence because
the enacting legislation enabling the imposition of solitary confinement was passed after the
criminal act was committed. In doing so, the Court noted that solitary confinement had a
checkered history in the United States, and that it had fallen out of favor in the mid-1800s
due to the finding that:
a considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement,
into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse
them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide;
while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in
most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent
service to the community.

In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 168-70 (1890).
Modern medical and scientific research confirms the Supreme Court=s turn-of-the-
century observation that solitary confinement can result in severe psychiatric harm:

17
Social science and clinical literature have consistently reported that when
human beings are subjected to social isolation and reduced environmental
stimulation, they may deteriorate mentally and in some cases develop
psychiatric disturbances. These include perceptual distortions,
hallucinations, hyperresponsivity to external stimuli, aggressive fantasies,
overt paranoia, inability to concentrate, and problems with impulse control.
This response has been observed not only in the extreme case where a
subject in a clinical setting is completely isolated in a dark soundproofed
room or immersed in water, but in a variety of other contexts. For example,
similar effects have been observed in hostages, prisoners of war, patients
undergoing long-term immobilization in a hospital, and pilots flying long solo
flights. While acute symptoms tend to subside after normal stimulation or
conditions are returned, some people may sustain long-term effects Y There
is also an ample and growing body of evidence that this phenomenon may
occur among persons in solitary or segregated confinement B persons who
are, by definition, subject to a significant degree of social isolation and
reduced environmental stimulation.

Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1230-1231 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Stuart Grassian,
M.D., Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement, 140 Am. J. Psychiatry 1450
(1983)).
The effects of solitary confinement are exacerbated when combined with the
deprivation of sensory stimuli and other aggravating factors. Dr. Donald O. Hebb of McGill
University conducted some of the pioneering studies on the effects of isolation. Dr. Hebb
focused on the effects of isolation and sensory deprivation upon human beings and found
that such isolation, in combination with sleep deprivation and self-induced fatigue (through
stress positions, etc.) formed a new torture paradigm, producing what was termed
Adisordered brain syndrome.@
The experiments of Hebb and others Y who have concerned themselves with
Asensory deprivation,@ have consisted of putting men into situations where
they received no patterned input from their eyes and ears, and as little
patterned input as possible from their skin receptors Y The subjects were
deprived of opportunity for purposeful activity. All of their bodily needs were
taken care of B food, fluids, rest, etc. Yet after a few hours the mental
capacities of the participants began to go awry.

18
Lawrence E. Hinkle, Jr., The Physiological State of the Interrogation Subject as it Affects
Brain Function in The Manipulation of Human Behavior 28-29 (Albert D. Biderman &
Herbert Zimmer eds., 1961).
The Supreme Court recognized the deleterious effects of isolation well over a
century ago. That wisdom has only been further bolstered by the study and
experimentation of modern psychiatry. Even for brief durations, subjects exposed to
extreme isolation suffer great mental pain. That pain is logically augmented when
combined with severe deprivation of sleep and sensory stimuli. Given what is known about
the effects of these methods of torture, it is unimaginable what pain Mr. Padilla experienced
when he was exposed to these methods, and more, for one thousand three hundred and
seven days.
The quantum of pain experienced by Mr. Padilla through isolation, sleep deprivation,
and lack of sensory stimuli exceeds any definition of torture, and hence, should shock the
conscience of all decent society. However, the government=s treatment of Mr. Padilla also
included the forced administration of drugs designed to alter his mind and disrupt his
senses and personality. The prohibition against the administration of mind altering
substances in our laws recognizes that such actions are an attack on an individual=s bodily
integrity and are indistinguishable from the stomach pumping that so shocked the Supreme
Court=s conscience some fifty-odd years ago in Rochin. See generally Linda M. Keller, Is
Truth Serum Torture?, 20 Am. U. Int=l L. Rev. 521 (2005) (asserting that involuntary
administration of substance designed to induce confession is a violation of national and
international prohibitions against torture). The involuntary administration of mind-altering
substances to Mr. Padilla is not only torture, but smacks of the sort of experimentation that

19
one would associate with the workings of a concentration camp. See Robert J. Lifton, The
Nazi Doctors 269-302 (2d ed. 2000).
CONCLUSION
In closing, the following words of dissent have often been repeated in the recognition
that we, as a Nation, ignore the government=s violation of law at our peril:
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be
subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a
government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to
observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent
teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime
is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt
for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the
means B to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to
secure the conviction of a private criminal B would bring terrible retribution.
Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). In
defending this Nation against the threat of terrorism it is neither necessary nor proper for
our government to abandon the bedrock principles upon which this Nation was founded. All
that is sacred in our national life is secured by the promise that this is a Nation of laws and
not of men.
It cannot be disputed that Mr. Padilla was tortured for a period of over three years.
The pain and anguish visited upon Mr. Padilla will continue to haunt him for the remainder
of his life. The government=s conduct vis-à-vis Mr. Padilla is a stain on this nation=s
character, and through its illegal conduct, the government has forfeited its right to
prosecute Mr. Padilla in the instant matter. Mr. Padilla respectfully requests that this Court
dismiss the indictment against him for the government=s outrageous conduct and requests
a hearing on this motion.
Respectfully submitted,

20
MICHAEL CARUSO
ACTING FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

By:
Michael Caruso
Acting Federal Public Defender
Florida Bar No. 0051993
Anthony J. Natale
Supervisory Assistant Federal Defender
Florida Bar No. 296627
Orlando do Campo
Supervisory Assistant Federal Defender
Florida Bar No. 156582
150 West Flagler, Suite 1700
Miami, Florida 33130
Tel/Fax (305) 530-7000/ (305) 536-4559
Andrew G. Patel, Esq.
111 Broadway, Suite 1305
New York, New York 10006.
Tel/Fax: (212) 349-0230/346-4665
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE