Friday, November 19, 2010

Lolita Lebrón: A Commemoration of Her Life

Saturday, November 20, 2010 prdream.com


7 PM

Hunter College West Building
Seventh Floor Lecture Hall

GUEST SPEAKERS:
MARÍA DE LOURDES SANTIAGO
Vice President of thePartido Independentista Puertorriqueño (PIP)
PEDRO NUÑEZ MOSQUERA,
Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations
CAROL DELGADO,
General Consul of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in NY
LINDA ALONSO LEBRÓN, Niece of Lolita Lebrón
DYLCIA PAGÁN,
Former Puerto Rican Political Prisoner & Prisoner of War

CULTURAL PRESENTATIONS BY:
DELILAH • JANI “BOMBA” ROSE
VERONICA VERDAD • SERY COLÓN
MC: NANCY CABRERO

Sponsored by:Casa de las Américas; Department of Romance Languages, Hunter College
CUNY; Eugenio María de Hostos Student Club, Hunter College CUNY; Fundación Andrés
Figueroa Cordero, Inc.; National Congress for Puerto Rican Rights; Partido
Independentista Puertorriqueño; Partido Nacionalista Puertorriqueño

Statement Against FBI and Grand Jury Repression By Angela Davis

Nov 18, 2010 zcommunications.org

Call for Solidarity to imprisoned anarchist Giannis Dimitrakis

Athens Indymedia Nov. 10, 2010

In light of the appeal court of December 6, 2010, we call for acts of solidarity everywhere.

FREEDOM FOR GIANNIS DIMITRAKIS


The anarchist Giannis Dimitrakis was arrested heavily wounded after a robbery at a branch of the National Bank in the center of Athens, on January 16th, 2006.

He defended the choice to expropriate a bank, without statements of remorse and with clarity about his motives and intentions. He gave meaning to his act as a moment in his critique and action against the system of wage slavery and exploitation, against the antisocial role of the banks and as a part of the polymorphic social struggle.

Because of his political identity the state moved with rage against him, attempting to apply a holistic plan of criminalizing anarchists, anti-authoritarians and class struggle.

A storm of misinformation was systematically supplied by the police and readily carried out by the mass media. The police constructed "the gang of robbers in black," so that other comrades could be named as members. They were attributed not only a string of robberies but also a close association to armed "terrorist" groups. Then it was proclaimed that the whole of the anarchist- antiauthoritarian movement is closely connected to organized crime!

His three supposed accomplices, Simos and M. Seisidis and G. Tsironis, comrades known for their many years of political activity, were later on convicted in secret and publicly declared wanted for astronomic rewards.

The categories against Giannis were based on the "anti-terror" law and enriched with unsolved robberies and other false charges which fell in court. None the less an exemplary, unheard of for a robbery, exhaustive sentence of 35 years was imposed on him.

The oppressive aggression against him continued with attacks by prison guards, vindictive transfers, disciplinary sentences and the provocative deprivation of basic rights for the preparation of his defense at the court of appeals.

In the wretched reality of the prisons, he stood dynamically and with dignity from the beginning. He participated in all of the prisoner's struggles happening the past years in Greece, also being an interactive channel of communication with them. He has advanced to hunger strikes and abstinence from the prison meals - despite the permanent health problems left him by the police's bullets - showing his solidarity for his fellow prisoners and fighting for the terms of his survival and existence in the difficult position of imprisonment. His dignified position has inspired a multitude of acts of solidarity and political defense in many places around the world.

Giannis Dimitrakis’ appeal trial, after having been rescheduled, is set for December 6th, 2010. It will be very important, as much for the legal outcome of his case, as for if we will allow the state's manipulations and experiments against us to flourish.

In the years which have passed since Gianni's arrest, what at first seemed a particularly repressive undertaking now appears common. The penalization of social relationships, guilt until proven otherwise, exemplary punishment, authoritarians targeting and criminalizing the whole of the antiauthoritarian space, attempting to obstruct the spread of its ideas and practice.

The state's constant and manic attempt to slander, oppress, marginalize and penalize the people of the struggle is becoming all the more clear. Zero tolerance to agonists, laborers and the impoverished while those who shamelessly steal from and misinform society are protected by armies of mercenary murderers.

Our key weapons against these politics are self organization and solidarity with all means possible.

In light of the appeal court of December 6, 2010, we call for acts of solidarity everywhere.

Many such actions would send a strong message of solidarity.

Freedom for Giannis Dimitrakis

Freedom for all prisoners in struggle

With comradely greetings,

Assembly for Solidarity

(Athens, Greece)

Statement by anarchist station Radio Revolt concerning the attack on its wagon

Nov. 11, 2010 occupiedlondon.org

Translation from Athens IMC

On Tuesday November 9th at around 11pm, while there were five comrades in
the wagon of radio revolt, around 20-25 para-statists and fascists
attacked it. Armed with clubs, hammers, sticks and knives they threw three
molotovs inside the wagon and tried to block its door. The response of the
comrades was instant – they grabbed sticks, managed to get out of the
wagon and responded to the attack. The fascists chanted their totally
unimaginative slogans and threw stones, but the comrades nevertheless
managed to push them back, chasing them to their motorcycles. However, the
fire had already gone out of control while the coordinated attempts of all
who arrived resulted in limiting the damage to the wagon, the inside of
which was destroyed.

Six fire brigade cars arrived in the area, which (according to the fire
brigade unit) were blocked from the police, who demanded that they
accompany the cars inside the campus – something we could not by any means
accept [university campuses are protected by academic asylum in Greece
–trans]. At the same time, while the electricity remained connected
therefore posing an additional threat to the gathered people who were
putting off the fire, the water supply was cut off (twice) by the
university administration.

We obviously did not await the intervention of any state mechanism to
“save” us and we believe that the attack was organised by this very
mechanism. More specifically, from the early evening the streets around
the university were full of cops with at least three riot police units
outside the (closed) EXPO building, motorcycle cops hovering around in
groups of fours at a nearby square and the confirmed presence of
helmet-wearing individuals (possibly undercovers) outside the nearby
sports stadium, shortly after the attack.

As it has been repeatedly proven, the fascists do not have the capacity to
conduct such an attack without assistance. Typical examples of this are
the racist pogroms under cop protection in Ayios Panteleimonas in Athens,
the taxi-riot police unit at Larissis Station and the attack against the
haunt in the West, in Athens again, where one riot police unit arrived
only seconds after the fascists had left. Likewise, the fascists’
motorcycles cut through the police cordons with no hassle whatsoever. We
easily see this is another attack in the generalised attack against
radical parts of society. An attack which is only to be expected in the
present socio-economic condition in Greece.

We live through a period in which a government is desperately trying to
keep a country float, where it condemns to impoverishment the largest part
of the population, resulting in new poles of radical action springing up
while the existing ones strengthen. In this period the panicked system
choses to escalate its repression using all means at its disposal. Its aim
is the prevention of any resistance to the new measures, the state or the
system from any individual, collective or group. It tries to defend
against this generalised discontent across society.

All these comprise the full picture of the events of Tuesday. Fascists
make a murderous attack against a self-organised anarchist radio with the
backing of the police, which plays the double role of safeguarding their
escape and blocking an intervention by the fire brigade. The university
authorities “rest their case”, while the systemic Mass Media talk of
“disturbances” at the university and about clashes between gangs, hiding
away and distorting the true events.

The wagon has been burned down but Radio Revolt continues. Twenty minutes
after the disruption of the show, the station returned on both the
internet and FM and of course the flow of the station continues as normal
and aggresively. The wagon will operate again to aid the station project.
All perpetrators of Tuesday’s attack will find us against them, ready to
respond to any attempt of silencing of counter-information, of the support
of subversive action and the dissemination of subversive ideas.
Additionally, each attack of this kind crouches us together as proven by
the material solidarity we immediately received. They don’t deter us, they
enrage us!

Cops, TV, neonazis – all scum work together.

You will find us against you.

Solidarity Actions with the Asheville 11 on December 1

Eleven people arrested in Asheville, NC on May 1 still face outrageous felony conspiracy and rioting charges simply for being in a neighborhood in which some windows were broken. Although support for the defendants has been growing steadily, the District Attorney is stubbornly clinging to this opportunity to defame and demonize anarchists. It is increasingly clear that the outcome of the case hinges on the attention and support the 11 receive.


Last month, an appeal went out for solidarity actions to take place on the first day of every month, in support of the Asheville 11. In response, on November 1, banners were dropped in Asheville and Oklahoma City. In San Francisco, 11 banks, businesses, and construction sites were sabotaged, and a lengthy communique emphasized the importance of solidarity in an era when communication itself is criminalized as "conspiracy." Some beautiful new support posters and stickers appeared, as well.

December 1 is coming up now, and it's time once again to show that these 11 hostages of the state have not been forgotten. Defending them is a way to protect everyone who may be targeted for this kind of repression--the more attention they receive, the less emboldened the authorities will be to bring inflated charges against others.

On December 1 in Asheville, a march will take place against the criminalization of youth and the policing of downtown. Meet at the Vance Memorial in Pack Square at 5 pm to march to the jail; a spirited rally will follow. Everyone is welcome to participate!

If you don't live in Asheville and cannot attend the march, please use this opportunity to put up posters bringing attention to the arrestees' plight, or to write a letter to the Asheville Citizen-Times demanding that the charges be dropped, or to take other steps to spread awareness of the case and show support for the defendants. Once again, if you learn of a solidarity action worth reporting, please make a statement about it on the internet so others can see how many people care about the outcome of this case.

Download trifolds and postcards and zines

Donate to the Asheville 11

Get more information: asheville11defense.com

When You're Forced to Cheer for the Man Who Raped You

Alternet.org By Lauren Kelley

The story of a high school cheerleader from Texas who was forced to cheer for her
rapist has garnered no shortage of outrage – outrage at the victim’s school, the
justice system and even the victim herself. As the case has hit national news
outlets, it’s become a fascinating, and in many ways horrifying Rorschach test for
how our culture views rape and rape victims.

The Assault

In October 2008, H.S., as she has chosen to be identified, was a 16-year-old student
at Silsbee High School attending a post-basketball game party in her hometown. At
the party, three fellow students allegedly threw H.S. onto the floor and dragged her
into a separate room, where, as she later testified, she was raped by Silsbee High
football and basketball star Rakheem Bolton.

As some of the other party-goers tried to get into the room, two of the young men
escaped out an open window. One of the men who fled the scene was Bolton, who left
some clothing at the scene. (Bolton is said to have later threatened to shoot the
house’s owners when they refused to return the clothes.)

Bolton and one of the other young men were arrested a few days later and charged
with sexual assault of a child, a second-degree felony. But a county grand jury
withdrew the charges, and the students were allowed to return to school and resume
playing sports for Silsbee High. (Their return was temporary, as the charges were
later reinstated.)

The Victim-Shaming Begins

While H.S.’s attackers were back in school, Silsbee High officials did something all
too common in sexual assault cases: they put the onus on H.S. to avoid her
assailants in the lunchroom and at school activities. At the same time, some of
H.S.’s fellow students began yelling “slut” at H.S. and her younger sister, who
eventually changed schools.

But H.S. rejected the inference that she had anything to be ashamed of, and with the
support of her family, she tried to go about her normal school routine.

Presumably, H.S. saw her attackers at school on a regular basis. As a member of the
Silsbee High cheerleading squad, she even attended – and cheered at – their sports
games. Where H.S. drew the line, however, was chanting the name of her rapist. When
the rest of the squad would cheer Bolton on, H.S. would stand back quietly. "I
didn't want to have to say his name, and I didn't want to cheer for him," she said.
"I didn't want to encourage anything he was doing."

H.S.’s silent protest of Bolton went without notice until a basketball game in
February 2009. When Bolton began making free-throws, and the squad started cheering
his name, H.S. stepped back, folded her arms and sat down. This time, she was pulled
aside at halftime and told by the Silsbee district superintendent, his assistant and
the school principal that she had to cheer for Bolton – or else she’d be sent home
and kicked off the squad.

H.S. started crying, and some of the other students in the stands began mocking her.
Her father stepped in to defend his daughter against the school officials. When that
got them nowhere, the family left the game.

Off to Court

The incident at the basketball game led H.S.’s family to sue Silsbee ISD, accusing
its leadership of discrimination for punishing their daughter while continuing to
treat the students who assaulted her like star athletes. Their legal argument was
that the school had stepped on H.S.’s First Amendment right to free expression – her
right to refuse to cheer.

Despite a precedent set by the Supreme Court four decades earlier that neither
students nor teachers "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech ... at
the schoolhouse gate," the courts in H.S.’s case did not see things that way. In
October 2009, a federal judge ruled that H.S.’s First Amendment rights had not been
violated, because “her actions conveyed no specific message to onlookers, other than
disapproval of Bolton.”

H.S.’s family appealed the decision, but this September the appeals court let the
original ruling stand. "In her capacity as cheerleader, H.S. served as a mouthpiece
through which [the district] could disseminate speech – namely, support for its
athletic teams," said the three-judge panel. What’s more, her act “constituted
substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, H.S.
was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering."

In other words: H.S. was a cheerleader, so it was her duty to shut up and cheer.
Rapist be damned.

Meanwhile, Bolton pleaded guilty this fall to a much lesser misdemeanor assault
charge. He will pay a $2,500 fine, do community service and take anger management
classes.

The Fallout

As the H.S. case has gotten more and more national attention, it’s elicited all the
overtly victim-blaming responses that have come to be expected in rape cases (“She’s
either a liar or she was asking for it”), as well as some more subtly harmful
reactions (“Why did she want to be a cheerleader anyway?”).

Feminist blogger Echidne of the Snakes concurs that there has been plenty of sexism
in the public’s response to H.S., even in some (theoretically) progressive circles,
like the comments section of this Think Progress post:

Though most comments argue that [H.S.] was poorly treated by the school (or at least
by Bolton) not many ask the correlating questions:

Why is a student accused of rape allowed to play in the game? Why would any school
put another student, one who argues that she has been raped, into that position: of
seeing her rapist rewarded?

I am not writing about the actual court case. Whether H.S. had free speech rights or
not is unclear. I am writing about the greater atrocity so very evident here: The
rape culture.
What’s rape culture? Academically speaking, it’s a “complex of beliefs that
encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women.” But Melissa
McEwan at Shakesville lays out what it means in everyday life:


Rape culture is encouraging men to use the language of rape to establish dominance
over one another ("I'll make you my bitch")….Rape culture is 1 in 6 women being
sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is not even talking about the
reality that many women are sexually assaulted multiple times in their lives. Rape
culture is the way in which the constant threat of sexual assault affects women's
daily movements….Rape culture is a judge blaming a child for her own rape….Rape
culture is encouraging women to take self-defense as though that is the only
solution required to preventing rape. Rape culture is admonishing women to "learn
common sense" or "be more responsible" or "be aware of barroom risks" or "avoid
these places" or "don't dress this way," and failing to admonish men to not rape.
H.S. was a victim not just of rape, but of a rape culture that enabled two men to
sexually violate a fellow student in the middle of a school party, that led to a
school principal asking a rape victim to stay away from her attackers (rather than
the other way around), that allowed a panel of judges to let off an accused rapist
on a misdemeanor charge, that caused two courthouses to think that a rape victim
waived her First Amendment rights when she became a cheerleader, and that has
empowered anonymous Internet commenters, and no doubt scores of people watching the
nightly news, to suggest that a teenage rape victim has made too much of a fuss out
of this case and should put the incident behind her.

H.S. has continued to push forward in the courts, saying the fight has been worth it
to help pave the way for other rape victims who may want to take on the criminal
justice system. But she acknowledges that it’s been a frustrating battle. "All I've
wanted out of this all along is for somebody to say they've done wrong."

For his part, Bolton had this to say after his recent hearing: "I have no hard
feelings toward the girl. It was a misunderstanding."


Lauren Kelley is an associate editor at AlterNet and a freelance writer
and editor who has contributed to Change.org, the L Magazine and Time
Out New York. She lives in Brooklyn.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Activists called back to grand jury

By AMY FORLITI November 17, 2010 The Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS -- Three Minnesota anti-war activists who refused to testify before a federal grand jury in Chicago after their homes were raided in a terrorism investigation have been told they'll be called again, an attorney told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

In late September, authorities searched seven homes and an office in Minneapolis and Chicago in what the FBI said was an investigation into material support of terrorism. Fourteen activists in the two states were summoned to testify, but they refused and their subpoenas were postponed.

None of the activists have been charged. Warrants suggest agents were looking for connections between them and terrorist groups in Colombia and the Middle East.

Bruce Nestor, an attorney who represents some of the activists, said Wednesday that three of them have been told they'll be called back to the grand jury, but it's not clear when. Individual attorneys for those activists are working out details with prosecutors, Nestor said.

"They don't have a specific date, but they are being told that basically they will be called back in front of the grand jury," Nestor said. "They all have individual counsel, and those individual counsel are in the process of discussing with the U.S. attorney the details as to how proceed."

Randall Samborn, a spokesman with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago, declined to comment about the case, saying he could neither confirm nor deny anything involving a federal grand jury because such proceedings are confidential.

Nestor said activists Anh Pham, Sarah Martin and Tracy Molm - whose homes were raided in September - have been told they'll be called again before the grand jury.

"These three are being called back, and within a matter of weeks will be facing the decision of testifying or facing contempt," Nestor said.

Pham said Wednesday she knew little about the situation and declined comment until she had a chance to talk to her attorney. Messages left for Martin were not immediately returned, and a phone number for Molm was not immediately available.

The activists said previously that they wouldn't appear before a grand jury because they felt grand juries had historically been used to harass activists and that testifying in secret would stifle free speech.

The government has not revealed the target of its investigation, but the activists have said they felt singled out because of their work in the anti-war movement.

"The government is not saying much, and they kind of hold all the cards at the moment," Nestor said.

Activists Unafraid After FBI Crackdown

By José Alcoff The Indypendent

Hands off: Tom Burke, a subpoenaed antiwar activists, speaks to a packed room at St. Mark’s Church for the first meeting of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression. PHOTO: JED BRANDT
Hands off: Tom Burke, a subpoenaed antiwar activists, speaks to a packed room at St. Mark’s Church for the first meeting of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression. PHOTO: JED BRANDT

Tom Burke began the morning of Sept. 24 like any other. His wife took their 5-year-old daughter to school before heading to work in their Michigan town. Then the phone rang, and he learned that FBI agents were raiding the homes of friends in Chicago. As any good organizer would, Burke jumped into his car to produce a press release at the first internet cafe he could find.

He then realized someone was following him.

“This car turned around twice behind me, and I thought that’s funny because I don’t know where I’m going,” he chuckles. He called his wife and headed to her workplace. As he drove through the security gate, a black SUV zoomed in behind him. His wife came down, and three people jumped out of different vehicles and made a beeline toward them. “The man came out [of the SUV] and identified himself as FBI. And he served me and my wife with subpoenas.”

In multiple raids, three subpoenas were served on Chicago antiwar activists there, giving them October dates to stand before a Federal Grand Jury. Another six were issued in Minneapolis during six FBI raids, including one of the offices of the Anti-War Committee (AWC). FBI agents allegedly had a key when they entered the AWC office, where they seized checks made out to the group, cash registers and checkbooks. Three days later, three more activists in Minneapolis were served with subpoenas.

All told, more than 70 federal agents were reportedly involved in the eight raids, and some individuals claim they were subjected to intimidating phone calls and visits by agents in North Carolina, California and Wisconsin.

None of the 14 individuals were charged with crimes, though the subpoenas indicated the federal government was considering charging them with providing material aid to terrorists, specifying solidarity work in Palestine and Colombia.

These allegations come on the heels of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder case that expanded the definition of “material aid” to “terrorist groups” to include educating designated groups in nonviolent methods for conflict resolution and delivering humanitarian aid to areas under their control after natural disasters.

“Their goal is to bring charges of support for terrorist groups against the people who were subpoenaed,” said Burke. “They’re trying to pit people against each other and …put people in jail.”

Instead, various social movement organizations sprang into action. As the FBI raided Joe Iosbaker’s and Stephanie Weiner’s Chicago home, carting out 26 boxes of their family’s personal effects, dozens of friends and activists arrived in a display of solidarity. Across the country, Burke said, rallies or pickets were held in 60 cities demanding an end to the subpoenas and the grand jury investigations. In New York, Chicago and Seattle fundraisers were held to garner money for legal defense.

Antiwar, civil liberties, socialist and other groups called for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to shutter the federal grand juries. Many of those under attack are shop stewards in their unions, and AFSCME , AFT and Teamsters locals were among at least 17 labor groups that have issues statements of solidarity, which are available at stopfbi.net.

While the subpoenaed individuals were each given one of three dates in October to appear before a federal grand jury in Chicago for questioning, all have refused to testify. They say they are willing to go to jail rather than participate in what they call a government fishing expedition of information from antiwar and international solidarity movements.

While the government rescinded the subpoenas and no one was imprisoned, three Minneapolis activists were re-subpoenaed only days after the November election.

During the first weekend in November, Tom Burke, Jess Sundin, Steff Yorek, and Hatem Abudayyeh traveled to New York to organize the inaugural meeting of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression. The event drew 150 people and raised several thousand dollars for the legal defense budget. Organizers have also reached out to Arab, Muslim and Puerto Rican communities that have been recently hit with subpoenas, raids and indictments by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The subjects of the raids say the outpouring of support is important. “You feel pretty isolated at first,” says Jess Sundin of Minneapolis, whose home was raided. “But it’s very quickly obvious that we are not alone.”

Five Years On, Antifascists Mourn Timur Kacharava’s Death


November 16, 2010 The St. Petersburg Times
Issue #1626 (87) By Sergey Chernov, Staff Writer

As antifascist activists marked the fifth anniversary of the murder of the
20-year-old antifascist activist and punk musician Timur Kacharava on
Saturday, they claimed that they are under increasing pressure from the
police, while the threat of attacks from nationalist radicals has not
decreased.

Antifascist Filipp Kostenko filed a lawsuit against the Prosecutor’s
Investigative Committee last week after four anti-extremism Center E
operatives broke into his apartment, searched it and arrested an activist,
Rinat Sultanov, who was there at the time.

The investigators had called the fire brigade to break down the metal door to
get into the apartment. The three activists who were in the apartment were
thrown on the floor and kicked in the stomach, Kostenko said Thursday.

“When I came 15 or 20 minutes later, they were still lying on the floor, but I
asked the [officers] to stop this and they put [the activists] into different
corners,” he said.

“But they didn’t beat anybody when I was there.”

Kostenko said it was done to intimidate the activists on the eve of the Nov. 4
antifascist rally and prevent the rally, of which he was one of the
organizers, from taking place.

The rally, called “Defend the City from Fascism,” was held to counter the
extreme nationalist Russian March that took place on the same day, and was
authorized by City Hall.

“They arrested Sultanov for an old fight that took place two years ago and
seized a lot of things that don’t even belong to him,” Kostenko said. “If
they had just wanted to arrest him, it could have been done in some other
manner.”

Sultanov has been charged with “inflicting grievous bodily harm” during an
incident that took place on the Russian March on Nov. 4, 2008.

According to Kostenko, the investigators took computers, magazines and banners
for the rally, among other things.

Lawyer Iosif Gabuniya said Thursday that a complaint against the actions of
the investigator who conducted the search, and an application for the opening
of a criminal case against the investigator have been filed.

According to Gabuniya, the investigators committed a number of violations
during the search, including refusing to allow him to enter the apartment to
observe how the search was being conducted.

“I think the actions were illegal and the rights of my client were violated,
and that’s why I believe that the court will find them illegal,” Gabuniya
said.

“There was also material damage; the door has been broken. We’ll also be suing
for the material damages to be compensated.”

Kostenko said that the authorities turn a blind eye to the activities of
nationalist organizations in St. Petersburg.

“They do arrest neo-Nazis who are directly involved in terrorism, but many
nationalist organizations are aimed at cooperation with the authorities,”
Kostenko said.

According to Kostenko, the threat of attacks committed by nationalist radicals
against antifascist activists is still high, as an attack on the fans of the
Karelia-Discovery Soccer Club at a soccer match in the town of Pushkin in
August demonstrated. Dozens of fans of the club, who are widely regarded as
sharing antifascist views, were beaten.

“At some point it appeared to be decreasing, but after the attack in Pushkin
it became clear that the threat is still here,” Kostenko said.

“They have even progressed to the next level, because to attack a full stadium
of fans, that’s quite a well planned action, and it shows that nationalists,
although in the underground, are getting ready for some very decisive actions
and are capable of carrying them out,” he said.

“Perhaps they coordinate their actions with the authorities, because there
were only ten policemen at that match. Soccer matches are events that are
widely regarded as having the potential for conflict, and yet there were only
ten policemen providing security.”

For the murder of Kacharava, four extreme nationalists were sentenced to 2 to
12 years in prison and three received suspended sentences in 2007.

Dozens brought candles and flowers Saturday to an annual vigil near the
Bukvoyed bookstore on Ligovsky Prospekt where Kacharava was stabbed to death.

Photo by Sergey Chernov. See his complete photo reportage of the memorial for
Timur Kacharava here.
http://sergey-chernov.livejournal.com/551531.html

What does Mumia face legally after the Nov 9th hearing?

WHAT DOES MUMIA FACE LEGALLY AFTER THE NOVEMBER 9, 2010 HEARING
BEFORE THE THIRD CIRCUIT?

The only legal options that were considered by the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, a federal court immediately below the US Supreme
Court, at the November 9 hearing were whether Mumia Abu-Jamal is to
be executed or get life in prison without parole. The question of
Mumia's guilt or innocence and the opportunity of a new trial was not
part of this hearing. The Third Circuit decided that issue in March
2008 in a decision made by the same three judges who conducted this hearing.

To grasp the significance of this hearing, one needs to revisit
Federal District Court Judge William Yohn, Jr.'s decision of December
18, 2001. In that ruling the judge upheld Mumia's conviction but at
the same time threw out his death sentence on the grounds that the
verdict form used by the jury for sentencing at his trial violated
the U.S. Supreme Court's Mills precedent, thereby prejudicing the
jury toward the death penalty rather than life in prison. Yohn then
gave the state 180 days to convene a new jury trial only on the issue
of Mumia's penalty, in which the choices would be either death or
life in prison without parole. On the other hand, if the state did
nothing, Yohn ruled that Mumia would automatically be sentenced to
life in prison without parole.

At the time he made this decision, Judge Yohn stayed his ruling on
overturning the death sentence while the prosecution appealed his
decision to the next higher level of federal court, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals. (At the same time Mumia appealed Judge Yohn's
decision upholding his conviction). Mumia was therefore never removed
from Death Row and remains there to this day.

On March 27, 2008, the Third Circuit upheld Yohn's decision on the
death penalty in a 3-0 vote. Again the decision was stayed while the
state appealed to the highest federal level, the Supreme Court. (In
the same decision, the Third Circuit rejected Mumia's appeal on the
conviction by 2-1 that is, finding him guilty and, as before, Mumia
appealed that ruling.)

On April 6, 2009 the US Supreme Court refused to hear Mumia's appeal
of the Third Circuit's decision upholding his conviction.

On January 10, 2010, the Supreme Court ordered the Third Circuit to
reconsider its decision on the death sentence in light of its
unanimous rejection of an appeal from a white-supremacist named
Spisak. That man admitted to killing at least two people in Ohio and
openly stated that he wished to have murdered more. He had appealed
his death sentence also as a violation of the Mills precedent, but
involving a different aspect of it than Mumia's case. The Sixth
Circuit, as did the Third Circuit in Mumia's case, ruled that the
death sentence should be thrown out. However, the Supreme Court ruled
that the Mills precedent did not apply in Spisak's case, and
therefore execution rather than life in prison was the appropriate
penalty. Based on that decision, the Supreme Court questioned the
Third Circuit's ruling in Mumia's case, and asked it to reconsider
the issue of execution for him as well.

Thus, the hearing on November 9th was on Mumia's penalty only. The
choices before the court were either to sustain Yohn's and its own
earlier decisions or to reinstate the death penalty. According to
those in the courtroom, the attorney who represented Mumia on this
issue, Judith Ritter, argued the applicability of the Mills precedent
very convincingly. On that basis Mumia's death sentence should not be
reinstated. The history of Mumia's case, however, has shown that
precedent and effective arguments, as in the argument of racial bias
in jury selection made before the same three judges three years ago,
are often ignored by the court in favor of a political agenda at
least to keep Mumia locked up if not executed and completely
silenced. That racial bias issue easily could have resulted in
Mumia's conviction being thrown out, but in a split 2-1 vote, the
judges established a new precedent just for Mumia. (All three judges
blew off the question of Mumia's innocence).
After hearing the arguments and asking questions, Chief Judge Scirica
said that the court would 'take the matter under advisement'.) It may
be months before a decision is announced.

If the Third Circuit reaffirms its earlier decision to sentence Mumia
to life in prison without parole, the state will most likely appeal
to the Supreme Court. If that court agrees with the Third Circuit, or
in the unlikely event that the state doesn't appeal at all, the state
then will have 180 days to implement Judge Yohn's decision.

In that case the prosecution would have to decide whether to do
nothing and let the life sentence
stand or ask for a new penalty trial (which would take place in a
Pennsylvania state court) in the hope of "winning" a death sentence
again. Mumia would certainly want the latter to happen since it would
give him some opportunity to introduce new evidence challenging the
prosecution's version of what happened on December 9, 1981, which was
the basis for the jury's guilty verdict at his 1982 trial. Thus,
while this proceeding would not be a trial on the question of guilt
or innocence, but only a hearing on the sentencing issue, new
evidence that could undermine Mumia's conviction itself might be introduced.

If the Third Circuit rules against Mumia, Mumia will surely appeal to
the Supreme Court. But the odds for the Supreme Court to overturn the
Third Circuit's decision favoring execution are very small given the
reactionary composition of that court.

However, even if the Supreme Court rules for a death sentence, Mumia
would still have some legal options. Back in 2001, when Yohn threw
out the death penalty based on the Mills precedent, he did not deal
with several other issues raised by the defense. Therefore, Mumia
would have the right to go back before Judge Yohn and ask him to
address these other significant issues related to the improper
sentencing process at his trial. Such a hearing, though limited to
life in prison or execution, would inevitably also include challenges
to the prosecution's version of what happened at the crime scene.
This would especially be true if grassroots work continues to expose
the fraudulent nature of the trial and appeals process as has been
done dramatically in the last few years; for example, through the
release of the long hidden photographs of the crime scene, and the
evidence that four people, not three, were present at that scene.
This would also be true if grassroots work continu es to press for a
Department of Justice civil rights investigation and draws greater
support and activism. Not only might the death penalty be once again
overturned, but Mumia's conviction itself might get thrown out.

Mumia's legal situation remains extremely dangerous as the
re-imposition of the death sentence would surely be a big setback in
his struggle to demonstrate his innocence. The authorities in
Philadelphia are mobilizing for Mumia's execution, and the Supreme
Court seems likely to be sympathetic to that agenda. But even with
that being said, the right that remains for Mumia to go back to Judge
Yohn is very important for opening up space to expose the level of
injustice, the violation of due process, and the racism that has
permeated the entire history of this case. While the US legal system
looks very powerful and impenetrable to justice, the grassroots
movement in the US combined with international pressure could force
the courts to make decisions that they otherwise would not. Surely
Mumia's being alive today, despite three attempts to kill him, twice
with scheduled execution days, is a tribute to the massive struggles
waged by people across this globe.

The Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal


--Mumia is Innocent! Stop the Frame Up! Free Mumia!--

Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition, NYC
P.O. Box 16, College Station, NY, NY 10030
212-330-8029, www.FreeMumia.com, info@FreeMumia.com

Anti-G20 protester launches constitutional challenge

By Antonia Zerbisias Toronto Star Nov. 15, 2010

Montreal’s Jaggi Singh, one of dozens of community organizers arrested
even before last summer’s G20 protests began, has launched a
constitutional challenge against his bail conditions.

Although most of his co-accused have had similar restrictions imposed on
their actions and movements, Singh, a noted anti-globalization and social
justice activist, is the first to take the constitutional route.

He is to appear Wednesday in Ontario Superior Court, with the support of
PEN Canada which is intervening in his case, citing that Singh’s right to
freedom of expression has been violated.

“The conditions are being used in a very exaggerated punitive way to
simply make the process of being charged the actual punishment,’’ said
Singh, who faces charges of conspiracy to commit mischief and conspiracy
to assault and obstruct police.

Aside from $85,000 in bail, Singh’s conditions for release include staying
away from organizing or participating in any demonstrations, not
associating with any of his co-accused, house arrest, the inability to use
any wireless device and not possessing a passport.

“I do a monthly (community) radio show and I have a condition that
prevents me from using a wireless device: Am I using a wireless device?’’
Singh said on the phone from Montreal. “The transmitter on top of Mount
Royal is the ultimate wireless device. Am I allowed to use a laptop with
wireless Internet?’’

Among his many concerns, he said, is that the conditions are subject to
arbitrary interpretation, as co-accused Alex Hundert discovered in
September when he was arrested for participating in a university panel
discussion.

As for the right to freedom of expression, PEN said: “Preventing someone
from participating in a public demonstration does nothing to ensure the
safety of a single Canadian. On the contrary, the practice of censorship
harms the rights of all Canadians and is repugnant to any society that
values its right to freedom of expression.”

“There is a constitutional right to a reasonable bail,’’ said Singh’s
lawyer, Peter Rosenthal. “We’re saying that the bail conditions were
entirely unreasonable.

“That in our view clearly violates freedom of expression, freedom of
association, and the right to lawful assembly. There’s no possible
justification for any such condition in our view.”