Where's The Change?

Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 5

2012-01-28T20:47:00.000-08:00

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 5 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

In 1927 a second congress of the repressed Persian Communist Party [PCP] was held and PCP activists decided to work underground for the following aims in Iran:

1. elimination of Iranian monarchy and rejection of an Iranian “bourgeois” parliamentary republic;
2. national rights for all nationalities within Iran;
3. a new army of workers and peasants for Iran;
4. confiscation of all installations of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in Iran;
5. abolition of foreign concessions in Iran;
6. establishment of agricultural lending banks;
7. surrender of all Iranian religious endowments and Iranian big estates to Iranian peasants;
8. confiscate the property of the Shah of Iran, the Iranian aristocracy and Iranian tribal chieftains; and
9. abolish all debts owned by the Iranian peasants.

The following specific political demands were also made by the Second Congress of the PCP in 1927:

1. full freedom for Iranian labor unions and Iranian political organizations;
2. Iranian government recognition of labor unions;
3. free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and the right to strike be established in Iran;
4. collective bargaining and contract rights for labor unions in Iran;
5. establishment of a minimum wage in Iran; and
6. housing be provided for Iranian workers in the oil and fishing industries.

Two years after this 1927 PCP Congress, oil industry workers in the Khuzistan area of Iran went on strike. But by 1931, Reza Shah Pahlavi’s regime had formally outlawed even more extensively the PCP and the PCP’s front groups under the June 1931 Anti-Communist Act. So by the end of 1931, around 150 Iranian communist activists were being held in the Reza Shah Pahlavi regime’s prisons. Yet between 1933 and 1937 a discussion group of left intellectuals in Iran, led by Dr. Taghi Erani, was still able to start and publish abroad, in Europe, a theoretical journal, titled Donya (‘Universe”), to promote the democratization of Iranian society. (end of part 5)

Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 4

2012-01-25T12:03:00.000-08:00

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 4 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

On July 31, 1920 a National Committee for the Liberation of Persia was set up by the non-communist Jangali leaders and their Persian Communist Party allies, and in mid-August 1920 the revolutionary army of the National Committee for the Liberation of Persia marched on Tehran. The UK imperialist-backed Iranian central government’s army, however, was able to defeat this revolutionary army.

On February 26, 1921, the Soviet government then signed a friendship treaty with the pro-British Iranian central government to withdraw all Soviet troops from northeast Iran by September 21, 1921. Once the Soviet troops were gone, Reza Khan Pahlavi’s Iranian central government then was able to more easily decrease the Persian Communist Party’s political influence in Iran by the end of 1921.

At the end of 1921, however, there were still 10 labor unions or guilds in Iran, with 10,000 members, that represented bakers, printers, telegraph workers, tailors, street cleaners or government employees. The newspaper that expressed the political goals of these Iranian unions, Haqiqat (‘Truth’) promoted the following four demands during the early 1920s:

1. lift martial law in Iran;
2. amnesty for all Iranian political prisoners;
3. confiscate and distribute the lands of those who had abused Iranian peasants’ rights; and
4. distribute Iranian state land among Iranian peasants.

By 1922, worker membership in Iranian trade unions had increased to 15,000, with 12,000 of the unionized Iranian workers living in Tehran. Around 1,000 Iranians were also still members of the Persian Communist Party in 1922. But by 1924 the number of Persian Communist Party members had dropped to 600.

And after Reza Khan--backed by the Iranian landlords, the Iranian Army and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which ruled southern Iran—became the Iranian monarch in 1925, he then both suppressed the Iranian trade unions and began to outlaw the Persian Communist Party. (end of part 4)

Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 3

2012-01-23T20:57:00.000-08:00

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 3 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

Between 1941 and 1978, the Tudeh Party was generally the most mass-based Iranian left-wing party to oppose the Shah of Iran’s U.S.-supported dictatorial regime. Yet prior to the Tudeh Party’s founding in 1941, there had been previous attempts by people in Iran to politically and economically democratize Iranian society.

During the Iranian Revolution of 1905 to 1911, for example,, equal rights under the Constitution of 1906 had been obtained by Iranians of Jewish background. In April 1918, a group of Iranians, the Adalat Group, had also been founded to politically oppose the Iranian monarchy, the Iranian clergy and the privileged Iranian landholding aristocracy.

During the Russian Civil War that followed the October 1917 Revolution in Russia, Soviet military and naval detachments that were pursuing the anti-revolutionary White Russian troops temporarily entered Northeast Iran on May 18, 1920. Aided by these Soviet troops, a non-communist Jangali movement, led by Kuchek Khan, then sought to liberate Iran from its oppression by UK imperialism, its anti-democratic Iranian clerics and its anti-democratic Iranian feudal landholders. And the Jangali movement proclaimed the establishment of the Gilan Republic in Northeast Iran on June 4, 1920.

Influenced by pro-communist and left sectarian Iranian activists, however, the Gilan Republic then began to distribute anti-religious propaganda in the small area of Iran it controlled and closed 19 mosques. It also prohibited religious instruction in its schools and decreed that Iranian women should be forcibly unveiled. Predictably, the Islamic clergy opposed such measures and the still religious Iranian peasants were alienated by the Gilan Republic’s anti-religious policies-- despite the fact that the Gilan Republic’s land reform decrees would have benefited these same peasants economically.

On June 23, 1920, 37 members of the Persian Communist Party (which had been created by members of the Adalat Group) then held their first congress and proposed the following political and economic democratization reforms for Iranian society:

1. overthrow of British imperialist domination in Iran;
2. confiscation of all foreign enterprises in Iran;
3. recognition of the right of self-determination of all nationalities within a unified Iran;
4. confiscation of all the land of big Iranian landowners and its redistribution to Iranian peasants and to the soldiers of an Iranian revolutionary army.

(end of part 3)

Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 2

2012-01-22T08:04:00.000-08:00

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 2 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

During World War I, an increased number of Czarist Russian army troops occupied Iran in the north, while an increased number of UK troops occupied Iran in the south. Following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, Russian troops were soon withdrawn from Iran. But in 1918, British imperialist troops occupied all of Iran, created a puppet Vosugh al-Dauleh government on August 6, 1918 and forced the puppet government to sign an even more exploitative Anglo-Iranian Treaty than the ones that previous feudalist Iranian governments had signed.

In reaction to these moves by UK imperialism in Iran, Iranian tribes in rural Iran, predictably, began an uprising between 1918 and 1922 in which they attacked British occupying troops. By early 1919 the anti-imperialist Iranian mass uprising had forced the Iranian puppet regime to revoke its Anglo-Iranian Treaty; and by 1920 some Iranians had even formed the country’s first communist party.

After the now-deceased Shah of Iran’s father, Reza Khan, pulled a coup in February 1921 that overthrew the previous puppet government of UK imperialism in Iran, the anti-imperialist revolt in Iran began to wind down. A constituent assembly in Iran was then established and, by December 12, 1925, Iran’s constituent assembly had stripped the Qajar royal dynasty members of their royal family privileges. Reza Khan was, instead, then proclaimed “Shah of Iran” and renamed “Reza Shah Pahlavi.”

Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled Iran between 1925 and 1941. During his reign, workers and peasant movements were persecuted and, in the 1930s, strikes of Iranian workers at the Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s refineries were suppressed by his regime. After Soviet Union troops and British government troops both marched into Iran during World War II in August 1941, Reza Shah Pahlavi was compelled to abdicate because of his previous expressions of support for a Nazi Germany military victory. His son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (who wasn’t considered as pro-Nazi), however, was allowed to replace him as the new Shah of Iran. For most of the years between 1941 and early 1979, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi would rule Iran as a dictator, with the bipartisan support of the U.S. White Corporate Male Power Structure’s government. (end of part 2)

Time to Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 1

2012-01-21T10:53:00.000-08:00

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 1 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

By the early 1900s, Iran (which was then more commonly known as “Persia”) was pretty much a semi-colony of the UK and Czarist Russia. A government controlled by the Qajar royal dynasty of Iranian feudal landowners had handed out telegraphy, railroad and other commercial concessions to British and Russian business people during the late 1800s, after the British imperialists opened the Shahanshah Bank in 1889 and the Russian imperialists opened the Discount-Loan Bank in 1890.

In the early 20th century the British imperialists received what would turn out to be its most valuable concession from the Qajar dynasty’s government: a concession for the exploitation of Iranian oil. By 1909, the British company that exercised a special influence in Iranian society for much of the 20th century, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, had been founded. By the early 1900s, foreign advisers had also been put in charge of Iranian customs and finances by the subservient feudalist Iranian government. The southern part of Iran was by then dominated by UK imperialist interests and the northern part of Iran by Russian imperialist interests.

Not surprisingly, in reaction to increased domination by foreign imperialist economic interests, nationalist consciousness began to grow in Iran in the late 19th century and various secret anti-government societies were formed by Iranian intellectuals who sought democratic reforms and an end to Iran’s semi-colonial status. By 1905, the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911 had begun.

The demands of the revolutionary movement were anti-imperialist and anti-feudalist; and, during this revolutionary period, there was an uprising in the Iranian city of Tabriz in 1909. But both the Czarist Russian government and the UK government decided that their special imperialist economic interests were threatened by the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911. So at the end of 1911, the Czarist Russian troops and the British troops that were stationed in Iran united with their reactionary Iranian domestic allies and suppressed by force the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911. (end of part 1)

Australian Anti-War Activist Joan Coxsedge's Summation of 2011

2012-01-20T11:28:00.000-08:00

In a November 27, 2011 letter from Australia, long-time Australian anti-war activist and writer Joan Coxsedge (who’s also a former elected anti-war member of the Victoria State parliament in Australia and a long-time Latin American solidarity activist) summarized 2011, from an anti-war and anti-imperialist left perspective, in the following way

"Christmas is coming. It always does. And 2011 is nearly over. In some ways the quicker the better, especially when it comes to foreign affairs and fly in/fly out visits of foreign leaders like Barack Obama, treated like a hero when he’s anything but, gearing up to bomb Iran using bodgie UN and IAEA reports. Hypocrisy on steroids. The US has over 10,000 nuclear weapons – the only country to use them – and Israel has over 300, both with a long history of invading and occupying other countries. Iran has no such history. But we suck up to Obama, who treats us like mugs, using us to help contain China. A ‘special relationship’? Don’t make me laugh. More marines and more US snooping. Let’s not forget 1975 or Malcolm Fraser’s role in it.

"So eat your pud, put on a party hat and for a brief time forget the mess we’re in where big money is pulling our strings. The bigger the money, the bigger the crime, the bigger the corruption. Despite the clowns in parliament yelling abuse at each other, we’ve seen a convergence of the two party system where a new economic extremism has come into play regardless of party label. Today we’re all customers and clients in the ‘market’ and the lack of alternative policies and useless media have left us sleepwalking into economic mayhem. Few understand that Wall Street deliberately planned the housing bubble, spending billions on advertising campaigns to con people into taking second mortgages, forking out money they simply didn’t have. The bubble burst and the state galloped to the rescue. Socialism for the rich.

"The crisis spread to Europe and rules were flushed down the toilet. The EU stepped in to impose austerity measures and save the banking systems, but not the people. The Greek elite was blackmailed into total submission, bringing the country to the edge of chaos. Greece should have defaulted, quit the Euro zone, re-introduced the drachma and organised from the ground up, Tariq Ali writes. It didn’t default and Italy was next. In recent months, three other highly indebted countries - Ireland, Portugal and Spain – have either gone through or are on the verge of changing government. Germany is now in the queue. Each time, the push has come from big business. Papandreou and Berlusconi were forced from office – without any democratic legitimacy - and replaced with unelected technocrats and hedge fund shysters who get their orders from the European Central Bank and the IMF, with barely a yawn from our media. Apparently not interested that two elected governments were overthrown in what are virtual coup d’etats, ignoring that what ultimately toppled Berlusconi was not moral outrage but international finance capital.

"`To save the euro we had to destroy Europe’, said one leading US financier, which translates to ‘the reign of banks requires the end of democracy’, which is why there’s a growing feeling that major policy decisions are being made in secret by a cabal of immensely powerful people who are by-passing elected governments. Heavily involved is Goldman Sachs, referred to as Wall Street’s secret society. Former employees now head the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, the US Treasury and work in the White House. Mario Monti, the unelected replacement for Berlusconi is on Goldman’s board of international advisers, Lucas Papademos who replaces Papandreou is a member of the Trilateral Commission and much else and the European Central Bank’s new boss, Mario Draghi, is also former managing Director at Goldman Sachs and a lot more. At this year’s highly secretive Bilderberg meeting for global high-flyers - Hilary Clinton was there - topics included modifying the public mind to accept a world without borders, fast-tracking austerity measures and extending the influence of transnationals and banks over Western politicians. These are the creeps who will use their power to smash the lives of ordinary people. Out unions, out the welfare state and out public assets, all of which will intensify the slump, shrink government revenues, increase unemployment and foment social unrest. Peaceful protests will turn into pitched battles as working people fight to have their voices heard. A situation all too reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s that paved the way for a Nazi takeover. Opposition is growing but lacks a clear perspective. Strikes and protests are important but not enough. This life-and-death struggle requires a clear socialist perspective and programme.

"In the Middle East, Assad’s enemies are closing in for the kill and Syria’s fall will throw the entire region into turmoil, sowing the seeds of future conflicts, which seems to be the idea. No surprise that in NATO’s ‘New Libya’, terror is spreading via US, French and British SAS units, known locally as ‘disappearance squads’ where people associated with Qaddafi are being ‘disappeared’, just like the murderous years in El Salvador and Guatemala. Without a hint of irony, ‘New’ Libyan radio has reported that ‘one of the worst aspects of the Qaddafi era was his welfare state’, complaining that Libyan workers were ‘too coddled’ because they had job tenure, government subsidies of about $800 a month, petrol at about 60 cents a gallon and the highest standard of living in Africa. For NATO and its corporate mates, such prosperity for workers simply will not do. In our New World Order, workers must struggle and be dealt with by violence if they dare to fight back. And fight back we must. In big ways and small ways like helping us support Cuba. So come and join us on December 5 for our final fund-raiser for 2011! In the meantime, stay safe and enjoy time with friends and family. Viva!"

Stop Simon Properties Group's & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 12

2012-01-16T17:15:00.000-08:00

Real estate developers like the Simon Properties Group [SPG] that have signed master leases with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority or Department of Transportation that govern what kind of residential apartment buildings can or cannot be constructed on the Copley Place project’s public land site are usually required by the Attorney General of Massachusetts to abide by the use restrictions that determine what percentage of the rental units in Copley Place project residential apartment buildings “must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income.”

According to the March 27, 1985 "Cooperative Housing Area Notice of Sub-Sublease between Urban Investment & Development Co. and Copley Place Cooperative Corporation, "the premises" of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street, for example, are "subject to the terms of the Declaration of Covenants, Easements and Restrictions dated March 27, 1985," which states in Section 7: Assumption of Certain Obligations:

"7.1. Obligation to Provide Housing.
"Reference is made to the obligation of Urban, pursuant to Schedule C of the Master Lease, to construct `at least 100 units of mixed income housing' and the requirement that `a minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income.' The term `low income' is further defined in the Master Lease.'...

"Urban, for itself and on behalf of the successors in title to the Rental Area, hereby agrees that the Rental Area should be used to provide 26 units of housing available for rent at all times throughout the terms of the Master Lease to persons and families of low income.

"The provisions of this paragraph may not be amended unless such provisions as amended are consistent with the requirements to provide housing set forth in Schedule C. of the Master Lease." (See Bk 11488/074 to 095 in registry of deeds).

Yet although 25% of the 104 residential units of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street are required, at all times, to be low-income rental units, according to the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (C.H.A.P.A.) Mass housing access web site none of the 26 rental units of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street are currently low-income residential rental units, 3 of the 26 rental units are market rate residential units and 23 of the 26 rental units are moderate-income residential units.

So, ironically, it appears that the real estate developer that now wants to reconstruct the Copley Place project in 2012 to increase the percentage of luxury residential units on the public land (by building a 47-floor skyscraper on top of the Neiman Marcus anchor store) may already be violating the terms of both its Master Lease with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Section 7.1 of the March 27, 1985 Declaration of Covenants, Easements and Restrictions governing The Residences at Copley Place apartment building at 16 Harcourt Street.

Stop Simon Properties Group's & Neiman Marcus' ' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 11 (Mel King's Open Letter)

2012-01-15T06:39:00.000-08:00

In November 2011, former Massachusetts State Representative and 1979/1983 Boston Mayoral Candidate Mel King explained why the Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA], the Democratic Patrick Administration and the Democratic Menino Administration should not allow Simon Properties Group [SPG] to reconstruct and expand the Copley Place project (by building a 47-story skyscraper of mostly luxury residential units and an enclosed “winter garden” on the Copley Place project land in 2012) in the following “Open Letter to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Thomas Menino”:

“To the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Governor and the Mayor

“This is a request that you not be guilty of promoting a segregated housing program here at Copley Place . The Copley Expansion Project that is under consideration under your leadership should not be allowed to go forward. There are many reasons that have been raised by way of serious objections from the local community to the plans for The Copley Expansion. For me, the most crucial one, the one I believe causes the most harm, is the acceptance of a proposal that will; A) Allow segregated housing on public land and B) Create conditions that will further exacerbate the housing problems and the ability to exist in this neighborhood by folks of color and persons of lower income. The economic and social diversity of our community is threatened.

“I have spent a large part of my life dealing with segregation. What is the most egregious and one of the most serious aspects of this proposal, is how many people turn a blind eye to the kind of impact that projects based on segregation like this will have on individuals. I have heard the voices of the youth who clearly see that they are being pushed out of the South End. They understand far too clearly that the policies and practice are geared to the study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council that says that in the next 20 years over thirty percent of the people who are living in Boston whose incomes are low will be living at least 25 miles from the center of the city. So when you understand that and you attend meetings where there is an indifference to these issues, it reminds me of the signs that I saw when I went South to college. So it is not a question for me of whether there will be 25 percent of the housing as affordable or not. I start with the fact that this is a project or process that one cannot trust.

“One of the things that we hear about The Copley Expansion Project is that they will create some jobs and therefore the scars that it places on people of color do not matter. This is part of the reason why it took so long to end the segregated systems both here and in the South. Yes, there were some people who stood because they understand injustice. The fact of the matter is that if the people themselves who were affected had not stood up and marched and did not face the cattle prods and the fire hoses and sometimes death; things to whatever extent would have not changed. I feel, and see, a similar thing that is necessary here. It is interesting that in the shadow of the Expansion Project there are folks who are involved in Occupations as a way to confront and expose the same kind of behavior which put profits before people’s humanity and dignity.

“You, as elected officials, and as members of the Boston Redevelopment Authority have a moral of responsibility and we do not want you to get sucked in with a policy that is geared to dehumanize. You have a chance to establish a policy of inclusion where all the tribes are welcome and all the gifts are shared. It’s time for you to step up and provide leadership based on justice. The issue of jobs and money is what allowed slavery to exist. Do not become advocates for a system that uses the public land to put greed before a person’s dignity, a community’s dignity and spiritual and mental health. Make it known that projects like this are not welcome.

“Mel King”

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 10

2012-01-14T09:26:00.000-08:00

Simon Properties Group (SPG) now wants to reconstruct the Copley Place project in 2012 by adding a 47-story skyscraper of 320 mostly luxury residential units that will reduce the percentage of low-income residential units on the Copley Place project’s public land to below 16 percent.

Yet the South End and Back Bay neighborhood community benefit that was incorporated into the April 30, 1980 UDAG application and the 1978/80/82 lease/amended lease/sub-lease for the Copley Place Project requires 25% of the residential units on the Copley Place public land to be affordable to low-income and minority tenants. And a Boston Globe article of 12/23/78 by Anthony J. Yudis originally described the planned residential portion of the Copley Place project as "a 150-unit low and moderate income housing development." Following is the complete text of the December 23, 1978 Boston Globe article:

"Gov. Michael Dukakis and the Massachustts Turnpike Authority yesterday signed a long-term lease agreement with a Chicago development firm which plans to build a $250 million residential-hotel-shopping center-office-garage complex in Copley square.

"The lease signing with Urban and Investment Development Co. (UIDC) of Chicago came after more than a year of negotiations by the Chicago firm, the state and representatives of surrounding neighborhoods and organizations.

"Gov. Dukakis, before the signing ceremony, termed the project, Copley Place, `a national model for successful citizens participation in the planning and design of large scale urban projects.'

"The project plans, which now will be going through reviews and negotiations with the city of Boston, would be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike ramp network, a 9.5 acre open site bounded by Dartmouth and Harcourt streets, the Southwest Corridor abutting the South End, and Huntington avenue.

"The commitment calls for an 868-room Western International convention-oriented hotel; two and possibly three major department stores on a five level plan; some 400,000 square feet of smaller-retail shops on a three-level shopping mall; a 1400 to 1800-car garage; a 150-unit low and moderate income housing development and a 600,000 square foot office building.

"Frank Keefe, director of state planning who coordinated the year-and-a-half planning effort, said the lease signing represented a lot of `firsts.'

"He said they included provisions in the lease that commits the development firm to assure the employment of a minimum of 20 percent minority construction workers with `good faith' effor to exceed that figure.

"Kenneth Himmel, project director and vice president for UIDC--a subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance and Casualty Co.--estimated the project would provide 1300 to 1400 construction jobs during a three-year period.

"The lease also will require that 50 percent of the permanent jobs will go to Boston residents--50 percent of them women; 30 percent minorities and 17.2 percent residents of the immediate impacted area (including Chinatown, South End, Fenway, South Cove, and Back Bay). Himmel said that 6000 to 6500 permanent jobs would be available, depending if two or three department stores are built.

"Also, the state will commit state rent subsidies for 50 existing houses and families in the South End who might be impacted by rising rents as a result of the new project nearby.

"Keefe, mindful of dissent over the project plans from some organizations and neighborhood groups, despite the citizens' involvement, said every effort has been made to come up with a good plan.

"The project was endorsed by the Back Bay Federation for Community Development comprising representatives from the residential and institutional life of the Back Bay, and the Back Bay Assn. The endorsement was coupled with concerns for further refinement in areas of pedestrian access, environmental issues, scale and size, hotel tower location and continuation of the citizens review process. The latter also was made a part of the lease commitment.

"The Back Bay Neighborhood Assn. issued a separate statement, saying the organization supported a development over the turnpike but `does not support the proposed Copley Place project.'

"The organization objects to the size (3.8 million square feet, compared to 2.8 million square feet for the Park Plaza project in Park Square), traffic impact and air pollution.

"Himmel, asked about the unresolved neighborhood concerns, said: `During the first 9 days (1979) we plan to try to resolve our differences. There are some questions on our own minds and I think the direction we go in would be satisfactory.'

"He said there is a possibility of diminishing the size. He anticipated an agreement would be signed in February or March for the hotel with basic site work beginning during the summer.

"In September, work could start on the hotel, retail, office and housing elements, he said.

"Robert Ryan, head of the BRA, which will now inherit the planning process from the state, said he hopes that problems could be resolved in early 1979.

"Under terms of the Turnpike Authority lease, to run 40 years with renewal to 99 years, the Turnpike Authority would receive annual rent ranging from $140,000 in year one, to $920,000 in the 10th through 15th years, with increases after that determined by a formula based on the inflation rate. From the 30th to the 40th years, the rent would be about $2.7 million and after that year the rent schedule would be renegotiated.

"Mayor Kevin H. White's office issued a statement lauding the state's accomplishment. He said his administration is sure that the several remaining steps will be resolved. The jobs the development would bring are crucial to the city, he said. The city is negotiating with UIDC on a tax agreement covering the various buildings to be constructed.

"Also endorsing the program was Greater Boston Convention and Tourist Bureau, Inc., as `the most significant addition to Boston's convention facilities since the construction of the Prudential Center complex.'"

An article by William J. Lewis that appeared in the Boston Herald-American on December 23, 1978 also stated that "the agreement reserves 15,000-20,000 square feet of space for neighborhood-oriented businesses, half of which are to be minority-owned or community development corporations;" and "the development will include a 868-room convention-oriented hotel, two to three department stores, more than 100 shops and restaurants in an enclosed central mall, a 600,000 square foot office building, 1800-space parking garage and 150 units of mixed-income housing."

Judy Clark's Trial & Sixth Amendment Violations

2012-01-13T17:04:00.000-08:00

As a recent New York Times article indicated, 1981 Brink's Case defendant Judy Clark still has not apparently been released by New York State authorities. Yet before a U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit trio of judges (that then included soon-to-be-named U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor) overturned a lower federal court decision in the Clark v. Perez case in early 2008, lower federal court Judge Scheindlin had issued the following ruling on September 22, 2006:

"...There were two separate violations of the Sixth Amendment during Clark's trial: 1) the court should not have granted leave for Clark to represent herself; and 2) in any event, her pro se status should have been terminated when it became clear that no one would be in the courtroom to represent her interests during the presentation of the prosecution's case. Both problems constitute structural defects in Clark's trial...

"...The core of the constitutional defect is found in one snapshot from Clark's trial. During the prosecutor's opening statement and during the government's entire direct case against defendants, which spanned at least seven trial days, no one was present in the courtroom to represent Clark's interests. Clark was without assistance of counsel for her defense, in clear abrogation of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel...The proceedings at issue, with no one sitting at the defense table during the prosecution's entire case would have appeared unfair to many people with knowledge of the constitutional right to counsel or a respect for our adversarial system of justice...

"The trial judge was obligated to procure standby counsel for Clark when her inability to proceed according to court rules and protocol led to the absence of any representation at all during vital portions of her trial...

"For the reasons set forth above, Clark's petition is hereby granted and her conviction is reversed. The State must conduct a new trial within ninety days of this Order or release Clark from confinement...SO ORDERED S.D.NY 2006"

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 9

2012-01-13T10:00:00.001-08:00

Regarding the BRA's undemocratic decision to approve Simon Properties Group/Copley Place Associates' planned reconstruction of Copley Place--in order to reduce the percentage of low-income residential units in the HUD Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG]-funded Copley Place project to less than 16%-- the following facts should be considered in 2012:

1. As the Boston Globe reported on Dec. 23, 1978, former Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority signed a long-term lease on Dec. 22, 1978 with Urban and Investment Development Co. [UIDC]--a subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance and Casualty Co.--in which it was agreed that the Copley Place project would just include "a 150 unit low and moderate income housing development" during the 99 year period in which the lease remained in effect.

2. On Jan. 31, 1980, former Massachusetts Gov. King and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority signed an "Amended and Restated Lease" with UIDC which states on pages 14 to 15 of its attached Schedule C: "Housing: The housing which Tenant will construct will include at least 100 units of mixed income housing. A minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income."

3. On Apr. 30, 1980, Mayor Kevin White submitted on behalf of the City of Boston a "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG] Application To The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development" which stated the following:

"The 1978 EIR did not include an economic impact analysis for Copley Place...In the final months of the year, UIDC, the Turnpike Authority and the Office of State Planning worked to incorporate many community recommendations into a final air rights lease which would permit development on the site. The 40-year Lease Agreement, renewable to 99 years, was signed in the end of December, and included these additional community benefits:...2. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing with at least 25% for low income households..."

4. On the "UDAG Form 8: Provision of Housing" document which the City of Boston submitted to HUD in 1980 it states that 25% of the units to be constructed on the Copley Place project site are to be "low and moderate" and "Distribution of units determined by Lease Agreement between UIDC and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority."

5. In their Aug. 11, 1980 "Response By The City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted By Greater Boston Legal Services To HUD Concerning The Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant," City of Boston attorneys stated:

"From the CRC review process has come significant design change and affirmative action commitments. These include the following, many of which have been incorporated into the final air-rights lease between UIDC and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority...3. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing, with at least 25% for low-income households.

"With regard to the housing to be constructed as part of Copley Place, there is little question that it will further fair housing goals...For the record it should be noted that there will be at least 100 units with 25% designated for low-income households. This provision was incorporated into the Air Rights Lease through the efforts of the Citizen's Review Committee. In conformance with Federal guidelines, the developer will submit an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan. The Mayor's Office of Fair Housing will provide technical assistance to the developer in designing and implementing the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan...

"...The complainant fails to acknowledge the significant benefits to low-and moderate-income persons and minorities which were negotiated through the CRC process as well as those incoporated by the City into the UDAG application. These are mentioned in at least three separate locations in the application.

"In addition to the permanent and construction jobs agreement cited in Part V, the Copley Place project has provisions for a minimum of 100 units with 25% reserved for low income households..."

6. The Aug. 31, 1982 sub-lease between UIDC and UIDC of Massachusetts states the following in Section 6:12 on page 17: "Regulations: Affirmative Action. Urban Investment and Development Co. supports the Affirmative Action and Resident Preferences set forth in Attachment C of Boston's Urban Development Action Grant Application for Copley Place..."

7. Section 11.6 of the January 31, 1980 "Amended and Restated Lease" with UIDC of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority indicates on page 39 that any reconstruction of the Copley Place project is "subject" to "the use restrictions of Section 6:12" regarding affirmative action in the allocation of both Copley Place project jobs and Copley Place project residential housing units.

8. In his Nov. 15, 2011 memorandum to William Tuttle, Deputy Director and Robin Blatt-Eisengat of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Office of Real Estate and Asset Development, Andrew Royce of Sherin and Lodgen LLP notes that "after the first 15 years, Tenant may" only "construct additional improvements subject to...non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements;" and that "Schedule C, entitled HOUSING, states, in part `The housing which Tenant will construct will include at least 100 units of mixed income housing' and `A minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low-income.'

Given these facts, Simon Properties/Copley Place Associates would appear to be violating the affirmative action use restrictions of the 99-year lease between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Copley Place project developer, as well as the community benefit terms and community benefit intentions of the City of Boston's Urban Development Action Grant application, if its reconstruction of Copley Place decreases the percentage of Copley Place project low-income residential units below 16% between 2012 and 2077.

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 8

2012-01-11T22:15:00.000-08:00

As noted in the Meeting Summary of the Copley Place Expansion Project CAC for November 9, 2011, Robin Blatt, MassDOT, claimed that the "the original lease as part of the original” Copley Place “project stipulated that 25% of any units built at the time, for that project only, would have to be affordable,” “this was extinguished when the Harcourt Street residences were constructed,” and “moreover, this part of the lease had a sunset clause that expires after 15 years."

But in the April 30, 1980 "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application" that Boston Mayor Kevin White submitted to HUD there's no public mention of the lease allegedly containing a "sunset clause that expires after 15 years" or the 25% low-income units requirement for the whole Copley Place project included in the 99 year lease being "extinguished when the Harcourt Residences" are constructed.

Yet the "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application To The U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development" that Mayor Kevin H. White submitted on behalf of the City of Boston on April 30, 1980 does state the following:

“The 1978 EIR did not include an economic impact analysis for Copley Place …In the final months of the year, UIDC [Urban Investment & Development Co.], the Turnpike Authority and the Office of State Planning worked to incorporate many community recommendations into a final air rights lease which would permit development on the site. The 40-year Lease Agreement, renewable to 99 years, was signed in the end of December, and included these additional community benefits:

“…2. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing with at least 25% for low income households…

“…UIDC entered into a 99-year agreement with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority in December, 1978, amended January 1980…”

In addition, page 118 of the City of Boston’s 1980 “Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application,” is a copy of a form submitted by the City of Boston, titled “UDAG Form 8: Provision of Housing” which also indicated that 25% of the new units to be constructed are to be “low and moderate;” and states that “Distribution of units determined by Lease Agreement between UIDC and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority…”

And in the “Assurances” section of the City of Boston’s 1980 “Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application,” on page 145, the City of Boston also “certifies that it has not knowingly and willfully made or used a document containing any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement.”

Since one of the "additional community benefits" included as part of the 99 year lease as part of the "many community recommendations" incorporated "into a final air rights lease" is the "at least 25% for low income households" benefit, a reconstruction of the same project that increases the total number of on-site residential units in the Copley Place project in a way that reduces the percentage of low-income household units to below 25% contradicts what the City of Boston stated in its April 30, 1980 UDAG application (although it looks like the proponents of Simon Properties Group and Neiman Marcus’ “Jim Crow” reconstruction/skyscraper are apparently also constructing a legalistic rationalization for scrapping the required 25% low-income units requirement/community benefit on the Copley Place project public land in 2012).

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 7

2012-01-10T20:42:00.000-08:00

Simon Properties Group [SPG]’s attorney, James H. Greene of the Rubin & Rudman corporate law firm, has claimed at recent Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA] and Boston Zoning Commission hearings that Simon Properties is no longer required to keep 25% of all residential units constructed on the Copley Place Project land affordable to low-income and minority tenants who wish to live in the Back Bay/South End neighborhood of Boston until 2077 (as mandated by the Section 16 housing affirmative action and residential affordability provisions of the 1978 and early 1980s master and amended master leases between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the original developer, the UIDC subsidiary of Aetna Life).

Yet in its August 11, 1980 "Response by the City of Boston to an administrative complaint submitted by Greater Boston Legal Services to HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Group," the City of Boston attorneys, themselves, stated:

"Again, the complainant fails to acknowledge the significant benefits to low-and moderate-income persons and minorities which were negotiated through the CRC process as well as those incorporated by the City into the UDAG application. These are mentioned in at least three separate locations in the application .

“In addition to the permanent and construction jobs agreements cited in Part V, the Copley Place project has provisions for a minimum of 100 units of housing with 25% reserved for low-income households, and provisions for 15,000 to 20,000SF of community retail space with 50% reserved for Community Development Corporations and Minority Business Enterprises at below market rents...."

But, coincidentally. according to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance website data, the proposed Copley Place Reconstruction project's lead architect, Jack Hobbs of Hingham, Massachusetts, gave 5 campaign contributions--totalling $1,100--to Mayor Menino's campaign committee between May 16,2005 and November 4, 2010.

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 6

2012-01-09T06:18:00.001-08:00

The Indianapolis, Indiana-based Simon Properties Group [SPG] should not be allowed to enclose the public open space at Stuart and Dartmouth Street in Boston’s Back Bay/South End neighborhood and add a massive 47-story “Neiman Marcus Tower” skyscraper of mostly luxury residential units to the Copley Place project (atop the shopping mall’s Neiman Marcus anchor store) for the following nine reasons:

1) As Judge Caffrey noted in his August 17, 1981 memorandum in the Munoz-Mendoza v. Pierce case, “ Copley Place is a…multi-use development of housing, 25 percent of which are to be subsidized.” Yet of the 318 units of additional residential housing units that SPG/Copley Place Associates now proposes to add to Copley Place , less than 16 percent are to be subsidized, in contradiction to Judge Caffrey’s August 17, 1981 legal memorandum.

2) As Judge Caffrey also noted in his August 17, 1981 memorandum:

“In April of 1980 the City of Boston submitted to HUD a UDAG [Urban Development Action Grant] application for Copley Place , and HUD announced preliminary approval of the funding on October 9, 1980…The City of Boston and HUD signed a formal UDAG contract in the early months of 1981.”

Regarding the contract between HUD and the City of Boston that provided the original developer of Copley Place with over $18 million in public UDAG federal funds, in its August 11, 1980 “Response by the City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted By Greater Boston Legal Services To HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant,” the attorneys for the City of Boston indicated that the Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA]'s previous review of the proposed Copley Place project determined that HUD’s $18.8 million UDAG was to be used to develop “landscaped open space” at the Dartmouth and Stuart Streets site—not an enclosed “winter garden” that’s linked to a 47-story skyscraper residential addition to Copley Place and reconstruction of its anchor retail department store, Neiman Marcus. As the City of Boston noted in its August 11, 1980 response:

“…The development site will be landscaped open space dedicated to public pedestrian circulation…These areas include…the plaza near the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Streets…At the Dartmouth/Stuart entrance to the retail center the public mall and plaza entrance will be constructed over the Turnpike deck. This entrance is designed to provide a park-like extension of Copley Square and a gateway to Copley Place …

“At the Dartmouth/Stuart Street entrance to the proposed retail development, the Turnpike will be decked and a public plaza and mall entrance will be constructed. This entrance will provide a spatial extension of Copley Square and act as a major focal point. The public plaza and mall entrance will cover approximately 21,800 square feet…

“…The project would not reach a fair level of return without such a UDAG investment…

“The Boston Redevelopment Authority will be the recipient of the UDAG funds from the City. The BRA will administer the grant and loan portions of the UDAG…UDAG funds are in fact necessary to the construction of Copley Place …”

The terms of the 1981 UDAG contract between the City of Boston and HUD do not authorize any current or future private developer (such as SPG/Copley Place Associates) to construct an enclosed “winter garden” and a 47-story skyscraper residential addition on the “landscaped open space dedicated to public pedestrian circulation” and 21,800 square foot “public plaza and mall entrance” at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets.

So without HUD approval of amendments to the 1981 UDAG contract, SPG/Copley Place Associates should not be allowed to now reconstruct Copley Place --especially given the opposition of most Back Bay and South End neighborhood residents. As section 570.463 of HUD UDAG regulations on “project amendment and revisions” notes, “applicants…must submit to the HUD Central Office, a request for approval of any significant amendment” to a UDAG-funded project and “a significant amendment involves new activities or alternations thereof which will change the scope, location, scale, or beneficiaries of such activities...”

3) In its August 11, 1980 “Response by the City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted by Greater Boston Legal Services to HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant,” the attorneys for the City of Boston also asserted that the “construction of Copley Place will further the objectives of the UDAG program by…creating opportunities for low-and moderate-income people and minorities.”

Yet of the 318 units of addition residential housing that SPG//Copley Place Associates now proposes to add to the partially HUD UDAG program-funded Copley Place project, less than 16 percent of the constructed new residential units would create residential “opportunities for low-and moderate-income people and minorities;” and the Indianapolis-based SPG/Copley Place Associates executives have indicated that if the City of Boston now requires their proposed Neiman Marcus skyscraper/Copley Place residential addition to contain 25 percent subsidized units that are affordable for low-and moderate income people and minorities—as mandated by the late 1970s and early 1980s Copley Place project development legal agreements—they would be unwilling to build any additional residential units on a construction site which previously received over $18 million in HUD UDAG program federal funds.

4) The 1,558 parking spaces that SPG/Copley Place Associates controls are often filled to capacity during the Boston Red Sox baseball season, during the workweek, and on weekends at the peak of the tourist and shopping seasons. So adding at least 300 more cars of the residents of the proposed 47-story skyscraper residential addition will likely force many more non-residents of the neighborhood to park on nearby streets, and, thereby, reduce the parking spaces available to South End and Back Bay neighborhood residents.

5) If the 47-story skyscraper is built, the wind force level on pedestrians on the street at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets is expected to increase by 20 percent; and the shadows cast over Copley Square during workweek lunch hours between October and March—when this public park is most crowded on weekdays during these months—are also expected to increase by 20 percent. In addition, the proposed 47-story skyscraper is expected to cast a shadow over the Commonwealth Mall park space at around 9 a.m. each day—at a time when the Commonwealth Mall is being used most by people in the Back Bay neighborhood who pass through Commonwealth Mall each day as they walk to work or to the Copley Square subway station.

6) At a recent public meeting in the Boston Public Library, little specific information or visual material indicating how the construction site area at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets and the surrounding neighborhood streets are going to be affected or inconvenienced during the 3 years it would take to complete the proposed 47-story skyscraper/enclosed “winter garden”/over-development project was provided to the public. No mention was made, for example, of the amount of fugitive dust that will be created so close to the Back Bay Station (which is used by large numbers of commuters) during the demolition part of the proposed construction project. Nor was there any discussion of whether current crane safety precautions in Boston to assure pedestrian, commuter driver and construction worker safety are sufficient to build a 47-story skyscraper (over a 1 to 3-year period) in a highly windy area of heavy foot and car traffic, and where the ground regularly shakes as trains pull in and out of Back Bay station (and which even experienced a recent earthquake tremor).

7) Regarding the crane safety issue, the City Council in New York City requires, for example, that in Manhattan “prior to a crane’s initial erection or dismantling, the general contractor must hold a safety coordination meeting;” and “a pre-jump safety meeting must take place no more than 24-hours prior to each instance of a tower or climber crane jump or climb.” In addition, “the general contractor must notify Department of Buildings at least 48-hours before any safety coordination meetings or pre-jump safety meetings are held, and these meetings must cover topics related to scope of work, roles and responsibilities, rigging equipment, sequence of operations, inspection of rigging equipment tools prior to work, review of all equipment, permit validity, qualifications and training of personnel, relevant weather warnings, compliance with the manufacturer’s manual.”

8) Regarding the promise of 1,700 temporary construction work jobs that SPG/Copley Place Associates’ proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition over-development project would provide, at the recent BPL public meeting no specific break-down on how long each of the 1,700 temporary construction job positions created actually would last or which of the expected temporary construction worker jobs will actually be filled with Boston and/or South End and Back Bay residents was provided. Does the “1,700 jobs” estimate, for example, include particular construction work jobs that will only last less than 3 months? Are the Boston and/or South End residents who get hired to work on the proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition project only to be allowed to fill the temporary construction jobs that pay the lowest hourly rate and/or last less than 3 months?

9) Between the time that SPG/Copley Place Associates first proposed to build a 47-story “Neiman Marcus” Tower and enclosed “winter garden” (mainly to apparently provide more potential local residential customers for its anchor retail department store tenant) and April 2009, construction work on 29 skyscraper construction projects in the United States were halted because of the U.S. economic recession. And since the U.S. economy is expected to be in an even deeper economic recession in 2012 and 2013, there’s a possibility that SPG/Copley Place Associates would also eventually be forced to halt construction of its 47-story skyscraper and enclosed “winter garden” if its proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition project is begun in 2012.

Given the Simon Properties Group’s current financial condition, it’s not totally impossible that it might be forced financially to halt construction of this proposed 47-story skyscraper construction project before completion, if a post-2012 economic recession intensifies. Regarding SPG’s current financial condition, Wayne Gorsek, for example, expressed the following opinion in his September 2 and September 5, 2011 column on the Seeking Alpha website:

“Simon Property Group, Inc (SPG) is a mall REIT that owns and manages retail mall properties…Fundamentally, the stock looks way overvalued….There is a high chance the USA will enter another recession and this will cause people to stop spending at high price retailers (Saks (SKS), Nordstrom (JWN), etc.) in the malls that Simon owns. This can reduce their revenues as part of their revenues are based on the sales of the retailers in the malls….Look at 2009, these high price retailer sales plummeted as did their stocks, 2011 2nd half and 2012 will look very similar to 2008 and 2009, in my humble opinion, based on massive fundamental facts regarding world debt, deficits and economies.

“Reviewing cash flow at Simon Property Group, Inc. (SPG) and using it to support an approximate $34 billion valuation does not add up. Cash flow ending in 2010 shows a negative cash flow of $3.1 billion. First half of 2011 shows negative cash flow negative of about $7 million.

“Massive debt and liabilities at SPG total $19.648 billion dollars. This creates a high degree of risk for a company relying on high priced retailers in mall locations to maintain profitability. Another risk would be higher interest rates and this could rapidly destroy their earnings.

“The risk of world and USA economies heading into a double dip recession is a high probability. If this occurs, look at the 2008 and 2009 performance of SPG during the prior recession, it dropped from over $100 per share to under $30 per share in less than one year! A potential loss of 70%! … A quick review indicates numerous insiders (executives and directors) sold over $60 million worth of stock from Dec 2009 to August 30, 2011. In fact there was not one insider purchase during this time frame as indicated by Yahoo finance reports. Massive insider selling by numerous officers and executives as in the case of Simon Property Group is a major red flag….”

For all these reasons, the SPG/Copley Place Associates’ “Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition” reconstruction project that would over-develop the Back Bay’s Copley Place (mainly for the benefit of private, special corporate interests) should not be allowed by the City of Boston and the State of Massachusetts to go forward; and the “landscaped open space” at “the plaza near the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Streets,” which is now “designed to provide a park-like extension of Copley Square” and a “spatial extension of Copley Square” in “the public plaza,” should now be maintained in accordance with the terms of the HUD-City of Boston formal Urban Development Action Grant contract of 1981.

Upton Sinclair On The Politics of U.S. Publishing Industry

2012-01-08T10:53:00.000-08:00

In his 1937 message "To the Reader" that preceded the text of his 1937 book about Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company's hidden history, The Flivver King: A Story of Ford-America, U.S. left-wing writer Upton Sinclair wrote the following about the politics of the U.S. publising industry:

"Thirty-five years ago I dedicated my life to the cause of justice for the American workers. In the course of those years I have published fifty-nine books and plays. Some have been successes, some failures. When I made money, I have spent it to finance new books, or to circulate the old ones. Nineteen times, by actual count, I have been forced to deal with a new publisher, because my new book was considered too dangerous by the old publisher. On as many occasions I have had to publish the new book myself, because it was too dangerous for any publisher I could find.

"The last experinece was with a novel called No Pasaran! (They Shall Not Pass): A Story of the Battle of Madrid. This was an effort to help the new Spanish democracy, and I sold most of them below cost. The significant fact is that not one of the literary organs of this country, not one of the big newspapers of New York, so much as mentioned the book. Yet it was judged worth publication as a serial by a leading newspaper of Paris, and was advertised on billboards all over that city; in six months it has been published serially in a score of different languages, and has been published or is being prepared in book form in a score of countries. It has been published by the government in Spain, and is being made into a motion picture in Barcelona.

"The books of Upton Sinclair have been issued in more than seven hundred editions in foreign countries, including more than forty different languages, practically all those spoken by civilized peoples. The foreign sales have amounted to more than ten millions. But the job of getting these books to the people in my own country has been a hard one, because books are sold for high prices in America, and the people for whom I write books have little money. Now a new labor movement with enlightened leadership has been born; and this brings me great satisfaction, because I have been calling all my public life for mass unions of the workers. I am glad to have my books read by the men and women who are going to build the happy society in which our children will live, and I am content to get along without the honors and applause which a writer wins by catering to the leisure class booktrade."

Black Worker Jobless Rate Increases To 15.8 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives

2012-01-06T19:28:00.001-08:00

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Black workers in the United States increased from 15.5 to 15.8 percent between November and December 2011 under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data; while the unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 13 to 13.9 percent during the same period. The jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age also increased from 39.6 to 42.1 percent between November and December 2011; while the unemployment rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 15.7 percent in December 2011.

The number of officially unemployed Black workers increased by 79,000 (from 2,783,000 to 2,862,000) between November and December 2011; while the number of jobless Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 91,000 (from 1,184,000 to 1,275,000) during the same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Asian-American workers in the United States also increased from 6.5 to 6.8 percent between November and December 2011; while the number of unemployed Asian-American workers increased by 34,000 (from 480,000 to 514,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

Between November and December 2011, the official jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 9.8 to 10.5 percent, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 102,000 (from 1,285,000 to 1,387,000) during the same period. The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all Latino or Hispanic workers was still 11 percent in December 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latina or Hispanic women workers over 20 years-of-age was still 10.3 percent in that same month. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age was also still 26.3 percent in December 2011

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 20.3 percent in December 2011; while the unemployment rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 7.5 percent during that same month. In December 2011, the jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age was also still 6.8 percent; while 3,713,000 white female workers over 20 years-of-age were still unemployed in that same month.

The number of white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age who had jobs also decreased by 15,000 (from 3,751,000 to 3,736,000) between November and December 2011, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the total number of white workers in the U.S. labor force decreased by 109,000 (from 124,652,000 to 124,543,000) during the same period. And in December 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers (male and female) over 16-years-of-age was still 13,097,000; while the official jobless rate for all U.S. male workers over 16 years-of-age was stilll 8.7 percent in that same month.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ January 6, 2012 press release:

“…The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.6 million and accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed...

“About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in December, little different from a year earlier…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…Among the marginally attached, there were 945,000 discouraged workers in December…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them…

“…Employment in sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores fell by 10,000…Construction employment changed little in December…Employment in professional and business services changed little in December for the second month in a row…Government employment changed little in December but was down by 280,000 over the year. Job losses in 2011 occurred in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service…”

2012 GOP Presidential Candiate Ron Paul Spoke Out Against Obama's Illegal War In Afghanistan in 2010

2012-01-05T08:38:00.000-08:00

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 5

2011-12-27T13:27:00.000-08:00

In its April 1980 application for an $18.8 million Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG] in federal funds from HUD to create a public plaza of open space on the Copley Place Project public land at the corner of Dartmouth & Stuart streets, the City of Boston did not indicate to HUD that it would ever allow in 2011 a subsequent real estate developer to reconstruct the Copley Place project site in a way which encloses the public plaza of open space in a “winter garden”/expanded retail store entrance, that would be adjacent to a 47-story “Jim Crow” skyscraper of luxury residential apartments atop the project’s Neiman Marcus anchor retail store.

Yet according to the HUD handbook:

"In its review of the closeout documents, the Field Office staff may find that the project is not ready for closeout. This can occur for several reasons, for example: 1. The project may not have been carried out in a manner which is consistent with the terms of the Grant Agreement. For example, the UDAG may have been awarded to construct 120 single family homes, yet the closeout documents indicate that the Developer built only 110...If the Field Office staff determine that an impediment has occurred, they should take appropriate steps to deal with the situation...An action by HUD, such as amending the Grant Agreement, may be required...Generally, the Recipient should request a formal amendment in situations where the deviations from the Grant Agreement meet the threshold for a significant amendment as defined in Chapter 1 of this Handbook and as set forth in Section 570.413(b) of the UDAG regulations...

And according to HUD regulations:

§ 570.463 Project amendments and revisions.

(a) Pre-approval revisions to the application. Applicants must submit to the HUD Area Office and to Central Office all revisions to the application. A revision is considered significant if it alters the scope, location, or scale of the project or changes the beneficiaries' population.

The applicant must hold at least one public hearing prior to making a significant revision to the application.

(b) Post preliminary approval amendments. Applicants receiving preliminary approval must submit to the HUD Central Office, a request for approval of any significant amendment. A copy of the request must also be submitted to the Area Office. A significant amendment involves new activities or alterations thereof which will change the scope, location, scale, or beneficiaries of such activities or which, as a result of a number of smaller changes, add up to an amount that exceeds ten percent of the grant. HUD approval of amendments may be granted to those requests which meet all of the following criteria:

(1) New or significantly altered activities must meet the criteria for selection applicable at the time of receipt of the program amendment.

(2) The recipient must have complied with all requirements of this subpart.

(3) The recipient may make amendments other than those requiring prior HUD approval as defined in paragraph (b) of this section but each recipient must notify both the Area and Central Offices of such changes.

[47 FR 7983, Feb. 23, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 11476, Mar. 20, 1996]

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 4

2011-12-25T08:54:00.000-08:00

Despite the opposition of most Back Bay and South End neighborhood residents, the Zoning Commission of Boston utilized an undemocratic process to recently authorize the Simon Properties Group [SPG] to enclose and over-develop (on Massachusetts Department of Transportation/Turnpike Authority public land) the open space and public plaza at the corner of Stuart and Dartmouth Streets, as part of its Neiman Marcus anchor store expansion and massive “Neiman Marcus Tower” skyscraper construction/reconstruction of Copley Place project.

Coincidentally, as the following 2004 and 2005 articles that first appeared in Indianapolis, Indiana’s alternative weekly newspaper, NUVO, indicate, the Simon Group apparently was also undemocratically allowed to over-develop and build on public open space in Indianapolis, in a project that only benefitted the private special corporate interest of the SPG.

In a June 23, 2004 article, titled “Some Critical Of Downtown Decisions," the NUVO alternative newsweekly, for example, observed:

“Downtown development is booming. But with that boom, two projects may threaten a pair of downtown landmarks. One of those projects is Simon Property Group’s plan to construct a 12- to 14-story headquarters on Capitol Commons on the west side of downtown. The plan is drawing criticism from a number of groups that want to preserve the green space that former Gov. Robert Orr fought to create in the late 1980s.

“State Rep. Tom Saunders ( R-Henry County ) joined a number of state legislators in signing a letter of opposition that was delivered to the Mayor’s Office on June 7. They stated that their understanding, at the time the park was built, was that Capitol Commons should remain a `public park’ area. They also requested a meeting with city officials to discuss a more suitable solution. Saunders said, `I appreciate the Simons, but I wish they could find another spot.’

“Other legislators who joined Saunders were Beverly Gard, Jeff Epich, Vaneta Becker and Phil Hinkle. City officials finally agreed late last week to hold an informational meeting with the state representatives who signed the opposition letter.”

And in an article, titled “Simon’s Land Grab: City Trammels Public Process,” that appeared in the Jan. 26, 2005 issue of NUVO, Clark Kahlo wrote:

“The Simon Property Group recently revised the design for the exterior of its office building, which is slated to occupy part of Capitol Commons Plaza , just south of the state Capitol. This comes just prior to the start of construction, and was recommended by Simon’s new local architect, who replaced an Atlanta-based firm. The façade was redesigned to better conform to the existing character of nearby landmarks.

“Yet at an Oct. 6 public hearing, the Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC) was broadly assured by a Simon executive, his architect and city officials that the building’s design was fully sensitive to the Statehouse and surrounding buildings. Thus the design change comes as a major surprise. It also invites a look back (and forward) with respect to citizen involvement in development issues in our city.

“Beginning last June, many citizens wrote to the newspapers and to Mayor Peterson to protest his plan to give part of the public plaza to Simon for its 15-story building. Many also signed petitions opposing the giveaway of the priceless open space plaza (which connects the Statehouse and the Convention Center) and $20 million in other public subsidies.

“This most recent public land giveaway well illustrates how our city officials have failed to provide an open, inclusive and reasoned public process. Instead, they opted to cater to the highly profitable Simon company, which is the largest owner of shopping malls in the country.

“Despite the opposition, Simon’s corporate headquarters was on a fast-track for city board approvals from the very beginning. The city’s planners and architects weren’t even allowed by the mayor’s economic development staff to review the proposed project before the deal was publicly announced by Peterson.

“Here’s another example. In June, just two days after Mayor Peterson announced the deal, the development commission hurriedly adopted an amendment to the new Regional Center 2020 Plan for the downtown. The amendment authorized an office building in the public plaza, which is shown on the city’s new plan as a “public park.”

“While the city may have technically complied with the legal requirements for publishing the notice of the June 2 public hearing in the Legal Notices section of the newspaper, it’s clear the public was not aware of the significance of that commission meeting, the city’s hasty action to amend the official plan or the plan’s connection to the Simon deal. Thus there was no opposition present at the hearing.

“On Oct. 6, the MDC met again to hear an appeal filed in response to the city planning agency’s approval of the initial design for the Simon building. The Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations and Citizens for a Better Future raised concerns about the proposal, including strong objections about the taking of the public plaza, which, by the terms of a previous agreement between the city, the Capital Improvements Board (a city board) and the Westin Hotel developer, was to remain an open space vista and public plaza linking the Convention Center and the state Capitol. These objections were rebuffed and the MDC unanimously supported the design.

“In addition, the Indiana Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects complained in a letter to Mayor Peterson that allowing Simon to build its headquarters on prime urban parkland sets an “unfortunate precedent.” Referring to the lack of public input in the process, the group also asked, “Would this be the preferred decision if opportunity had been given to the citizens of Indianapolis to provide input on the potential loss of this public space?”

“The group also urged Mayor Peterson to immediately reinstitute an ordinance invalidated by the Republican administration of Steve Goldsmith that required a public hearing for any city proposal to dispose of major public open space or right-of-way. The mayor denied their request.

“It’s ironic that in 1996, Councilor Steve Tally, a Democrat who is now president of the City-County Council, proposed a measure which would have required a public hearing before public property disposition by a city agency. That proposal was voted down by the then-Republican council majority. But now that Councilor Talley’s Democrat Party controls the council, and now that he’s expected to support the mayor’s plan to give prime public land to the Simons, he has conveniently forgotten the need to provide an open and fair public process.

“In fact, he restricted public comment at his June 28 committee hearing on the Simon matter. He rudely cut off the testimony of the representative from the Indiana Alliance for Democracy who attempted to cite a university study about the limited value of tax abatements and other corporate welfare by municipalities. Chairman Tally told Dr. Jack Miller that he didn’t think the study was relevant to the Simon matter. However, Tally hadn’t even given Miller the chance to describe the study.

“Indianapolis citizens don’t deserve such shabby treatment from their elected representatives when they try to question the continuing corporate giveaways and parkland takeaways. Simon’s recent changes to the façade will not compensate the public realm for the loss of this priceless plaza land and the loss of part of the soul of the city. “

Will Gambling Casinos In Massachusetts Turn Massachusetts Into Another Nevada?

2011-12-24T11:44:00.000-08:00

Nevada, New Jersey and Connecticut all have allowed out-of-state developers to build gambling casinos in their states. Yet the official jobless rate in Nevada is 13 percent, the official jobless rate in New Jersey is 9.1 percent and the official jobless rate in Connecticut is 8.4 percent, while the official jobless rate in Massachusetts (where no gambling casinos have yet been built) is just 7 percent. So why is the Massachusetts state government still apparently inviting out-of-state developers to build gambling casinos in Massachusetts; and possibly turn Massachusetts into another Nevada?

In a recent Associated Press article that appeared in the New Zealand Herald, titled “Nevada sits right at the bottom and it’s a long way back,” Cristina Silva indicated how Nevada’s casino gambling-based economy is currently doing:

“…Across this hardest-hit Western state, a battle of perceptions is being waged over whether Nevada is on the edge of recovery, or still falling four years after the collapse of its mighty housing, tourism and construction industries.

“It's a story unfolding across the US, only in Nevada it is worse because the state depends heavily on money spent by people from elsewhere. Nevada continues to top the US in unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptcy rates.

“`We are like somebody who is wearing a lead weight. We have jumped off the dock and finally stopped sinking, but that just means we are at the bottom of the sea,’ said Elliot Parker, an economist with the University of Nevada, Reno…

“But the housing market remains in a free fall and workers are either fleeing the state or dropping out of the workforce altogether. Half of all homes are now purchased with cash. The average house price in Las Vegas fell to US$118,213 last month, down from US$329,720 just four years ago…

“`Nevada is about a year behind the rest of the country or even more because we had much deeper, much bigger problems,' Parker said. `We had a steep decline and we have a long way to go to get out of this.’"…

“New unemployment claims more than doubled to 30,190 from January 2007 to January 2010. In all, more than 300,000 Nevadans received jobless benefits last year….

“Nevada's unemployment rate has improved from above 14 per cent to just above 13 per cent in the past year and new jobs have sprouted in the hospitality sector.

But the declining jobless rate can also partly be explained by the state's shrinking workforce. Nevada had nearly 200,000 fewer workers in 2010 than it did in 2007, and that's despite a soaring population during those years…

“Hotel rooms and bar tabs are…nowhere near the rollicking levels of 2007, before tourism dropped and hotels across the Las Vegas Strip closed or filed for bankruptcy.

“The Nevada Gaming Control Board recently estimated that casinos statewide made US$53.8 million less from gamblers in September than they did a year ago, a 6 per cent drop. In Northern Nevada, which has struggled to fight off the rise of Indian casinos in California, some casinos saw revenues drop 14 per cent.

“For unemployed Nevadans, the state hitting bottom offers little encouragement. Jim Rogers, 49, lost his construction job three years ago. He has been living off money set aside in his retirement account.

“`There are no jobs,’ he said. `The casinos are operating on a meagre staff. Where they used to have 10 people, they now have six people doing the work.’..

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 3

2011-12-24T08:01:00.000-08:00

The architect for the proposed reconstruction/expansion of Copley Place's Neiman Marcus anchor retail store stated at a late 2007 or early 2008 community meeting at the Boston Public Library that in the early 1980s "we had always planned to build" the luxury condominium skyscraper at the proposed Stuart & Dartmouth Street reconstruction site.

Yet in its misleading early 1980s legal response to the Greater Boston Legal Services' complaint to HUD (about using $18.8 million in federal UDAG funds to build the Copley Place project), City of Boston attorneys gave HUD officials (and, subsequently, U.S. federal court judges) no indication that the Stuart & Dartmouth Street corner site was going to be part of a 47-story luxury high-rise residential skyscraper. As the August 11, 1980 “Response By The City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted By Greater Boston Legal Services To HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant” stated:

“III. UIDC Does Require UDAG Funds to Construct Copley Place

“A UDAG grant…has been determined to be warranted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority's review of the Copley Place project…

“Copley Place Will Not Have A Negative Impact On the Special Problems of Low- and Moderate-Income and Minority People

“The overall impact of Copley Place will be positive through the provision of…housing for low- and moderate-income people…

“The City also has rent control and condominium conversion ordinances which will help to mitigate the effect of market forces on low- and moderate-income tenants.

“The City of Boston has prepared a detailed response to each point raised in the Administrative Complaint….Copley Place is a project by which Federal funds will leverage substantial private investment to the direct and indirect benefit of low- and moderate-income people, especially members of minority groups. Under these circumstance, HUD will best fulfill its mandate by approving the City's application for UDAG funding. Copley Place deserves HUD's support.

“The Greater Boston Legal Services has filed an Administrative Complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development challenging the City of Boston's application for Federal assistance under the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program….

“Copley Place deserves HUD's support. In fact, as documented in the UDAG application, it is only with HUD's support that Copley Place is feasible….

“With regard to the remaining allegations the City stands firm to its position that the developers of Copley Place require an Action Grant…to undertake this project. The grant request has been carefully analyzed by the BRA and its consultants. This analysis has revealed that the project's cost estimates and income projections are reasonable and that,based on these estimates , the project would not reach a fair level of return without such a UDAG investment…“

In conclusion, Copley Place not only meets but surpasses all of HUD's selection criteria. The funding of this UDAG is in keeping with the intent of the program and represents significant achievements in the area of affirmative action…An objective evaluation of this project will demonstrate conclusively that Copley Place should receive UDAG funding.

“Therefore, in light of the evidence presented herein and in the UDAG application, the City of Boston requests that HUD reject this administrative complaint and fund the Copley Place UDAG. ..

“UIDC DOES REQUIRE UDAG FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT COPLEY PLACE

“…The developer was exploring sources for public funding as early as the spring of 1978. In a document distributed to the City and State in October, 1978, the developer enumerated approximately $22 million in project site premium costs and stated that they were requesting public funding to defray much of this cost. In addition, the Air-Rights Lease signed December, 1978 between UIDC and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority makes direct reference to UDAG and other public funding assistance. (Please see Air- Rights Lease, Section 15.13, Certain Governmental Assistance)….

“A UDAG grant…has been determined to be warranted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority's review of the Copley Place project.

“6. Landscaping

“Some of the development site will be landscaped open space dedicated to public pedestrian circulation and to the visual enhancement of the neighborhood. These areas include…the plaza area near the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Streets…At the Dartmouth/Stuart entrance to the retail center the public mall and plaza entrance will be constructed over the Turnpike deck. This entrance is designed to provide a park-like extension of Copley Square and a gateway to Copley Place …

“10. Dartmouth/Stuart Entrance to Copley Place

“At the Dartmouth/Stuart Street entrance to the proposed retail development, the Turnpike will be decked and a public plaza and mall entrance will be constructed. This entrance will provide a spatial extension of Copley Square and act as a major focal point. The public plaza and mall entrance will cover approximately 21,800 square feet.

“These activities add greatly to the construction costs of the development without adding directly to the cash flow of the project. To confirm its analysis, the BRA retained an independent consultant which has advised it that the developer's costs estimate and income projections are reasonable and that, based on these estimate, the project would not reach a fair level of return without such a UDAG investment. While the project might be able to absorb approximately $9 million of the special site costs, $18.8 million in costs cannot be supported by project income....

“The Boston Redevelopment Authority will be the recipient of the UDAG funds from the City. The BRA will administer the grant and loan portions of the UDAG…

“It is respectfully submitted that contrary to the allegations contained in Part III of the Administrative Complainant, that UDAG funds are in fact necessary to the construction of Copley Place and construction of Copley Place will further the objectives of the UDAG program by…creating opportunities for low- and moderate-income people and minorities …

“C. APPROVAL OF THE COPLEY PLACE UDAG PROPOSAL WOULD NOT VIOLATE TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 …

“Shadows

“As for the claim that the program will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood environment by virture of its shadows , it is to be noted that the project contains low- and mid-rise buildings and two 30-story hotel towers . Furthermore , the project does not dominate Copley Square as suggested in the complaint. Instead, it abuts only one corner of the Square and the podium height of the Western International Hotel is harmonious with the height of the Boston Public Library and the Copley Plaza Hotel.

“During the winter months the two hotel towers will cast shadows upon Copley Square as the sun sweeps low on the southern horizon. The brief period of time when the shadow is solely the result of shadows cast from Copley Place will be minimal compared to the existing shadow and duration of shadow cast by the John Haincock Tower and the Prudential Center…

“During the summer, no shadows will be cast by the Copley Place Project on Copley Square or Trinity Church. This coincides with the period of highest use of the square. The complainant implies that "a tremendous volume of casual pedestrian traffic, many of whom came there solely to sit in the sun" will be denied sun by winter shadows cast by Copley Place. It would be more accurate to state that the casual pedestrian in the winter would find some additional shadow during the afternoon…

“CONCLUSION: HUD CAN AND SHOULD GRANT A UDAG FOR COPLEY PLACE …

“Copley Place will have impressive benefits for the City's low- and moderate- income citizens…The project will provide…mixed-income housing… Copley Place deserves HUD's support….”

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 2

2011-12-23T08:44:00.000-08:00

“In direct contradiction to Federal regulations, Copley Place and its UDAG will not provide an opportunity for low and moderate income persons and minorities to reside in the project area after its completion…

“It is impossible to reconcile the Copley Place Project as consistent with the concerns of the Congress as expressed in the UDAG statute and the regulations promulgated by HUD…” (from Greater Boston Legal Services’June 5, 1980 letter to local HUD Director, which complained about use of UDAG funds to develop site of Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus’ proposed “Jim Crow” Skyscraper of luxury residential units at Copley Place)

Following is the text of Judge Caffrey’s August 17, 1981 memorandum in the Munoz-Mendoza v. Pierce court case regarding the use of $18.8 million in federal funds from HUD to construct the Copley Place project:

August 17, 1981 court decision
Viviana MUNOZ-MENDOZA, Maggie Morris, Arturo Juarbe, Pat Quintana, Marcia Wiley, Bruno Rodriguez, Kam Yun Lee, and The Chinatown Housing and Land Development Task Force, Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs,v.
Samuel R. PIERCE, in his Official Capacity as Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Robert C. Embry, in his Official Capacity as Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, Marvin Siflinger, in his Official Capacity as Area Manager, Boston Area Office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Robert Pacquin, in his Capacity as Area Director of Community Planning and Management in the Boston Area Office, Kevin H. White, in his Capacity as Mayor of the City of Boston, and Robert Ryan, in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: CAFFREY

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs, seven individuals and an unincorporated organization, the Chinatown Housing and Land Development Task Force, are before the Court challenging federal funding for the development of a project known as " Copley Place ." The plaintiffs, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, sue the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal officials, as well as two officials of the City of Boston, claiming that the award by HUD of a $ 18.85 million Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) was not preceded by adequate planning and will have a discriminatory impact on low-income residents of Boston's South End, in violation of civil rights laws (Title VI, 42 U.S.C. ? 2000d et seq. and Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. ? 3601 et seq.). Cross-motions for summary judgment have been briefed and argued.

Copley Place is a $ 318 million multi-use development which will include a 712-room luxury hotel, a 960-room convention hotel, a retail center, office space, enclosed parking and 100-150 units of housing, 25% of which are to be subsidized. The site for Copley Place is 9.5 acres of vacant land, cleared 16 years ago for construction of the Massachusetts Turnpike extension. There is no presently existing residential housing located anywhere on the 9.5 acre tract. The tract, bordering the South End, Fenway and Back Bay neighborhoods, has remained undeveloped except for several exit ramps and a rail line located in the center of the site. All of the plaintiffs live in neighborhoods close to the project site. The South End is a fully integrated residential area.

In April of 1980 the City of Boston submitted to HUD a UDAG application for Copley Place , and HUD announced preliminary approval of the funding on October 9, 1980. The Chinatown Housing and Land Development Task Force and one other organization filed an administrative complaint with HUD in June 1980 expressing concern over the displacement impact of the project on neighborhood residents. On October 21, 1980 HUD notified the complainants of the project's approval. The City of Boston and HUD signed a formal UDAG contract in the early months of 1981.

I. Threshold Issues

The federal funding at issue was authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, and a threshold issue is the application of the civil rights duties of Title VI (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and Title VIII (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), i. e. of non-discrimination and the promotion of fair housing, to UDAG grants and applicants under that statute, 42 U.S.C. 5318. Fairly recent amendments to the UDAG regulations, effective on November 11, 1980, leave no doubt as to the relationship between civil rights laws and Urban Development Action Grants. All applicants for grants must certify, 24 C.F.R. 570.458(c)(16)(xiv)(A) and (B), that their UDAG projects comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The new regulations, 24 C.F.R. 570.458(c)(12), also specify that information about involuntary displacement of low-income minorities should be submitted.

Although the regulations in effect at the time of Copley Place UDAG approval were not as explicit, I rule that the Copley Place UDAG was, and is, subject to the civil rights obligations of Title VI and Title VIII. "It is clear that anti-discrimination statutes have a significant impact on all federal financial assistance programs." NAACP v. Wilmington Medical Center , 426 F. Supp. 919, 923 (D.Del.1977)….

The primary relief sought in the instant case, however, is further HUD study of Copley Place displacement impact, and complete relief cannot be awarded without HUD's presence in the suit. Indeed the gravamen of the complaint is that action against the City alone is not sufficient. Plaintiffs claim that representations concerning Copley Place impact presented by the City of Boston , as the interested potential recipient, should not determine the federal agency's own study of the civil rights aspects of the grant.

This is not a case of claimed past discriminatory practice raising the spectre of terminating financial assistance but an action designed to prevent such a practice and to ensure that HUD follows certain procedures...

There are two interrelated claims in this case, one alleges a procedural injury and the other alleges a substantive harm. The plaintiffs assert that prior to the UDAG award HUD failed to study the indirect displacement that low-income residents living in the impact area would suffer as a result of the Copley Place project. They trace this alleged planning failure directly to the conduct of the federal officials responsible for approving the UDAG, and they seek a procedural remedy which would mandate the completion of such a displacement study by HUD. The alleged substantive injury is that the Copley Place UDAG discriminates against low-income minorities residing in abutting neighborhoods by providing critical financial aid for the Copley Place development, which in turn will work to indirectly displace the nearby plaintiffs by triggering increased rents, condominium conversions and threatened evictions. Plaintiffs seek relief which would mitigate the alleged indirect discriminatory displacement impact.

I rule, on the basis of the limited record presently before the Court and for the purpose of these motions only, that plaintiffs' have shown sufficient standing to withstand defendants' motion for summary judgment...

The plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating that the increased rents and threatened evictions are "fairly traceable" to the UDAG funding of Copley Place, and that court-ordered relief can redress the harm. It is arguable that Copley Place, a $ 318 million project, would have been built even without the $ 18.85 million UDAG, and that the South End's ongoing gentrification and displacement of low-income minorities would have continued to accelerate at a significant pace even without any Copley Place project whatsoever. Nevertheless, I am satisfied on the current record that the plaintiffs have sufficiently personalized issues at stake to further litigate the legal claims presently before the Court...

These plaintiffs say they face increased rents and threatened evictions. They live in the claimed impact area. Their personal stake in displacement allows them to raise the issue with HUD and City officials.

In attacking HUD's study of the civil rights implications of Copley Place, plaintiffs assert that part of HUD's failure lay in its unwillingness to review the City of Boston's general eligibility for UDAG awards...

II. Title VIII and Title VI Claims

Title VIII, particularly 42 U.S.C. 3608(d)(5), places an affirmative duty on HUD to promote fair housing opportunities. That duty extends to prospective situations as well as to past or continuing practices in the private and public sector. The Second Circuit held in Otero v. New York City Housing Authority, 484 F.2d 1122, 1134 (2d Cir. 1973), that 42 U.S.C. 3608(d) (5) "requires that consideration be given to the impact" of a proposed project "on the racial concentration" in the impact area. Accord, Marin City Council v. Marin City Redevelopment Authority, 416 F. Supp. 700 (N.D.Cal.1975).

Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., also imposes a duty on HUD, less affirmative but broader ranging than that under Title VIII, designed to eliminate racial discrimination in all federally assisted programs or activities. 24 C.F.R. 1.7(c) states that HUD "shall make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply" with Title VI.

The issue in this case is whether HUD, in conjunction with the City of Boston , met or failed to meet its duties under Title VI and Title VIII. HUD satisfied its Title VIII duty to promote fair housing if it used an "institutionalized method" to reach an "informed decision," based on "the relevant racial and socio-economic information." Shannon v. HUD, 436 F.2d 809, 821 (3rd Cir. 1970). It met its Title VI responsibilities if it conducted the investigation outlined in 24 C.F.R. 1.7(c). NAACP v. Wilmington Medical Center , 426 F. Supp. 919, 924-5 (D.Del.1977). ..

I find, on the basis of a limited record, that the nature and extent of HUD's civil rights inquiries concerning the impact of the Copley Place project on low-income minority residents of the neighboring areas presents a genuine issue of material fact.

The administrative record reveals the following. In early 1980 Boston submitted a UDAG application, including assurances of Title VI and Title VIII compliance. Several preliminary observations by HUD officials attest to their awareness of displacement concerns (Record, 189; Record, 195). An administrative complaint was filed by two housing organizations on June 5, 1980, raising civil rights issues concerning the project's indirect displacement. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity was notified of the administrative complaint on June 11, 1980. The City of Boston responded to the complaint on August 25, 1980, and in the meantime the project's developer had forwarded a housing impact study, completed in late 1979 for the City, to HUD (Record, 358).

HUD officials met with the administrative complainants on September 2, 1980, but never responded to the complainants' written request for findings. The most revealing document in the record is a letter dated September 19, 1980, from the Director of the Area's Division of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to the Area Manager in charge of Copley Place UDAG review. (Record, 710). It notes that HUD is "extremely concerned about the involuntary displacement of minorities," but observes that no HUD guidelines exist on the issue and that indirect displacement is hard to measure in any event. In the absence of "hard evidence" the report recommends that "the project not be stopped based on civil rights considerations." The last sentence of the letter declares that "it does not appear that either Title VI or Title VIII will be violated." (Record, 711). No supporting material or explanation is offered.

HUD's record, granting plaintiffs all inferences, is one of reaction and bureaucratic feedback, not of initiative and study. On September 24, 1980, HUD's Area Manager merely reiterated the concerns about the project's "potential negative impact" on low income households that he had voiced in a June 3 letter (Compare Record, 713-716 and Record, 195). Nothing more substantive emerges from the present record. On October 9, 1980, a press release announced the UDAG award…The record as it now appears does not clearly establish that HUD had the "relevant racial and socio-economic information" at the time of UDAG approval…

This Court, on the present record, will not rule that defendants did all that was legally necessary to satisfy Title VI concerns….

III. Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action

The third and final claim of plaintiffs is that HUD's funding of Copley Place was arbitrary and capricious agency action, subject to review and relief under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(a). The ultimate standard of review under this statute is a narrow one, Citizens To Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S. Ct. 814, 28 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1971), and precludes judicial review on a de novo or even a substantial evidence basis. King v. Harris, 464 F. Supp. 827 (E.D.N.Y.1979).
HUD must establish that its decision on Copley Place was based on all relevant information and included the appropriate inquiries. Given the ambiguity of the current record, and the existence of the independent claims, the Court reserves on this claim seeking judicial review. NAACP v. Medical Center, Inc., 599 F.2d 1247, 1259 n.49 (3rd Cir. 1979).

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 1

2011-12-20T20:59:00.000-08:00

In its 2008-filed "Project Notification Form," the debt-ridden, Indianapolis-based Simon Properties Group owner of shopping malls claimed its Stuart Street and Dartmouth Street Copley Place Reconstruction/”Neiman Marcus Tower” project "promotes Boston's affordable housing objectives." Yet Simon Properties Group provided no evidence in its "Project Notification Form" that 25% of its proposed new 320 residential units on the Copley Place project land will be affordable to low-income residents of Boston or that the residential population of its proposed 47-story skyscraper will reflect the current racial diversity of the City of Boston.

But in its "Project Notification Form," Simon Properties Group [SPG] did admit that if its skyscraper is built, during the lunch period of the workweek when Copley Square is most frequently used by local office workers in the autumn, 20 percent of Copley Square will then be under a shadow. As page 3-2 of the "Project Notification Form" noted:

"From October to February, additional shadow resulting from the Project will reach Copley Square...around 12:00 noon...affecting...20% of the area of Copley Square at any one time. From November to February 23, new shadow from the Project will sweep across Copley Square starting around 11:00 a.m., again affecting...20% of the area of Copley Square at any one time."

SPG also indicated that an uncomfortable new wind tunnel along Stuart Street will be created if its skyscraper is built. As page 3-2 of its "Project Notification Form" observes: "Wind conditions along Stuart Street may...require...mitigation due to the...channeling effect between the Project and surrounding existing buildings, which could increase pedestrian level horizontal wind..."

If Simon Properties Group is allowed to start building its luxury condominium skyscraper on Stuart Street and Dartmouth Street, for at least 3 years (between 2012 and 2015) around 1,700 construction workers will be disturbing the quality of life between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. each weekday for commuters, local residents, local office workers and local hotel guests and shoppers. And, as the "Project Notification Form" also noted, to construct SPG’s skyscraper "night hours will be required as determined by the Mass Turnpike Authority for work on the Mass Pike," which will disturb the quality of life for local residents and local hotel guests during the night.

Since the new residents of the 272 luxury condominium units in SPG’s planned skyscraper are each expected to own at least one automobile, nearly 15 percent of the 1,558 parking spaces now controlled by Simon Properties Group in the Copley Place Center and Tent City (Dartmouth) garages will then be just reserved for the new residents of the Stuart and Dartmouth Street “Neiman Marcus Tower,” if the project is built. The number of available parking spaces for use by local workers, local shoppers and local residents in the Copley Place Center and Tent City (Dartmouth) garages will thus be decreased by at least 297, since at least "297 parking spaces will be reassigned to provide parking for the residential units," according to page C-1 of the "Project Notification Form."

If Simon Properties Group is allowed to begin its three-year Copley Place reconstruction project, negative "air-quality impacts from fugitive dust may be expected during the early phase of construction and during demolition," according to page 3-6 of SPG's "Project Notification Form." In addition, "The Project will generate solid waste;" and "solid waste generated" by SPG’s Back Bay-South End skyscraper project "will be approximately 1,010 tons per year," according to Simon's "Project Notification Form" of 2008

In addition to possibly creating nighttime traffic problems on the Mass Pike when Simon's construction workers are authorized to make noise during night hours, additional daytime traffic jams on Stuart Street and Dartmouth Street may also be created by Simon's project because it will produce decreased automobile lane width at the Stuart Street and Dartmouth Street intersection.

Although Simon Properties's skyscraper will be located very near to a skyscraper which was plagued by unpredictable post-construction problems, the John Hancock Building, the "Project Notification Form" doesn't seem to indicate why its skyscraper won't be plagued by similar unpredictable post-construction problems as was the John Hancock Building. But as the book Skyscraper by Karl Sabbagh observed:

"The windows of the John Hancock Building in Boston provide one example of the unpleasant surprises lying in wait for the best of architects and construction managers. One November day in 1972 a pane of glass fell out of the newly-completed sixty-story building. It was the first of hundreds of panes that were to shower down on the Boston passers-by...It took four years of falling glass for the architects and construction company to decide what to do...The true cause of the failure was never made public...It has been estimated that the total cost of the John Hancock problem, including replacing all 10,344 panes of glass, was more than the original cost of the building, $95 million..."

The same book also recalled that when a skyscraper is constructed:

"The effects of the project will inevitably spread far beyond the boundaries of the site. The constant stream of trucks to and from the site, some bringing concrete, others carrying away rubble to dumps...disrupt...the already busy traffic...Buses sometimes have to mount the pavement to skirt around the trucks...

"The history of construction is littered with disasters caused by a failure to appreciate the impact of loads and forces on steel connections and supports. In July 1981 two walkways in the lobby of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City collapsed, killing 113 people and injuring more than 180..."

So, not surprisingly, most of the people who live, work, shop and visit in Boston’s Back Bay and South End neighborhood want to see Simon Properties Group and Neiman Marcus drop their plans for a “Jim Crow” skyscraper of mostly unaffordable, luxury residential units on the Copley Place project's public land.

Occupy Oakland Supporters March To Shut Down West Coast Ports

2011-12-13T19:18:00.000-08:00

Simon Properties' Boston Industrial Financing Authority/Rubin & Rudman Law Firm Connection

2011-12-10T11:15:00.000-08:00

In apparent violation of previous 99-year lease, amended lease, sub-lease and sub-sub-lease agreements of the late 1970s and early 1980s between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and Aetna's UIDC subsidiaries (as well as the April 1980 City of Boston's Urban Development Action Grant application to HUD) which restrict what kind of residential units can be constructed on the Copley Place project's public land, the Boston Redevelopment Authority recently undemocratically approved the Simon Properties Group/Copley Associates LLP' proposal for reconstructing the Copley Place project.

Although 25 percent of all residential units constructed on the Copley Place project site, at all times, are apparently required to be affordable to low-income or low-income/moderate-income tenants until 2077, Simon Properties wants to now reduce the percentage of low-income or low-income/moderate-income residential units on the Copley Place project site to below 25 percent--by adding a 47-story skyscraper of unaffordable, luxury apartment residential units near the corner of Stuart and Dartmouth Streets in Boston's Back Bay/South End neighborhood.

Coincidentally, the Rubin and Rudman LLP lawyer that represented Simon Properties' private, special corporate interests at the public Boston Redevelopment Authority hearing which undemocratically approved Simon Properties' proposal to reconstruct the Copley Place project--James H. Greene--has also apparently been the "Chairman of the Boston Industrial Financing Authority" in recent years, according to the Rubin and Rudman corporate law firm website.

Also, coincidentally, the Rubin and Rudman lawyer and "Chairman of the Boston Industrial Financing Authority" whose Simon Properties' client was successful in getting the Boston Redevelopment Authority to approve Simon Properties' proposed Neiman Marcus Tower/Wintergarden skyscraper building project in the Back Bay/South End has apparently made over 75 individual contributions to the campaign committees of various local and state politicians (totalling over $19,500) since 2002--including 9 individual campaign contributions (totalling $4,000) to the campaign committee of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. According to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance [MA OCPF] website, for example, between April 13, 2011 and October 15, 2011 Simon Properties' Rubin and Rudman Attorney Greene gave 2 campaign contributions (totalling $500) to Boston Mayor Menino's campaign committee and 13 additional campaign contributions (totalling $2,550) to the campaign committees of other local or state politicians in Massachusetts.

One additional reason the affirmative action and community benefit housing provisions of the Copley Place project's 99-year lease and UDAG application that apparently require 25 percent of all residential units constructed on Copley Place land to be affordable at all times to low-income or low-income/moderate-income families or persons should not be apparently violated now by Simon Properties, is that the need for new low-income residential housing units for Boston residents has increased, not decreased, since the Copley Place project was originally built in the 1980s. As the 2010 Greater Boston Housing Report Card study of Northeastern University's Kitty & Michael Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy observed:

"...Despite more than two years of a weakening economy and falling home prices, rents remained stubbornly high. We now have additional data for all of 2009 and the first half of 2010 on rents in Greater Boston, and they suggest that our original concern was not misplaced...Rents have actually increased since last year, not softened...

"...Between the second quarter of 2005 and the third quarter of 2008, average asking rents in Greater Boston rose by $186 (12 percent)...

"...At the end of 2009, the average asking rent in Greater Boston had dropped about $50 from its 2008 peak...By the second quarter of 2010, though, rents began rising again...Whatever downward correction in rents took place was rather short-lived...

"According to REIS.com, in the second quarter of 2010, only four metropolitan regions--New York City; Westchester County, New York; San Francisco; and Fairfield County, Connecticut--had higher average rents than Boston...

"...There is little reason to believe that the historically high rents of the past several years will come down anytime soon..."

But since low-income tenants in Boston apparently don't contribute as much money to local and state politicians as lawyers for out-of-state-based real estate developers like Simon Properties, the Menino Administration's Boston Redevelopment Authority apparently sees nothing either illegal or unethical about allowing Simon Properties to build a skyscraper of over 300 more unaffordable, luxury residential units on the public land upon which the Copley Place project stands.

Simon Properties' Goodwin Procter Law Firm Connection

2011-12-07T22:01:00.000-08:00

As Goodwin Procter’s website notes, besides being a member of the Brookline Massachusetts Zoning Board of Appeals in recent years, “Larry Kaplan, a partner in the firm’s Real Estate Capital Markets Group, represents institutions, owners, developers and tenants during the permitting, acquisition and financing process;” and “also has served as real estate counsel to the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority” (which is currently part of MassDevelopment, the state finance and development authority on whose board of directors Boston Zoning Commission member Jay Hurley, coincidentally, also sits).

So, not surprisingly, “Goodwin’s real estate deal team included partner Lawrence Kaplan” when “a team of Goodwin Procter attorneys served as advisors to Copley Place Associates, LLC, an affiliate of Goodwin’s client Simon Properties Group, on the negotiation of an air rights lease” that was signed by Massachusetts Gov. Patrick on June 20, 2011 (according to a June 28, 2011 Goodwin Procter press release)—in an apparent attempt to provide a legal cover for Simon Properties’ proposed Copley Place Reconstruction/Luxury Skyscraper building project in the Back Bay/South End section of Boston.

In its June 28, 2011 press release, Kaplan’s corporate law firm claims that “the new agreement supersedes the client’s existing air rights lease for Copley Place which was entered into in the late 1970s”( that apparently required 25% of all residential units constructed on the Copley Place project site between 1978 and 2077 to be affordable at all times to low-income or low-income/moderate-income households; and apparently required any new construction after 15 years on a reconstructed Copley Place project site to be subject to the affirmative action and community benefit provisions and use restrictions regarding jobs and housing that were incorporated into the late 1970s lease).

Yet according to the June 20, 2011 “Notice of Lease Agreement” which Gov. Patrick signed “this Notice of Lease …does not purport to include all of the terms thereof, and is not intended or deemed to amend, supplement, or vary any of the terms and provisions of the lease;” and “in the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the Lease and this Notice of Lease, the provisions of the Lease shall govern and control.”

Besides having sat on Brookline’s Zoning Board of Appeals in recent years and having been the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority’s real estate counsel in the past, Goodwin Procter “real estate deal team” member Kaplan also gave Boston Mayor Menino’s campaign committee two contributions, totaling $1,000, between 2005 and 2008, according to data posted on the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance [MA OCPF] website.

In addition, between 2005 and late 2011, nearly $40,000 in campaign contributions were made to the campaign committees of either Boston Mayor Menino, Massachusetts Gov. Patrick or Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley by partners or employees of the Goodwin Procter law firm that is now representing the private, special interests of the Indianapolis-based Simon Properties Group, in its Copley Place Reconstruction project “real estate deal.” Between 2005 and late 2011, for example, Mayor Menino’s campaign committee was given $12,600, Gov. Patrick’s campaign committee was given $13,600 and Attorney General Coakley’s campaign committee was given $13,700 by Goodwin Procter partners or employees—nearly all of whom do not live in either the Back Bay or South End neighborhoods into which Simon Properties wishes to push its 47-story “Neiman Marcus Tower” luxury skyscraper construction project.

Concealing U.S. Navy Losses At Pearl Harbor 70 Years Ago

2011-12-06T20:24:00.000-08:00

After the Dec. 7, 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor 70 years ago, the U.S. government initially "claimed that only one `old' battleship and a destroyer had been sunk and other ships damaged, and that heavy casualties had been inflicted on the Japanese" in order "to prevent the American public from learning the gravity of the blow," according to The First Casualty by Phillip Knightly. U.S. Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox then held a press conference in New York after returning from an inspection of the damage to the Navy's fleet at Pearl Harbor and told U.S. reporters that only the Arizona battleship had been sunk. But, according to The First Casualty, "this must have made strange reading for anyone actually at Pearl Harbor, who had only to lift his eye from his newspaper to see five United States battleships--the Arizona, the Oklahoma, the California, the Nevada, and the West Virginia resting on the bottom.

Although 68 civilians were killed when Japanese warplanes bombed Pearl Harbor 70 years ago, ironically, "most civilian casualties resulted from American anti-aircraft shells that had defective fuses" which "failed to work properly in the air but exploded upon impact when they landed," according to Modern Hawaiian History by Ann Rayson.

As U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson said in 1917: "The first casualty when war comes is truth."

(Downtown, 12/25/91)

Was The Attack On Pearl Harbor Really A Surprise?

2011-12-05T21:23:00.000-08:00

Wall Street's mass media generally portrays the Dec. 7. 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor that took place 70 years ago as being a great surprise to the Democratic administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. According to the 1981 book Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath by John Toland, however, in the fall of 1941 "another direct warning of an attack on Pearl Harbor came to Washington" when "Kilsoo Haan, an agent for the Sino-Korean People's League came to the CBS office of Eric Severeid to announce excitedly that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor before Christmas. Friends in the Korean underground in Japan and Hawaii reported they had positive proof."

In October 1941, Haan convinced U.S. Senator Guy Gillette of Iowa that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and "Gillette alerted the State Department, as well as Army and Navy Intelligence," according to the same book. Major Warren Clear of Army Intelligence had also alerted the War Department that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.

On Dec. 5, 1941, "Kilsoo Haan telephoned Maxwell Hamilton (a top U.S. State Department Far East Advisor)" and told him that he had "been warned by the Korean underground that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor the coming weekend," according to Infamy. The same book also noted that after Pearl Harbor was attacked a few days later, "Kilsoo Haan got a telephone call from Maxwell Hamilton of the State Department" who "demanded that Haan's Dec. 5 warning of a Pearl Harbor attack that weekend not be released to the press. `If you do,' he warned, `I can put you away for the duration.'"

Some historians argue that in order to develop domestic support fo the U.S. military's entrance into world War II, the Democratic Roosevelt Administration wanted "to maneuver" the Japanese government "into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves," in the words of Secretary of War Henry Stimson's Nov. 25, 1941 diary entry. According to the Jan. 2, 1972 issue of the New York Times, "the declassification of British wartime Cabinet papers disclosed that Roosevelt made definite pledges...to bring the United States into the war against Germany before the end of 1941."

Infamy also noted that on Nov. 26,1941, Dr. Henry Field was summoned to the office of President Roosevelt's secretary, Grace Tully, who "told Field that the President was ordering him to produce, in the shortest time possible the full names and addresses of each American-born and foreign-born Japanese listed by locality within each state" and that "it was to be done by using the 1930 and 1940 censuses." At the Census Bureau Building "a bank of IBM sorting machines was set up to extract the Orientals for each state from 110,000,000 cards; then they were to be resorted for the Japanese."

Four days before the Japanese military attack on Pearl Harbor, according to Infamy, "the name and addres of every Japanese in the United States, a total of 126,947" was turned over to President Roosevelt's personal secretary, Grace Tully. The list of Japanese-Americans derived from the U.S. Census Bureau data was then used by the Roosevelt Administration when it ordered all Japanese-Americans to be rounded up and put in prison camps on the West Coast for three years in 1942. (which is one reason why many people in the U.S.A. may not be too eager to fill out those U.S. census forms every 10 years).

(Downtown, 12/4/91)

Remember Pearl Harbor? 70th Anniversary of U.S. Entry Into World War II

2011-12-05T09:29:00.000-08:00

Seventy years ago, 2,008 U.S. Navy sailors, 109 U.S. Marines, 218 U.S. Army soldiers and 68 civilians were killed when Japanese government authorities decided to bomb U.S. battleships and airfields in Oahu, one of the Hawaiian Islands, on Dec. 7, 1941. The Hawaiian Islands had been annexed by the U.S. government in 1898--five years after Hawaii's Queen Liliukalan was removed from power. The day after its attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese military forces also began to occupy the U.S. government's Philippines colony in Asia.

The Japanese warplanes attacked military targets in Hawaii, not civilian targets in cities, and about 50 percent of the U.S. deaths resulted from their sinking of the Arizona battleship. Later in the war, U.S. warplanes attacked civilian targets in Japanese cities and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were killed by either U.S. military conventional bombing or the two atomic bombs which it dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A few years before its attack on Pearl Harbor, 100,000 Chinese civilians had been killed by Japanese military forces when they occupied Nanking, China. And a few months before it attacked Pearl Harbor, the Japanese military machine had also killed 13,000 civilians in the Shansi district of China.

By the early 1990s,ironically, 9 of the 14 hotels along Oahu's Waikiki Beach in Honolulu were now owned by Japanese corporate interests. Eighteen of Hawaii's golf courses were also now owned by Japanese investors by the early 1990s. Between 1985 and 1987, Japanese corporate interests invested over $7 billion in Hawaiian real estate; and "in 1987, Japanese investors bought 4 out of every 10 condominiums sold on Waikiki Beach," according to the book Selling Out: How We Are Letting Japan Buy Our Land, Our Industries, Our Financial Institutions And Our Future by Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins.

According to Noam Chomsky's American Power and The New Mandarins book:

"In July, 1940, the United States placed an embargo on aviation fuel, which Japan could obtain from no other source, and in September, 1940 a total embargo on scrap iron...On July 26, 1941, Japan announced publicly its plans to move troops to southern Indochina and the United States ordered all Japanese assets in the United States to be frozen. On August 1, 1941, a total embargo of oil was announced by the United States."

When the Fall 1941 negotiations between the U.S. government and the Japanese government failed to produce any major concessions from the United States government, the Japanese militarists, who had been attacking China since the 1930s and occupying Korea since 1910, then decided to attack Pearl Harbor.

(Downtown 12/4/91)

Black Male Worker Jobless Rate Increases To 16.5 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives In November 2011

2011-12-03T12:02:00.000-08:00

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States increased from 16.2 to 16.5 percent between October and November 2011 under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data; while the unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 12.6 to 12.9 percent during the same period. The jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age also increased from 37.8 to 39.6 percent between October and November 2011.

The number of officially unemployed Black male workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 28,000 (from 1,321,000 to 1,349,000) between October and November 2011; while the number of jobless Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 9,000 (from 1,164,000 to 1,173,000) during the same period. The number of Black female workers over 20 years-of-age with jobs also dropped by 174,000 (from 8,089,000 to 7,915,000) between October and November 2011; while the number of Black male workers over 20 years-of-age with jobs declined by 18,000 (from 6,855,000 to 6,837,000) during the same period.

Between October and November 2011, the official jobless rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 10.5 to 10.6 percent and the unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age increased from 31 to 31.8 percent, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 9.8 percent in November 2011..

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 21.4 percent in November 2011; while the unemployment rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 7.6 percent during that same month. In November 2011, the jobless rate for white female workers was also still 6.9 percent; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Asian-American workers in the USA was still 6.5 percent. And in November 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers (male and female) over 16-years-of-age was still 13,303,000, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of people in the U.S. labor force decreased by 315,000 (from 154,198,000 to 153,883,000) between October and November 2011.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ December 2, 2011 press release:

“…Government employment continued to trend down…The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed at 5.7 million and accounted for 43.0 percent of the unemployed…

“In November, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…

"Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged workers in November…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because
they believe no jobs are available for them….

“Manufacturing employment changed little over the month…Electronic instruments lost 2,000 jobs.

“Construction employment showed little movement in November…Government employment continued to trend down in November, with a decline in the U.S. Postal Service (-5,000)…”

Philly Police Repress Occupy Philadelphia Street Protest

2011-11-30T06:39:00.000-08:00

LAPD Cops Repress Occupy Los Angeles Street Protest

2011-11-30T06:21:00.000-08:00

CUNY Students March In NYC For Restoration of Free Tuition At CUNY

2011-11-28T17:06:00.000-08:00

NYC Cops Repress Occupy CUNY Student Protest Inside Baruch College Building

2011-11-23T08:02:00.000-08:00

Australian Anti-War Activist Joan Coxsedge Condemns `Brutal Cowardly War' in Libya by `Washington and Its Cronies'

2011-11-20T07:39:00.001-08:00

In an Oct. 30, 2011 letter from Australia, long-time Australian anti-war activist and writer Joan Coxsedge (who’s also a former elected anti-war member of the Victoria State parliament in Australia and a long-time Latin American solidarity activist) summarized the current world situation, from an anti-war and anti-imperialist left perspective, in the following way:

“I’d prefer to talk about cheerful happy things seeing as how we’re close to Christmas, but the world we live in is so out of whack, so full of hate, deception, war and injustice, we cannot turn our back on its descent into barbarism. I’m thinking of our young and the sort of world I want for them.

“Libya, like everywhere else, wasn’t perfect, and yet it was an example of an independent, prosperous and secular African country which used its great oil wealth for the benefit of the Libyan people, providing free education and health care and decent housing, and helping poor parts of Africa, but which has been completely destroyed in a brutal cowardly war called `humanitarian’ by Washington and its cronies.

“More than 26,000 ‘sorties’ dropped more than 30,000 bombs - an estimated two Libyans killed per bomb without a single NATO casualty. But a major problem looming for freedom-loving NATO and its quisling National Transitional Council (NTC) - now the ‘legitimate’ government of Libya - is that the CIA’s proxy ‘Rebel’ army is led by the violent Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a self-described affiliate of al-Qaida in North Africa. The ‘rebels’ expelled most of Libya’s African migrant population followed by a massacre and ethnic cleansing. Bodies of black men hang along the highways and bound and tortured black Africans are dumped by the roadside, all under the eye of the first Black President of the US of A. The lynchings have been so horrific that African leaders across the continent have been forced to loudly protest, which must have been heard in the White House, but Obama and his cohorts in the western capitals and television news channels prefer words like ‘pro-democracy’, ‘freedom fighters’ and ‘liberation’ to describe the orgy of looting and killing. Mob rule with Orwellian overtones where War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength.

“Qaddafi’s final moments are part of the long trail of savagery. At the end of the battle for Sirte, NATO planes bombed his convoy, killing a large number of people. In Sirte’s Mahari Hotel, more than 50 bodies, some with hands bound, were executed at close range and others were taken from their hospital beds and murdered. Qaddafi survived but was tortured and sodomised by a frenzied mob – captured on phone camera - and allegedly shot by 22-year old Sanad al-Ureibi. Only a few days earlier, US Sec.of State Hillary Clinton, visiting Libya, had said: ‘we hope he can be captured or shot soon’ an incitement against US law and grounds for impeachment.

“I hope Mrs Clinton will be detained in some foreign country and handed a subpoena. According to CBS news, she had a laugh on learning about Qaddafi’s death: ‘we came, we saw, he died,’ she said. Ominous, but should we be surprised? As independent journalist Thomas Mountain writes about the Obama presidency: ’Isn’t this the guy who raised over $500 million to help him buy the White House, with $300 million of that from Wall Street...Isn’t this the guy who surrounded himself before his election with the very worst criminals from the Clinton White House?’

“Meanwhile, the race for juicy contracts has begun. As Qaddafi’s mutilated body lay in a meat store in Misrata, the UK’s Defence Secretary Philip Hammond told British companies to ‘pack their suitcases’ and head to Libya and an Israeli-American company has offered young Libyans jobs to train as police if they refuse to give up their guns.

“Next in line for a ‘democratic’ makeover, Syria and Iran. In Syria, heavily-armed gangs using legitimate demonstrations as cover have killed soldiers, police and civilians in the most brutal way, weapons shipped from Turkey and Lebanon paid for by US ‘fronts’ and others with old scores to settle like the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. If the Syrian government is brought down, there will be bloody turmoil and the status of women and minorities will go down the drain.

“US Attorney-General Holder has upped the ante against Iran by making wild and fabricated claims that it has employed a used-car salesman with a conviction for fraud to hire Mexican gangsters to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. A puerile story but an all too familiar one, using blatant lies to justify another murderous intervention.

“Americans need reminding that while Obama is stripping $320bn from their basic healthcare (50 million can’t afford health insurance and 46 million live below the poverty line), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost (so far) an obscene $1,268,965,662,411.

“Since we lurched into the 21st century, Washington has destroyed the US Constitution, the separation of powers, international law, the accountability of government and sacrificed every moral principle in its quest to rule the world. Former 4-star general and NATO commander Wesley Clark has described a neocon plan to invade 7 countries in 5 years. On cue, Obama announced he was sending troops to Uganda, South Sudan and the Congo, but only in ‘self-defence’.

“With Libya secured, the US invasion of the African continent is well under way. The target? China replacing al-Qaida as the official American ‘threat’. Whereas China brings Africa investment and infrastructure, Washington sends troops, bombs and military bases. And sooner or later, it’s naked aggression against China and Russia will blow up in our faces, specially here in Australia, where Pine Gap and other US bases play such an integral role in US war games.

“But Americans – like most Australians – have no idea why we’re at war in the Middle East; that our liberties are vanishing and that hard economic times are here to stay, a delusional world created for us by our global masters. While we drown in trivia and irrelevancy no longer permitted to know the truth, our monolithic media bombard us about weapons of mass destruction and demonize Washington’s handpicked enemies.

“But now we have a way to bypass the gatekeepers. All over the web dissident writers are offering alternative analyses of events and drawing attention to significant information ignored or sidelined by the mainstream. Final thought. Barnaby is the 2nd stupidest Joyce in Australia. Unions, fight back!”

Promoting Stupid Growth, Over-Development and Unaffordable Housing in the Back Bay: A brief look at the Back Bay Association and its Special Influence

2011-11-17T21:43:00.001-08:00

Most people who live in the Back Bay, the South End and other neighborhoods in Boston don’t think that the Menino Administration’s Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA] should allow Simon Property/Copley Place Associates to build a 47-story skyscraper of unaffordable apartments and an enclosed “Wintergarden” on public, open space at Copley Place in the Back Bay.

Yet in a recent Back Bay Association press release, Back Bay Association President and “Citizens Advisory Committee” [CAC] member Margaret “Meg” Mainzer-Cohen wrote that “I encourage all of our members to consider sending a letter in support of this project;” and the Back Bay Association president also attached a sample form letter to this press release which claimed that Simon Property/Copley Place Associates’ “Copley Place Residential Addition and Retail Expansion” construction project “will incorporate…smart growth design principles” and “was thoughtful and well-conceived at the outset” and stated that “I urge the Boston Redevelopment Authority to approve this project.”

Coincidentally, the Indianapolis-based corporation that wants to push a massive construction project that actually incorporates stupid growth design principles into the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods—Simon Property/Copley Associates—has had its special, private corporate interests represented on the Back Bay Association board of directors in recent years. According to the Back Bay Association’s website, for example, a Simon Property Group/Copley Place Associates and Residences at Copley Place executive named Bill Kenney has been both a member of the Back Bay Association’s board of directors and the Treasurer of the Back Bay Association’s board of directors in recent years.

In the Form 990 financial filing for 2010 that it submitted to the IRS on May 16, 2011 the “non-profit” and tax-exempt Simon Property-linked Back Bay Association revealed that in 2010 it “worked with the Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA] on rehabilitation and new construction projects in the Back Bay Area of the City of Boston,” “sponsored study to assess the development of turnpike exit ramp and other transportation issues,” and “worked with city government officials on…development and improvement plans.”

Voters who live in the Back Bay, South End and other neighborhoods in Boston may not have ever cast any ballots that authorized the Back Bay Association to work “with city government officials…on development and improvement plans” and, thus, exercise an undemocratic special political influence within the Menino Administration’s BRA. But Back Bay Association President Mainzer-Cohen and another member of the Back Bay Association board of directors, Back Bay Real Estate Developer Ronald Druker of The Druker Company, have contributed a lot of money to help fund Boston Mayor Menino’s political campaigns in recent years.

Between March 31, 2005 and April 7, 2009, for example, 5 campaign contributions—totaling $2,500—were given to Mayor Menino’s campaign committee by Back Bay Association President Mainzer-Cohen, according to data posted on the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance [MA OCPF] website. And between March 28, 2005 and April 11, 2011, for example, 7 campaign contributions—totaling $3,500—were also given to Mayor Menino’s campaign committee by Back Bay Association Director Ronald Druker.

Besides helping to fund Mayor Menino’s election campaigns, Back Bay Association Director Druker, coincidentally, has also been apparently attempting to gain a special political influence over local and state politicians in recent years by contributing a lot of money to the campaign committees of members of the Boston City Council, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board’s Political Action Committee [PAC] and the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

Between September 15, 2006 and October 10, 2011, for example, Back Bay Association Director Druker made the following local election campaign contributions:

1. 5 campaign contributions—totaling $850—to Boston City Councilor John Connolly’s campaign committee:

2. 6 campaign contributions—totaling $600—to Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy’s campaign committee;

3. 3 campaign contributions—totaling $400—to Boston City Councilor Felix Arroyo’s campaign committee;

4. 2 campaign contributions—totaling $300—to Boston City Councilor Bill Linehan’s campaign committee;

5. 2 campaign contributions—totaling $250—to Boston City Councilor Ayanna Pressley’s campaign committee; and

6. 3 campaign contributions—totaling $750—to Boston City Councilor Mike Ross’s campaign committee.

In addition, between June 1, 2006 and February 8, 2011, Back Bay Association Director Druker gave 4 campaign contributions—totaling $2,000—to the Greater Boston Real Estate Board PAC and 3 campaign contributions—totaling $4,000—to the Democratic State Committee of Massachusetts, according to the MA OCPF website.

The Back Bay Association’s Form 990 financial filing for 2010 also indicated that Back Bay Association President Mainzer-Cohen was paid an annual salary of $116,830 by the “non-profit” and tax-exempt Back Bay Association in 2010. In addition, Back Bay Association Director Druker apparently has recently developed an interesting personal business relationship with the tax-exempt and “non-profit” association on whose board of directors he sits. As the Back Bay Association’s Form 990 financial filing for 2010 also revealed:

“Beginning June 1, 2010, the Association entered into a commercial office space lease with a trust of which Ronald M. Druker is a trustee. The amount of rent paid under the lease in 2010 was $18,642.”

Real estate developers like Back Bay Association Director Druker apparently believe they will make more money by promoting more stupid growth design principles, over-development and unaffordable housing construction in the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods at the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart streets. But, from a democratic point of view, that shouldn’t mean that elected officials in the City of Boston allow Back Bay Association executives to exercise an undemocratic, special political influence over neighborhood zoning, development and housing policies in exchange for their election campaign contributions.

Portland Police Attack Occupy Wall Street Supporters & Occupy Portland Demonstrators

2011-11-14T09:48:00.000-08:00

Police Repress Occupy Wall Street Support Student Protests on University of California-Berkeley Campus

2011-11-10T08:07:00.001-08:00

U.S. Male Worker Jobless Rate Increases To 9.5 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives

2011-11-09T08:20:00.001-08:00

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all U.S. male workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 9.4 to 9.5 percent between September and October 2011 under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives; while the unemployment rate for all Latino or Hispanic workers in the United states increased from 11.3 to 11.4 percent during the same period.

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States was still 16.2 percent in October 2011; while the unemployment rate in October 2011 for all Black workers was still 15.1 percent. The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 37.8 percent in October 2011; while the unemployment rate for Black women over 20 years-of-age was still 12.6 percent in October 2011.

The number of officially unemployed Black workers was still 2,720,000 in October 2011, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of officially unemployed Black male workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States was still 1,321,000 in October 2011. The number of jobless Black women workers over 20 years-of-age in October 2011 was still 1,164,000; and the number of unemployed Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of age was still 231,000 in October 2011.

Between September and October 2011, the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic workers increased by 56,000 (from 2,604,000 to 2,660,000) according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 9.3 to 9.8 percent during the same period. The number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 66,000 (from 1,225,000 to 1,291,000) between September and October 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers in the United States was still 10.5 percent in October 2011.

According to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, the official unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age increased from 27.1 to 31 percent between September and October 2011; while the number of jobless Latino or Hispanic youths increased by 50,000 (from 257,000 to 307,000) during the same period. The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age also increased from 21.3 to 21.8 percent between September and October 2011; while the number of jobless white youths increased by 43,000 (from 1,006,000 to 1,047,000) during the same period.

The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white workers was still 8 percent in October 2011; while the number of officially unemployed white workers in the United States increased by 70,000 (from 9,951,000 to 10,021,000) between September and October 2011. The number of unemployed white male workers over 20 years-of-age also increased by 112,000 (from 5,034,000 to 5,146,000) between September and October 2011; while the official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 7.7 to 7.9 percent during the same period. And in October 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers (male and female) over 16-years-of-age was still 13,897,000, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ November 4, 2011 press release:

“…Government employment continued to trend down….In October, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…

“Among the marginally attached, there were 967,000 discouraged workers in October…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them…

“Construction employment declined by 20,000 in October…Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-24,000), with most of the October decline in the non-educational component of state government…”

Police Repressing U.S. Occupy Wall Street Protest Supporters

2011-10-30T06:09:00.000-07:00

Remembering Gaddafi's Support For Irish National Liberation Struggle

2011-10-21T06:13:00.001-07:00

Unlike most Wall Street-sponsored Democratic and Republican politicians in the USA,former Libyan government head of state Gaddafi apparently expressed support for the Irish Republican Movement during the years when it was characterized as a movement of "terrorists" by Wall Street's mass media:

Was Gaddafi Executed Without Trial After Being Captured Following NATO Air-Strike?

2011-10-20T07:55:00.000-07:00

An initial October 20, 2011 Reuters article about the mysterious circumstances surrounding former Libyan government leader Gaddafi's recent death, stated the following:

"`He (Gaddafi) was also hit in his head,' NTC official Abdel Majid Mlegta told Reuters. `There was a lot of firing against his group and he died.'

"Mlegta told Reuters earlier that Gaddafi, who was in his late 60s, was captured and wounded in both legs at dawn on Thursday as he tried to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked. He said he had been taken away by an ambulance.".

`Occupy Columbia': Columbia Students Expose Columbia's Wall Street Connections

2011-10-16T09:13:00.000-07:00

(The following column by Yoni Golijov and Sumayya Kassamali was first posted on the Columbia Daily Spectator student newspaper website at Columbia University on October 13, 2011)

OCCUPY COLUMBIA

by Yoni Golijov and Sumayya Kassamali

Let’s not kid ourselves about how the beautiful space that is our university is paid for. Despite the tuition you are paying, the accumulated largesse of oligarchs of Manhattan continues to fund a large share of Columbia’s operations. The slew of named buildings and endowed chairs reflects how much Columbia University’s endowment is the combination of illicit wealth it has accumulated from Caribbean slavery in the past all the way to the financial crisis in 2008.

This larger fact is the background for many smaller connections between Columbia and Wall Street. Columbia’s endowment depends on good relations with the financial Masters of the Universe. For example, all of the five vice chairs of the board of trustees are financiers, from Goldman Sachs to real estate. Then there is the infamous Columbia Business School, where professors of finance reap enormous salaries from outside consulting gigs and positions on corporate boards of directors.

“Inside Job” did well at revealing some of the dodgy conflicts of interest surrounding the business school faculty. But it missed something that’s perhaps deeper. Many of the business school faculty would probably peddle the interests of the ultra-wealthy for free—they really believe it. Glenn Hubbard, the dean, was chair of the Republican Council of Economic Advisors, championed the first Bush tax cuts, and has repeatedly come out in favor of more and bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans as the surest route to growth.

Moving along, there are the various cross-affiliations with the law school. Most immediately, Michael Sovern, former university president and a professor at Columbia Law School, is chairman of the board of Sotheby’s, the luxury art and real estate dealer. Sotheby’s is currently locking out its workers, members of Teamsters’ Local 814, and is demanding that all new hires work temp jobs with no benefits. The lockout has been going on for 10 weeks.

Finally, there is the conflict of interest of President Bollinger’s chairmanship of the board of the New York Federal Reserve. Bollinger was appointed to fill the shoes of Denis Hughes, state president of the AFL-CIO, to “represent the public” in the Fed. But how can Bollinger, whose job involves befriending the ultra-wealthy and convincing them to write checks to the University, carry out responsibilities that could endanger that very wealth (like pushing for higher inflation or large-scale student debt relief)? This is just the tip of the iceberg, and many more connections could be discussed. One ironic consequence of Columbia’s allegiance to the wealthy is that the endowment could actually swell with an increase in high-income and capital gains taxes. The endowment is a tax-exempt foundation, and evidence suggests that donations to such things increase when taxes go up. But the more fundamental problem is the dependence of Columbia’s prestige on the goodwill of the ultra-wealthy. While public universities like CUNY/SUNY are starved of funds, Columbia’s opulence remains, courtesy of a cozy relationship with Wall Street.

Yoni Golijov is a Columbia College senior majoring in economics-philosophy. Sumayya Kassamali is a Ph.D. student in the department of anthropology at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

Occupy London Protests Begins

2011-10-15T07:33:00.000-07:00

Boston Police Arrest Occupy Boston Protesters

2011-10-11T19:06:00.000-07:00

Anti-War Journalist John Pilger Speaks Out Against Endless War In Afghanistan At 10th Anniversary Anti-War Assembly In London

2011-10-10T11:34:00.000-07:00

Anti-War Protesters Maced In D.C.

2011-10-09T07:30:00.001-07:00

Black Male Worker Jobless Rate 16.8 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives

2011-10-08T11:02:00.000-07:00

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States was still 16.8 percent in September 2011 under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives; while the unemployment rate in September 2011 for all Black workers was still 16 percent. The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 44.2 percent in September 2011; while the unemployment rate for Black women over 20 years-of-age was still 13.2 percent September 2011.

The number of officially unemployed Black workers was still 2,893,000 in September 2011, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of officially unemployed Black male workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States was still 1,372,000 in September 2011. The number of jobless Black women workers over 20 years-of-age in September 2011 was still 1,227,000; and the number of unemployed Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of age increased by 3,000 (from 291,000 to 294,000) between August and September 2011.

In September 2011, the official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic workers in the United States remained at 11.3 percent; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic workers increased by 19,000 (from 2,585,000 to 2,604,000) between August and September 2011. The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 8.9 to 9.3 percent between August and September 2011; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 56,000 (from 1,169,000 to 1,225,000) during the same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers in the United States was also still 11.2 percent in September 2011. And according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, the official unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19-years-of-age was still 27.1 in September 2011; while the number of jobless Latino or Hispanic youths in September 2011 was still 257,000, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 21.3 percent in September 2011.

Between August and September 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Asian-American workers jumped from 7.1 to 7.8 percent; while the number of unemployed Asian-American workers increased by 50,000 (from 517,000 to 577,000) during the same period.

The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white workers was still 8 percent in September 2011; while the number of officially unemployed white workers in the United States increased by 19,000 (from 9,932,000 to 9,951,000) between August and September 2011. The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 7 to 7.1 percent between August and September 2011; while the number of unemployed white female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 83,000 (from 3,828,000 to 3,911,000) during this same period. The number of unemployed white male workers over 20 years-of-age also increased by 37,000 (from 4,997,000 to 5,034,000) between August and September 2011; while the official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 7.7 percent in September 2011.

For all U.S. workers (male and female) over 16 years-of-age, the official "seasonally adjusted" unemployment rate was still 9.1 percent in September 2011; while the jobless rate for U.S. female workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 8.5 to 8.7 percent between August and September 2011. The official jobless rate for U.S. male workers over 16 years-of-age was still 9.4 percent in September 2011; while the number of unemployed U.S. female workers over 16 years-of-age increased by 119,000 (from 6,114,000 to 6,233,000) between August and September 2011. In addition, the jobless rate for U.S. female workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 8 to 8.1 percent between August and September 2011; while the number of unemployed female workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States also increased by 150,000 (from 5,472,000 to 5,622,000) during this same period. And between August and September 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers over 16-years-of-age increased by 25,000 (from 13,967,000 to 13,992,000), according to the “seasonally adjusted” data.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ October 7, 2011 press release:

“Government employment continued to trend down….The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was 6.2 million in September. These individuals accounted for 44.6 percent of the unemployed…

“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose to 9.3 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job...

“In September, about 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force… These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…Among the marginally attached, there were 1 million discouraged workers in September. Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them…

“Manufacturing employment changed little in September (-13,000) and has been essentially flat for the past 2 months…Within retail trade, employment declined in electronic and appliance stores (-9,000) in September…Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-34,000). The U.S. Postal Service continued to lose jobs (-5,000). Local government employment declined by 35,000..."

"Back Bay Tower" Folk Song Protests Against Copley Place Residential Addition/Winter Garden In Boston

2011-10-06T11:42:00.000-07:00

(chorus)
To profit Neiman Marcus
And Simon Property
Is not sufficient reason
For approval by the City.

(verses)
They want to build a tower
Forty-seven stories high
From the middle of Back Bay
Right up to the sky
They want to cast a shadow
All over Copley Square
From luxury apartaments
On top of a big store. (chorus)

They want to build a skyscraper
Right next to Tent City
And clog the streets with trucks
And make the air dirty
For three long years their cranes
Will endanger pedestrians
And yet another wind tunnel
Will be created at the end. (chorus)

They promise many jobs
When they build with borrowed cash
But if they can't pay off their debts
With a big hole we'll be stuck
And none of the apartments
Will be affordable to the poor
Or even to the workers
Who build them with their labor. (chorus)

So if you think your neighborhood
Doesn't need their Back Bay Tower
And to enclose public space in glass
So Neiman Marcus stock can go higher
Then it's time to stop this skyscraper
From being built on the Copley Mall
And to protest as a community
And to protest to City Hall. (chorus)

Labor Union Members Join Occupy Wall Street Protest

2011-10-05T20:58:00.000-07:00

NYC Cops Block Occupy Wall Street Protest March Across Brooklyn Bridge, Arrest Over 700

2011-10-01T22:59:00.000-07:00

Ten Years After 9/11: An Interview with `Journal of 9/11 Studies' Co-Editor Kevin Ryan and `To Prevent the Next "9/11"' Author Don Paul

2011-09-27T17:43:00.000-07:00

(In the following email interview, Kevin Ryan and Don Paul recently responded to a few of the assertions made in an Aug. 29, 2011 article that was posted on the BBC News site)

How would you respond to BBC News' claim that the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]'s official story of why the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11/01 is accurate?

Kevin Ryan [KR]: In general, the NIST WTC reports are false because NIST did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed--as was its charter--and the investigations were deceptive and unscientific. For example, NIST reported findings that were in direct contradiction to the physical testing performed and omitted or distorted many important facts. And since NIST cannot share its results with the public, its results cannot be independently verified as required in science. NIST’s explanations have also not been taken seriously by the building construction community.

I cover the exact sequence of the NIST report for the towers in a short video [at the following link:]
http://digwithin.net/2011/08/16/why-the-nist-report-on-the-wtc-towers-is-false/

In its Aug. 29, 2011 article, BBC News asserted that since the Twin Towers collapse started at the top, it could not have resulted from “controlled demolition,” because "controlled demolition is nearly always carried out from the bottom floors up," according to BBC News. What's your response to these assertions by BBC News?

KR: Nothing falls through the path of most resistance, and certainly not the human mind.

The phrase "controlled demolition" is inappropriate for the towers for two reasons. First, it was "semi-controlled" at best, and the destruction was meant to harm occupants and bystanders. Many were killed within. And some, fleeing, were killed by the falling debris—including the daughter of my friend Donna Marsh O’Connor. Secondly, the phrase misleads people into thinking it was in most respects similar to other demolitions.

But, in fact, it was meant to be a "deceptive demolition" whereby an audience was deceived into thinking that the destruction was caused by the planes and the resulting fires. To do so required creating fires that would not have otherwise existed--for example those on the south wall of WTC1--and timing the explosions to present the idea that in each case the top section--which turned to dust as it fell--crushed the many stories of cold steel structure below.

Don Paul [DP]: I think “unprecedented demolitions” is a fitting term for what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11/01. That they were demolitions is indubitable. That nothing much like their explosiveness and destructive potency had ever been done to buildings before in history is also indubitable. So “unprecedented demolitions” seems fitting.

Nanothermitics’ multiplying potency is one explanation for the explosiveness. Steven Jones’ 2006 paper--“Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?”--quotes an article by John Gartner in Technology Review of January, 2005. The article is titled “Military Reloads with Nanotech” [and] Gartner writes: “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminium with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives and Technology group at Los Alamos.”

Thus, the finding and analysis of nanothermitic residue in chips from the Twins Towers is of leading importance in tracing the How and the Who of the Twin Towers’ and Building 7’s destruction—molten metal lasted for many weeks in the footprint of WTC 7, too.

Nine researchers’ papers from April 2009, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from World Trade Center Catastrophe” is a landmark. And two articles by Kevin from 2008 point to persons and entities that deserve further investigation: “The Top 10 Connections between NIST and Nanothermites” and “Another Amazing Coincidence Related to the WTC.”

[See www.bethamscience.com http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html http://911blogger.com/node/13272]

KR: Eyewitnesses have also said that there were basement level explosions. And the BBC premise is faulty as well.

[See following links:
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-12/911-eyewitnesses-describe-wtc-basement-explosions
http://911blogger.com/node/20985]

BBC News also asserted that "no evidence has ever been found of explosive charges" or any pre-cutting of columns or walls at the Twin Towers that would indicate a demolition. How would you respond to this BBC News assertion?

KR: Evidence of extreme temperatures has been found. The environmental evidence suggests thermitic materials. Nanothermite has been found. Eyewitness testimony is evidence. And photographic evidence has "been found."

[As described in following links: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf ;
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ ;
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM;
http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html;
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony;
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html]

BBC News also asserted that on United Airlines Flight 93 there was "a passenger revolt" and "the military never gave orders to the air force to shoot the commercial airlines down." What's your response to yet another example of BBC News' unquestioned support for the official story?

KR: With flight 93, as with everything else, we must start with the evidence. Since no one supposed to be on the plane survived its crash, we must consider the questions of standard operating procedure—e.g. why was the hijack code not squawked?--and whatever the government gives us--for example, the transcript of the cockpit recorder.

The debris pattern is important, in that it was spread over a radius of several miles. The lack of wreckage in the alleged impact area is important.

And the finding of the alleged hijacker pilot's passport and bandana at the surface, while the remainder of said pilot was buried in the cockpit 150 feet below, is "evidence" of a different sort.

Overall, the evidence suggests that the airliner was shot down.

[See following links:
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93cvr.html ).
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html ]

BBC News also claimed that the only reason Building 7 collapsed without being hit by any planes was because of "uncontrolled fire, started by the collapse of the nearby North Tower, and which burned for 7 hours" and that no "evidence of thermite or explosives" were found there. How would you respond to this BBC News claim?

KR: I walk people through the NIST report for WTC 7 in a short video.

[at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU]

The WTC 7 report is false for the following reasons: No physical tests were done to confirm the NIST explanation and the fire hypothesis is contradicted by the known fire resistance plan. The fires in WTC 7 lasted only 20 minutes in each area while the steel components were rated for hours of fire resistance.

NIST’s final theory was based entirely on computer simulations that are not based on evidence and NIST’s fire modeling contradicts the photographic evidence. The fires in the critical areas--NE corner of floor 12--were out long before collapse. NIST did not heat the floor slabs in its model of differential thermal expansion. NIST ignored known facts about shear studs on the critical girder, [since] the maximum thermal expansion possible could not have caused the girder to “walk-off” its seat. [So] the NIST computer result does not accurately model the collapse

Why do you think BBC News, other mainstream media news organizations and nearly all the alternative media outlets and gatekeepers still are unwilling to encourage much questioning of the official U.S. government story of what happened ten years ago on 9/11? And how would you compare the global mass media commemoration and revisiting of the 9/11/01 events ten years after 9/11 with the way the global mass media generally commemorated and revisited the 11/22/63 events ten years after JFK was eliminated in Dallas?

KR: For several reasons. First, it is difficult to accept the truth that we do not know the truth. Secondly, they would be admitting that they have been grossly negligent in their jobs for many years. And lastly, if they do encourage it, they will lose their funding or their jobs.

I'm not really in a position to compare the two because I was only 10 years old in 1973 and have not studied the JFK history enough to know.

DP: BBC News and other mega-media and the mega-rich Foundations that fund much of the so-called alternative media all are materially dependent upon maintaining the credibility of the pretext for the “War on Terror.” The whole complex of them, making up key parts of a supranational Corporate Government across the Western world, needed a casus belli for the Anglo-American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. And for the repression of insurgent citizens’ movements that were growing—like the anti-World Trade Organization [WTO] protest movement—in 1999 to 2001.

They need now, of course, to keep up full-scale denial and disinformation against proofs and movements that completely undermine their spectacular pretext, “9/11,” for the “War on Terror.”

The problem for them now is that their pretext, their casus belli, has become year-by-year more incredible and indefensible. Polls—some of which I cite in “The 10th Anniversary Is A Time To Declare That Truth Is Winning” article on the www.puppetgov.com site—show that the public in the United States and other Western nations don’t believe the Corporate Government’s Official Story for 9/11/01 and want to know what really happened.

We who have seen the evidence for the day’s crimes and doubt explanations such as NIST’s are now a growing majority. We’re part of a growing majority of the public in the Western world who no longer believe our Governments and their echo-chamber of talking heads. The supranational Corporate Government is rightly recognized as the real source of crimes that are taking away our homes, our freedoms, and our livelihoods—if not our very lives. Who owns BBC News? Whom and what does BBC News serve? Who owns NBC, ABC, Time-Warner, et cetera? Who owns General Electric? Who and what owns General Dynamics, Exxon Mobil and Lockheed Martin? Who and what own the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Bank of England, the Bank of France, the Bank of Japan, and the Bank of International Settlements?

The difference I see between the Corporate Government and its mega-media’s coverage of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and the 10th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy is that the former was an exaggerated spectacle, a fanfare of theatrics fanned by increasing desperation to cover up truth. While the latter, earlier anniversary, 10 years after JFK was shot—and five years after Jim Garrison’s prosecutions forced broad attention back on that murder—was as minimal as it could credibly be, as I recall.

November 22, 1973 came as pressure mounted on the Nixon White House and the public of the U.S. and elsewhere in the Western World suffered gas-shortages and sudden economic hard-times due to the supposed “Oil Crisis.” Then, I think, many fewer of the public had the knowledge for suspicions as to what and who were really behind mega-media’s News and the sources for their personal losses and suffering.

The crimes of 9/11/01 were a far more desperate and brazen attack on the public of the Western World than the obvious, bankers-orchestrated, CIA killing of JFK—and that plot’s even more transparent murder of the unexpectedly surviving “patsy” Oswald. The same failing systems bet on the crimes of 9/11 as played and profited from the killing of JFK. But because their 21st-century/9/11 crimes are so much more spectacular and heinous—thousands dead in Lower Manhattan due to Towers that exploded into bits of dust—they are correspondingly more vulnerable.

Exposure of the true crimes of 9/11 goes forward. Bringing to light the full truth of those crimes is our best way to honor the dead of that day and the millions more dead in wars for Banks’ debts. The full truth is also our best way out of the “War on Terror”—as those who “Occupy Wall Street” join those millions of citizens who have protested in the past year. And thousands more plan to occupy Washington, D.C. this year. [see www.occupywallst.org and www.october2011.org]

NYC Cops Attack Occupy Wall Street Demonstrators

2011-09-26T09:37:00.000-07:00

Let Him Live In Georgia In September 2011!

2011-09-21T10:45:00.000-07:00

Remembering Carl Oglesby

2011-09-14T17:37:00.000-07:00

Alan Lomax Folk Music Documentary From 1947

2011-09-12T21:07:00.000-07:00

U.S. Workers Demand Affordable Housing

2011-09-12T07:42:00.000-07:00

`Let Me Tell You About 9-11'

2011-09-11T18:23:00.000-07:00

"More Civilians Died"

2011-09-11T17:31:00.000-07:00

They sent their planes to bomb Tokyo
Civilians they defined as their foe
German cities they bombed long ago
The civilian body count, it did grow

For her work on a plane, a small paycheck
For feeding passengers, an early death

An A-Bomb they did drop on Hiroshima
And thousands more civilians were slaughtered
And Nagasaki too, three days later
Became a new graveyard for more civilians

A student so young, sitting on a plane
The Twin Towers appear, the passengers all scream

They sent their jets to bomb Korea
Civilians down below were massacred
Then 8 years they did bomb Vietnam
And millions who were killed: civilians

He worked as a waiter on the top floor
His pay it was so low, but he died in the fire

They sent their jets to bomb Lebanon
And more civilians died on the ground
Refugee camps attacked, filled with Palestinians
More civilians killed for political reasons

She went to work each day in a skyscraper
And died by a computer on the 97th floor

And Baghdad and Belgrade, they did bomb
And more civilians died, while many sobbed
And now they're in a war for Unocal
To build a new pipeline is their goal

To rescue civilians, the firemen ran inside
The tower then collapsed, and they also died

How many more civilians will now be killed
By the ones who rely on terror to rule the world?
It looks like we're all doomed pretty soon
Unless civilians rise up to change the world

The World Trade Center destroyed and thousands died
Victims of conspiracies of the presidents who hide

The rulers of this land rely on fear
But fire can't be fought with more fire
So Civilians let's unite, before it's too late
And build a new world that's free of their hate.

The "More Civilians Died" public domain protest folk song was written in late 2001--before many more questions about the U.S. government and Big Media's official version of what actually happened on 9/11/01 in Downtown Manhattan began to be raised by an increasing number of anti-war 9/11 truth activists during the following 10 years.

Poet Don Paul's `9/11 Is A Big Lie' lyrics

2011-09-09T11:24:00.000-07:00

(chorus)
9/11 is a Big Lie (Nine----Eee-lev-on…)
9/11 is a Big Lie
9/11 is Big Lie
And we’re gonna shout-shout-shout it
Loud and high
And we’re gonna shout-shout-shout it
To the skies

(verses)
Airliners off-course across hours of sky
34 minutes between two planes’ hits
Towers exploding into bits
Hundreds thousands tons of concrete
Blown to dust
And tens thousands tons of steel
Brought straight down (chorus)

Oh, they fell so fast, fell straight down
Fell through beams and columns as much as four feet thick
Fell through their cores of steel as fast as dust
Fell with oceans’ roars and volcanoes’ rush
Fell like elevators erupting to the ground
As their victims screamed and we hugged ourselves

Oh what’a—what’a—what’a are we to make of this
Blows that stuck-struck-struck us like a fist
Blows whose shock hid their source
Blows that hammered past our eyes
Blows meant to inflame and galvanize
Blows meant to numb and paralyze
Blows meant to send us into the “Endless War”
That is a Ruling Few’s “New World Order” (chorus)

Giuliani knew South Tower would “collapse”
He fled his post as firefighters died
Jerry Hauer told Dan Rather on CBS
The planes did it under bin Laden’s hands
Cherkasky and Bremer chimed right in,
Sitting on evidence that would indict them,
While Larry and Pete, GMAC and GE,
Raked in profits from insurance plans,
From weapons, oils, and Afghan opium
Like Maurice Greenberg and his sons
They all got richer, oh yes indeed
Like Rockefeller and Rothschilds over hundred years,
They all got richer amid our tears
Like so many killers over hundreds years
They all got richer amid our tears
From blasted Buildings, molten earth,
Victims’ screams and broken dreams
They all got richer amid our tears.

Oh what’a—what’a—what’a are we to make of this
Blows that struck us—struck us-struck us like a fist
Blows whose shock hid their source
Blows that hammered past our eyes
Meant to make us fear, obey, and stand in lines
Under Universal Debt in One Big Bank,
Meant to send us into the “Endless War”
That is a Ruling Few’s “New World Order” (chorus)

Six years now the Official Story has spun
Like the sun around Earth, not the reverse
A Dark Age indeed, one of Kings and serfs
And trusty hacks that are sure to hide the facts—
On FEMA, on NIST, on Times and on Post!—
In the mighty Wurlitzer universe,
Pods and flashes highlit to matter more
Than mass murder from skyscrapers
Brought straight down—
Than Endless War bound to concrete
Blown to dust—
Than a past and future Terror
None can trust

And yet—yet—yet we people of the round,
Truths are there for us to take up
Truths simple but supple like a circle’s hands
Truths that can span all seas and lands

(final chorus)
9/11 is a Big Lie (Nine----Eee-lev-on…)
9/11 is a Big Lie
9/1 is Big Lie
And we’re gonna shout-shout-shout out
What we see!
And we’re gonna shout-shout-shout
The truth free!

(final verse)
We’ll throw back the Cards dealt to us
We’ll refuse to die under torn-out skies
We’ll fight-fight-fight with our tools
We’re gonna fight-fight-fight for this century
Now we have the tools for all to be free
Now we have the tools for all to be free
We’re gonna fight—fight-fight-fight for this century
Now we have the tools for all to be free.

Black Male Worker Jobless Rate Jumps To 18 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives

2011-09-02T11:16:00.000-07:00

Between July and August 2011, the official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States jumped from 17 to 18 percent under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives; while the unemployment rate for all Black workers jumped from 15.9 to 16.7 percent during the same period, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age also jumped from 39.2 to 46.5 percent between July and August 2011; while the unemployment rate for Black women over 20 years-of-age was still 13.4 percent in August 2011.

The number of officially unemployed Black workers increased by 193,000 (from 2,796,000 to 2,989,000) between July and August 2011, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of officially unemployed Black male workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States increased by 105,000 (from 1,364,000 to 1,469,000) during the same period. The number of jobless Black women workers over 20 years-of-age also increased by 30,000 (from 1,200,000 to 1,230,000) between July and August 2011; and the number of unemployed Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of age increased by 58,000 (from 233,000 to 291,000) during the same period.

In August 2011, the official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic workers in the United States was still 11.3 percent; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic workers increased by 15,000 (from 2,570,000 to 2,585,000) between July and August 2011. The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 11.3 to 11.4 percent between July and August 2011; while the number of unemployed Latina or Hispanic female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 28,000 (from 987,000 to 1,015,000) during the same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers in the United States was also still 8.9 percent in August 2011. And according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, the official unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age increased from 36.2 to 37.4 percent between July and August 2011; while the number of Latino or Hispanic youths who had jobs dropped by 77,000 (from 708,000 to 631,000) during this same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 23 percent in August 2011; while the number of unemployed white youths increased by 23,000 (from 1,083,000 to 1,106,000) between July and August 2011. The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 8 percent in August 2011; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Asian-American workers was still 7.1 percent during the same month, although the number of Asian-American workers who had jobs dropped by 50,000 (from 6,838,000 to 6,788,000) between July and August 2011. In addition, the official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white female workers was still 7 percent in August 2011, although the number of white female workers over 20 years-of-age with jobs dropped by 40,000 (from 50,866,000 to 50,826,000) between July and August 2011.

For all U.S. workers (male and female) over 16 years-of-age, the official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate was still 9.1 percent in August 2011; while the jobless rate for all U.S. male workers over 16 years-of-age was still 9.6 percent in August 2011. And between July and August 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers over 16 years-of-age increased by 36,000 (from 13,931,000 to 13,967,000), according to the “seasonally adjusted” data.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Sept. 2, 2011 press release:

“…Government employment continued to trend down…The number of unemployed persons, at 14.0 million, was essentially unchanged in August, and the unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent…The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was about unchanged at 6.0 million in August and accounted for 42.9 percent of the unemployed…The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.4 million to 8.8 million in August. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job…

“About 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in August, up from 2.4 million a year earlier…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…Among the marginally attached, there were 977,000 discouraged workers in August…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them…

“Total nonfarm payroll employment, at 131.1 million, was unchanged in August…Employment changed little in most major private-sector industries…Employment in the information industry declined by 48,000 in August. About 45,000 workers in the telecommunications industry were on strike and thus off company payrolls during the survey reference period…Manufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in August (-3,000)…

“Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-17,000)…Employment in local government continued to decline…In August, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased…The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +46,000 to +20,000, and the change for July was revised from +117,000 to +85,000…”

`Humanitarian NATO' protest folk song lyrics

2011-08-27T09:12:00.000-07:00

(chorus)
"Humanitarian NATO
Is coming to help you fight
Humanitarian NATO
Will bomb your land tonight
Humanitarian NATO
Will help you to be free
Humanitarian NATO
Will arm you covertly."

(verses)
It bombed in Bosnia, it bombed in Serbia
And thousands of civilians cried
It bombed in Afghanistan, it bombed in Iraq
And thousands of civilians died.

It bombed in Pakistan and used a lot of drones
And thousands of civilians died
It bombed in Libya and sent its secret teams
And thousands of civilians cried. (chorus)

It funds some NGOs and arms some dissidents
In countries it hopes to re-colonize
It declares a `no-fly zone' on behalf of Big Oil
Then bombs TV stations to hide its crimes.

It wants to change regimes in those countries
Whose leaders won't bow down to Uncle Sam
To punish its rebellious former colonies
It bombs for the UK, Italy and France. (chorus)

Who gave NATO the right to attack
And to wage war offensively?
Aggression is aggression, even if it's masked
As being done for "humanity."

So if it bombs Syria or if it bombs Iran
And thousands of civilians die
And if it bombs Cuba and Venezuela
Remember that NATO likes to lie.

(final chorus)
"Humanitarian NATO
Is coming to help you fight
Humanitarian NATO
Will bomb your land tonight."

Kucinich Accuses NATO & Democratic Obama Administration of International Law Violations in Libya in Aug. 23, 2011 Statement

2011-08-24T09:22:00.001-07:00

WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 23, 2011) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has led the fight in the House challenging the Obama Administration’s actions in Libya, today released the following statement:

“Libyan rebels have entered Tripoli. As gun battles break out across the city, it is timely to enter into a discussion as to how the rebels arrived there. It is time to review the curious role of NATO and the future of U.S. interventionism.

A negotiated settlement in Libya was deliberately avoided for months while NATO, in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973, illegally pursued regime change. NATO chose sides, intervened in a civil war and morphed into the air force for the rebels, who could not have succeeded but for NATO’s attacks.

NATO acted with impunity. The NATO command recklessly bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians. Usurping the United Nation's traditional role, NATO looked the other way as the arms embargo was openly violated by U.N. member nations.

NATO's top commanders may have acted under color of international law but they are not exempt from international law. If members of the Gaddafi Regime are to be held accountable, NATO's top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing. Otherwise we will have witnessed the triumph of a new international gangsterism.

The reasons for the U.S./NATO intervention in Libya keep changing. First it was about the potential for a massacre in Benghazi. When the massacre did not materialize and once the war against Libya was underway, the reasons for intervention changed.

We were reminded Libya had spent 'forty years under a tyrant.' We were urged to remember the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, which occurred 23 years ago this December 21st. Yet almost 20 years later, on November 18, 2008 the Associated Press reported that President George Bush called Colonel Gaddafi personally "to voice his satisfaction that Libya has settled a long-standing dispute over terrorist attacks, including the bombing of a Pan Am jet over Scotland."

On December 19, 2003 Libya voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapon-making capability and on January 6, 2004 ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Its relationship with the U.S. on the mend, Libya then opened up to international investment and began the wholesale privatization of its industries, leading to massive unemployment and dissatisfaction with the state of things, particularly among younger Libyans.

I mention this not to sympathize with Colonel Gaddafi’s brutality or to minimize the great tragedy of Flight 103. But if the U.S. had come to terms with Gaddafi’s past violence, why does the Obama Administration invoke it as justification for an attack on Libya? One conclusion could be that the reasons for the March 2011 attack were bogus.

Once into the war, the Administration promptly passed off nominal responsibility for the war to NATO, after beginning the war without congressional authorization. NATO became the beneficiary of U.S. funds, U.S. war planes, U.S. drones, U.S. bombs, and U.S. intelligence assets.

NATO violated UNSC resolutions. The Obama Administration violated the U.S. Constitution by bypassing Congress on the war. These are not mere academic matters. They have moved the world community from the rule of law to the rule of force and have set a precedent for NATO to become the new global-cop. Far from bringing a new level of security to the world scene, NATO has brought a new level of insecurity and unaccountability.

The question of the reason for United States’ involvement in Libya remains.

Was the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency involved in planning for regime change prior to events in February and March in Benghazi? Did the CIA and its assets have a role in fomenting a civil war?

Was the United States, through participation in the overthrow of the regime, furthering the aims of international oil corporations in pursuit of control over one of the world's largest oil resources?

Did the United States at the inception of the war against Libya align itself with elements of Al Qaeda, while elsewhere continuing to use the threat of Al Qaeda as a reason for U.S. military intervention, presence and occupation?

The foreign policy objectives of the Obama Administration are cloudy. Pledges to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are in doubt. The Iraq War is supposed to be over at the end of this year, yet that promise appears to be fading. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan appears to be open-ended. The latest reports describe a U.S. commitment in Afghanistan through 2024. This raises the question as to whether the Administration has full control over the military and intelligence apparatus.

In the case of Libya, now that NATO, with the help of the U.S., has brought the rebels into the streets of Tripoli to fight, what follows? What’s the plan? Who governs and for whose sake? Will Libya become NATO's protectorate?

It is not only the Gaddafi compound in Tripoli that will be left in ruins by NATO’s actions; it will also be the Obama Administration’s relationship with the African Union (AU). The AU and its member nations have been repeatedly rebuffed by the U.S. in its efforts to bring about a peaceful, negotiated settlement for the regime’s transition out of power. While the U.S., through NATO, has been bombing Libya, China has spent time building commercial opportunities across the African continent.

As the Administration indulges itself with wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan - spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military adventurism - the United States has massive economic problems at home. Resources which should be spent creating jobs in America are going to perpetuate war abroad. Resources which should be used to build bridges in America continue to be used to bomb bridges elsewhere.

Millions of Americans are begging for a chance to earn their daily bread while the government spends its money on daily bombing. While the government has yet to produce a viable jobs program to put millions of unemployed back to work, the waste of resources on war is guaranteed to continue: The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are NOT to subject to spending caps in the budget. The American people get myths, rhetoric and unemployment while war profiteers get the gold. Can you imagine what the people of Libya will get?”

August 22, 2011 Update From Tripoli:

2011-08-22T21:59:00.000-07:00

August 21, 2011 Press Conference In Tripoli On Results of NATO Bombing Campaign

2011-08-21T20:58:00.000-07:00

Another RT News Aug. 21, 2011 Report on NATO Attack on Tripoli

2011-08-21T08:11:00.000-07:00

RT News' Aug. 21, 2011 Update On NATO Bombing of Tripoli

2011-08-21T08:07:00.000-07:00

Black Worker Jobless Rate: 16.8 percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives

2011-08-05T08:29:00.000-07:00

Between June and July 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Black workers in the United States increased from 16.5 to 16.8 percent under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives; while the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all white workers in the United States was still 8.2 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Asian-American workers in the United States also jumped from 6.8 to 7.7 percent between June and July 2011.

The number of officially unemployed African-American workers increased by 32,000 (from 2,972,000 to 3,004,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of officially unemployed Asian-American workers in the United States increased by 64,000 (from 504,000 to 568,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age jumped from 13.9 to 14.8 percent between June and July 2011; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 16.7 percent in July 2011. The number of unemployed Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 90,000 (from 1,251,000 to 1,341,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed white female workers over 20-years-of-age increased by 61,000 (from 3,958,000 to 4,119,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 7.3 to 7.6 percent between June and July 2011.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years of age was still 41.4 percent in July 2011, while the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years of age was still 23.3 percent in July 2011.

In July 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic workers in the United States was still 11.3 percent; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic workers was still 2,596,000, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers was still 11.3 percent in July 2011; while the number of Latina or Hispanic female workers who had jobs dropped by 117,000 (from 7,852,000 to 7,735,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers in the United States was also still 9.2 percent in July 2011. And according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, the official unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19-years-of-age increased from 35.4 to 36.2 percent between June and July 2011; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic youths increased by 42,000 (from 360,000 to 402,000) during this same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

For all U.S. workers (male and female) over 16 years-of-age, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate was still 9.3 percent in July 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all female workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 9.1 to 9.4 percent between June and July 2011. Between June and July 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers over 16-years-of-age increased by 19,000 (from 14,409,000 to 14,428,000), according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ August 5, 2011 press release:

“…The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over), at 6.2 million, changed little over the month and accounted for 44.4 percent of the unemployed…

“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was about unchanged in July at 8.4 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job…

“In July, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…

“Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged workers in July…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believed no jobs are available for them…

“…Government employment continued to decline…

“Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-37,000). Employment in state government decreased by 23,000, almost entirely due to a partial shutdown of the Minnesota state government. Employment in local government continued to wane over the month…”

Imprisoned Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner's July 18, 2011 Message From Behind The Wall

2011-07-22T11:17:00.000-07:00

(The following article was originally posted on Chuck Turner's blog at the United for Peace with Justice site)

Reflections from Behind the Wall
Anatomy of a FrameUp

This is the fourth installment of an eight part series in which I discuss my two and a half year experience with the Justice Department which resulted in my now being a convicted felon at the work camp of USP Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia.

A) Narrative:

Riding home from the courthouse with my wife and one of my daughters after escaping the clutches of the media was a welcomed relief after my first day as an accused felon. But I couldn't escape. On the radio, the broadcaster was telling those who had heard and those who hadn't that Councilor Turner not only was arrested but also was stripped by the Council President of all his committee responsibilities and had been invited to an executive session of the City Council the following Monday. Well, at least I'll have a relatively quiet weekend to figure out what to do, I thought.

What I forgot was that the media never sleeps. When I got home, they were there and even though I wouldn't talk to them, they stayed there until all our friends had left. Bright and early the next day, they came back. Different people but with the same insistence on my answering their needs until I asked the police to put up a Do Not Cross per order of the police barrier.

Throughout the day, calls from friends and family gave needed reassurance that I continued to have their support. Particularly helpful were calls from Steve Kirshbaum, School Bus Drivers Union steward and International Action Center leader, and Aaron Tanaka, the organizer for the Boston Workers' Alliance, an organization of unemployed workers that I had helped to organize and that was operating out of my District Office. Their question was whether I wanted them to organize a rally at City Hall on Monday. My immediate response was yes.

Knowing their organizing skills, I knew that all I would have to think about for Monday was what to say at the rally. With the plan for organizing the rally in place, the strategy for dealing with the Council and the Council President was clear. Council President Feeney had invited me to an executive session of the Council which would be just the Council members, the City Clerk, and Corporation Counsel Bill Sinnott, the Mayor's lawyer, who was advising her on strategy. In that setting, I would be like a lamb being led to slaughter since the only votes I could depend on would be the votes of the three Councilors of color.

However. I had a plan B. Under the Council rules, I had a right to call for a public meeting. This would give me leverage because if Steve and Aaron could turn out my supporters, Feeeney would be psychologically intimidated and would probably cancel the meeting rather than attempt to take action against me while my supporters watched. With the sense that the tide was beginning to flow with me rather than against me, I concentrated on writing the letter to the Council President to let her know that I wanted an open meeting as well as writing a speech for the rally.

My plan was to use the rally to pick holes in the prosecution's case. The flaws were clear in the FBI affidavit that laid out their case. What better time and place to rip their case to shreds than in front of City Hall with a crowd of my supporters. However, after spending hours on Saturday and Sunday writing and rewriting my speech, my lawyers let me know in very certain terms that it was their job to defend me, not mine. Why help those who were trying to put you in jail, by showing them our key arguments, they said repeatedly.

My response was that while I understood their legal perspective, I was an elected official facing an election in less than a year. I couldn't allow the media to try to convict me in the court of public opinion and keep quiet. That would be tantamount to saying that I was guilty and conceding defeat in the election. One of the reasons for my popularity was that I had always spoken truth to power. I could not ask people to believe that I was innocent and to vote for me despite the charges while saying that I couldn't talk about the case on advice of Council. Their response, I reasoned, would be that I must be guilty if I wasn't willing to talk about the case.

Thus on the evening of November 23, 2008 began the great debate between myself and my lawyers that didn't end until October 25, 2010 when I took the stand to testify in my own defense. There are many who were close to that debate who will say that I am at USP Hazelton today not because of the skills of my prosecutor or the strength of their case but because I refused to follow my lawyer's advice and keep my mouth shut. In all candor, I have to admit that they might be right. However, as I said on a number of occasions, I would rather go to jail than stop living by my principles which required that I speak out in my own defense. I couldn't give up my integrity even if it meant that I had to go to jail. That's the way I felt two and a half years ago. Today, I continue to believe that I did the right thing even though I sit here, a convicted felon at the beginning of my three year sentence.

While I believed I couldn't sacrifice my principles, I had to recognize the logic of their argument and began to walk a tight rope that I hoped would take me to a not guilty verdict. So I changed the speech to focus more on the politics of my situation rather than the specifics of the case. Even with that compromise, Terri and my lawyers warned me that the prosecutors would be listening to my every word and would try to use what I said against me at every possible opportunity. They were right. Almost every time I went to court, the prosecutors would make some reference to what I was saying in the court of public opinion as you will see as I proceed to describe what happened in my almost three year struggle with the Justice Department.

The next day at City Hall was a blur of activity: Reporters demanding their pound of flesh; friends and supporters coming and calling to wish me well; discussions with staff about next steps to make sure our constituents' needs were being met, despite my problems. Then at 1:15, an excited staff member rushed into the office to say that our strategy of holding a rally at City Hall before the Council meeting had worked. Council President Feeney, seeing my supporters beginning to gather for the rally and having seen my letter asking for an open meeting announced at her press conference that she was canceling the Council meeting "in the interests of public safety." She said that she would wait until a grand jury indictment before deciding her next steps.

At 2:25, joined by Terri and friends, I proceeded down stairs to the rally. While I had heard reports of growing numbers, I had decided to wait until the rally to go to the plaza. As I neared the doors leading to City Hall Plaza, I was literally amazed. Knowing the skills of those organizing the rally, I had expected a good turnout. I was not expecting to see the plaza filled with young and old; black, white, Latino, Asian, Cape Verdean looking faces-a virtual rainbow of the city. Throughout the crowd signs in the red and white campaign colors were waving, proclaiming Support Chuck Turner: Bold, Bald, and Bright. Estimates were that over 500 people came to support me that Monday afternoon.

Looking at the magnificent turnout, all I could say was Thank You God. I knew that the physical work had been done by Steve, Aaron, and a myriad of others. I also knew that this out pouring of love and support was based on the spirit in the hearts of people moving them to come to my defense in my greatest moment of need. Naturally, I began my speech by announcing that their presence had brought our first victory--the cancellation of the hearing by Council President Feeney. However, I reminded them that winning a battle does not end a war and that I would continue to need their support during the coming months and possibly years as the legal process worked its way through the courts.

I called attention to the fact that I had not even been indicted by the grand jury and yet the media was finding me guilty. What happened to the alleged right in this country for a person to be considered innocent until convicted by a jury of his or her peers. I said that I was not going to stand by while the media worked to convince the public of my guilt even before my lawyers had seen the alleged evidence. I declared that while my lawyers would defend me in the court of laws, I would from this day forth be my own lawyer in the court of public opinion.

In closing, I reminded them that we had to keep the faith as we had in the past and must in the future, that the righteousness of our cause would carry us ultimately to victory. We had to understand that behind the clouds that have and will continue to darken our path the sun always shines, leading us to victory. I also warned them that the police were waiting inside City Hall to make Councilor Feeney's prophecy of a disturbance at City Hall a reality and asked every one to go back to the community and spread the word that I was inviting people to join me at my community office in two days, the day before Thanksgiving to discuss our next steps. (That was the rally that I discussed in Installment 1).

A month later, a week after my December 10th indictment, Council President Feeney announced that she had hired a prominent Boston lawyer who had been a judge magistrate to act as a fact finder in my case. She didn't announce that the Mayor had agreed to let her use City money to pay him at the rate of $500 an hour. When I saw the report in the paper, I said to some friends that I knew that the Mayor didn't want me around but I didn't think he was willing to pay that much. I guess I was having more impact than I thought.

At the next Council meeting, I argued that the process the Council President was initiating would jeopardize my right to a fair trial in federal court. For the Council President to pay a fact finder to try to gather "evidence" that could be used against me in a Council process would put me on trial in front of the Council before my trial in federal court had begun. How would my lawyer be involved in this process, I questioned? Without my lawyer's involvement, it would be in effect a kangaroo court. At the end of my presentation, the presiding officer, Council President Feeney, moved on to the next issue.

Despite the controversy regarding the Mayor's authorizing $500 an hour for the fact finder. Council President Feeney did not relent. Then on January 5, 2009, two significant events took place that dramatically changed the situation. First, at ten a.m. that morning the City Council voted to elect Mike Ross, district Councilor representing Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and Mission Hill, City Council President. That afternoon Assistant US Attorney John McNeil, representing US Attorney Sullivan, filed a motion in federal court asking Judge Magistrate Hillman to require that I sign what he called a protective order and I called a "gag" order, requiring that I and my lawyers agree not to talk in public about any of their evidence before receiving it.

McNeil had asked in December that I sign such an order which I refused to do for a number of reasons. Since Sullivan had released on the day of my arrest, "photographic evidence of my guilt", taken by his agent, I thought it ridiculous that I should sign away my right to do the same if I chose. In addition, at a time when people were questioning Feeney's efforts to oust me from the Council when she was under investigation herself, Sullivan released a conversation between the Senator and Council President where Feeney challenged the Senator's maneuvers. Obviously, this was designed to take suspicion away from her. I also had heard that my prosecutor, McNeil, was preparing to release information to the fact finder. So as I said, it seemed ridiculous to agree to a standard that they were not willing to follow.

Also, since I was planning to run for City Council the following November and knew my constituents would expect me to talk about the case, I didn't want to put myself in a position where I would have to worry that anything I said about my innocence and Sullivan's frame-up could be connected to the "evidence" and subject me to another arrest, jail time, and forfeiture of the bail bond. The third reason was that it seemed to me that they were asking me to give up my First Amendment rights which I would not do.

The action by McNeil put a lot of stress on my legal team which will be discussed in the next installment--What First Amendment?. At the same time, it opened the door for Council President Ross to dismiss the fact finder. Since the government was barring me from discussing any of the evidence publicly, Ross reasoned that the fact finder would be similarly barred and therefore would have no ability to present information to the Council about my alleged crime. Looking ahead to the future, he proposed as part of the Council rules that if any Council member was convicted of a felony, the Council would have the right to meet and decide what action to take.

I supported Council President Ross' position. Since he had dismissed the fact finder, I realized he needed something to appease those in the court of public opinion who wanted my head. However, even if convicted I didn't think that the Council had any authority to remove me from the Council. Under state law, only if convicted and sentenced to jail would I have to vacate the seat. Nevertheless, the Council did remove me after my conviction.

An eminent, retired Boston lawyer, Chester Darling, based on his view that the Council had no legal right to remove me, volunteered to come out of retirement to represent me and to challenge the Council's action in federal court. Mark Wolf, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts federal bench accepted the case but asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to give their opinion before he makes a ruling since the case involves state election laws. We expect the SJC to have their hearing on the issue this October.

Before leaving this narrative of the Council aspect of my three year struggle, let me clarify that the Council as a body did not authorize any of Council President Feeney's actions or seem to play a role in their development. The Council President's only advisor in City Hall seemed to be Corporation Counsel Sinnott, the Mayor's lawyer. In fact, I was very pleased with the fact that the the Councilors handled a difficult situation in a very professional manner. I never felt that the accusations against me stopped them or in fact City employees from working with me on the issues and concerns of my constituents.

As expected, the three councilors of color, Charles Yancey, Felix Arroyo, and Sam Yoon were very supportive, continuing the process of our working together as Team Unity. Initially, however, I was surprised by my periodic conversations with Steve Murphy, an at large Councilor from Hyde Park. The first time we talked about the situation, he approached me and said that he really felt very sorry about what was happening. He said that his father who had been a policeman and prosecutor had told him that based on his experience, he thought that I was innocent and that he believed his father's view.

Steve and I had worked effectively together on some issues, especially discrimination against those with criminal records. We also had clashed on other issues. However, our interactions around my arrest and indictment seemed to rise above the day to day tension of Boston politics. We seemed to be able to make a human connection based on what seemed to be an empathy he felt for my dilemma. In another conversation, he said that he knew I couldn't have been involved in a conspiracy with the Senator because during the period of the alleged conspiracy, she refused to support his at large candidacy because he chaired a hearing I sponsored focusing negatively on her support for a dormitory Northeastern University wanted to build on land in our district.

B) Analysis:

1) Triple Teamed:

In installments two and three, I discussed how US prosecutors carry out doubling teaming. The most obviously instance is through their relationship with the media. As the prosecutors, they bring the evidence to the grand jury, receive the indictments, and then go to court to begin the legal process. However, often before even getting an indictment from the grand jury, they initiate the media process in the court of public opinion as they did in my case.

Thus the defendant finds himself or herself double teamed. In federal court, the defendant has to face the charges that are being brought by prosecutors with all the weapons that they have at their disposal. While in the court of public opinion, the defendant has to face the constant barrage of publicity designed to convince the public of the person's guilt long before the defendant has the ability to defend his/herself in federal court.

Yes, the judge will, when seating the jury, will try to screen out those who have formed opinions based upon the media or discussions with friends, colleagues, and/or coworkers. However, such screening is an imperfect process at best. In addition, the effect of all the negative publicity on the defendant can have a significantly negative effect on the defendants' life and circumstances long before the trial begins.

In my case, I was tripled teamed. Let me show you how the process unfolded by discussing again the day of my arrest. At 6:15 a.m., the first team, the US Attorney's special police, the FBI, accompanied by Boston police officers, came to my office to arrest me. At 7:30, the second team went into action as the media spread the stories throughout the city, state, and country that I had been arrested.

At 9:00, the quarterback, so to speak, of the first team, US Attorney Sullivan, went before the members of the second team, the media, who had been summoned to receive his statement and the "photographic evidence of my guilt" that would be spread around the nation immediately after the press conference. Thus even before my indictment, the first and second team had initiated a "full court press" so to speak focusing on my guilt.

At noon, the third team took the field as Boston City Council President announced to the members of second team that as President of the Council she was immediately suspending my City Council committee responsibilities and summoning me to an executive session of the Council on the next working day, Monday, November 24, 2008. This obviously reinforced the idea in the minds of the public that I must be guilty. If the Council immediately was taking action, then they must have been aware of Turner's corrupt activities even before his arrest.

What the public who heard her pronouncement didn't know was that Council President Feeney had not conferred with other Council members before taking action. She had, however by her own later admission, discussed the issue with William Sinnott, the Mayor's lawyer, known as the Corporation Counsel. It is also probable that they didn't know that both Council President Feeney and the Mayor at the time of my arrest were also being investigated given their involvement with the efforts to obtain a liquor license for Wilburn.

My statement that I was triple teamed is based on my belief that Council President Feeney was working closely with the US Attorney's office on the coordination of her actions against me. Given the role that Corporation Counsel Sinnott was playing with the Council President he would also have to be working with the US Attorney's office. While I am sure that the Mayor was not working directly with Sullivan and his office, he certainly had to know what Sinnott and Feeney were doing. I will acknowledge that I don't have photographic and telephonic evidence to present to support my belief. However, I do have what I consider strong circumstantial evidence, particularly relating to the Council President.

First, consider that the announcement of my arrest began to be broadcast around 7:30 a.m. This means that the earliest that the Council President could have learned of my arrest if she was not part of the team was around 8 a.m. This would mean that between that time and noon, she would have to think about next steps and contact Corporation Counsel Sinnott since she was not a lawyer and would have felt the need for legal guidance. They then would have had to meet to develop a strategy before calling the press to start the media process. While it could have happened without prior knowledge, I am doubtful, particularly because the Council President is known to be controversy adverse, so it is difficult to conceive her moving quickly without Council consultation to take what I think was bold and controversial action.

The other reason for my belief is that I think she was very vulnerable to pressure from the Attorney General's office based on her involvement in helping the Senator obtain a liquor license for Mr. Wilburn. If you examine the FBI affidavit that was issued at the time of the Senator's arrest approximately three weeks before my arrest, it referenced a meeting that took place at the state house regarding a liquor license for Wilburn. This meeting was initiated by a call from Council President Feeney to the Senate President Teresa Murray at the request of the Senator.

The purpose of the meeting that took place on August 16th was to work out a deal to get an all purpose liquor license for Wilburn. At the meeting were the Senator; Senate President Murray; Senator Montigney, head of the Senate Licensing Committee; Council President Feeney; and Chairperson Potaski of the Liquor License Commission. The affidavit states that an agreement was reached to have Council President Feeney write a home rule petition which after approval by the Council and Mayor would be sent to the State Legislature which has to approve the creation of new liquor licenses. Five new all purpose licenses would be created one of which would be given to Mr. Wilburn and the rest distributed with the advice of the Senator. Returning to City Hall Council President Feeney took responsibility to have the home rule petition presented to the Council without a hearing and approved by a voice vote, not a roll call.

I am not saying that the Council President received money from Sullivan's agent Wilburn in return for this action. Even though Sullivan tried to make it look like my support for additional licenses was based on a deal with Wilburn, my support grew out of support for the fairness of increasing the number of all purpose liquor licenses for establishments operating in the Greater Roxbury community. Thus, I can not say that her actions did not have the same motivations as mine--fairness and justice. I am very doubtful, however, that she would have moved as quickly, forcefully, and continuously to remove me without the guidance of the US Attorney given the cloud of suspicion, hanging over her, because of her key role in obtaining a license for Wilburn. That is why I believe I was a victim of a triple team coordinated by Sullivan.

2) Two Juries of My Peers

From the moment the press began the campaign to convict me in the court of public opinion, my position was that I had a right to be considered innocent until I had a trial before a jury of my peers. However, the Council aspect of the triple team, led by Council President Feeney, presented me with a situation where I was going to have two juries of my peers. By summoning me to meet with the Council even before being indicted, it seemed that Council President Feeney and Corporation Counsel Sinnott were trying to establish the Council in the minds of the court of public opinion as a jury of my peers with a right to speak to their belief of my guilt or innocence before the legal process even began in court.

However, what could the Council say. Without an indictment by the grand jury, there wouldn't even be a trial. I had no doubt that Sullivan could get the grand jury to indict me. The Council, however, had no right to make that assumption. The Council could not take any action on the basis of the arrest. Sullivan had a right to get an arrest warrant if in his opinion a person under investigation was a flight risk or a danger to the public, neither of which were relevant in my case. Taking an action on the basis of my arrest would create, I believed, more of a problem for Sullivan than for me. Logically, it seemed that the only purpose was to put the Council in the position of a jury of my peers in the court of pubic opinion.

Based on Council rules since the executive session would focus on a personnel issue, the discussion could not be discussed publicly, creating a vacuum in which the media could speculate about the actions the Council was planning to take. While the Council had no power to act, the public would not be informed of that and would believe the likely media spin that they were planning to remove me. This would obviously reinforce the idea that I was guilty. The only way to stop the clever psychological scheme by the Council President and Corporation Counsel was to demand that the meeting be public which I did. Their only alternative was to retreat, call off the Council meeting, and lose the first round which they did.

The Council President had lost the first round. Once I had been indicated, however, with pressure, I believe, from the US Attorney's office and Corporation Counsel Sinnott, she again tried to position the Council as my judge and jury. This time she hired a former judge magistrate at a mayoral approved rate of $500 an hour to gather "facts" about my case that could be presented to the Council.

To me, this represented the most serious challenge to date. Sullivan had released on the day of arrest `photographic evidence of my guilt’. A few weeks later, his office released parts of a transcript of a recorded conversation between the Senator and the Council President in order to take suspicions off Feeney. I had no doubt he would find a way to provide "evidence about my crime" for the fact finder to put in a report that Feeney would then use to attempt to get the Council to speak out against me in its role as a quasi jury of my peers.

The triple team failed when the new Council President, Mike Ross, realized that since Sullivan was trying to force me to sign a `gag’ order, the fact finder would not be able to obtain evidence from the US Attorney that could be shared with the Council. I believe that if I had voluntarily agreed to sign the`gag’ order, they would have continued their process of releasing information when it was helpful to their efforts to get rid of me, one way or the other. This would have enabled the fact finder to issue a report that would have looked substantive and enabled Feeney to continue her efforts to oust me. The significance of this ploy is that it was conducted with, I believe, the active support of the federal office which is supposed to assure not only public safety but also justice in Massachusetts.

3) Selective Prosecution:

In two interviews with a Boston Globe columnist, Ron Wilburn said that he did not understand why other people were not arrested in addition to the Senator and I. This led people in the community to think that Wilburn had gathered evidence on others who could be brought to trial but were not. This also led people to think that Sullivan's actions toward the Senator and I were part of what seemed to be a national Bush attack on black public officials after eight US prosecutors were fired for not using their powers politically. Unfortunately, Wilburn, who also said in one of the interviews that I was innocent and who later said that he would not testify, never shared the information that he had regarding who he believed should have been brought to trial. Perhaps, one day Wilburn will see the light and reveal the truth.

I believe that US Attorneys in order to keep the political spotlight on some and not on others will select those whom they believe it is in their interest to prosecute while others are allowed to resign. I believe that is why Dan Potaski, the chairperson of the Boston Licensing Commission, quietly resigned after the Senator changed her plea to guilty in June of 2010. Since he was still in his fifties and unable to receive a full pension, there was no apparent reason for him to resign. My belief is that this is an example of selective prosecution.

Sullivan had the evidence, I believe, to bring Potaski to trial but since he wanted the public to associate the idea of public corruption with two black officials, he allowed Potaski to resign. Also, the resignation prevented the spotlight that would have been put on the Commission and its historical role in the issuing of liquor licenses that would have come out as the trial progressed. Given the fact that the Wilburn's FBI handler admitted at my trial that nobody wanted the hearing I sponsored to take place because of the potential embarrassment to the Commission, it is clear that they wouldn't want to put Potaski on trial.

I do not have photographic evidence or recorded conversations to verify my belief but I think there is circumstantial evidence beyond Potaski's resignation itself. The FBI affidavit presented at the time of the Senator's arrest contained transcriptions of recorded conversations in which Steve Miller, principle in the law firm that represents over 70% of the successful liquor license applicants in Boston, told Wilburn that he would obtain a liquor license for him from Potaski even without Wilburn attending the hearing. He was a man of his word even though the license was only a beer and wine license. However, since Wilburn had no place to use the license, the issuance was a clear violation of the law.

In addition, when Wilburn was on the stand at my trial, he said that when Miller told him he wanted to help because his friend Arthur Winn, a supporter of the Senator, had asked him, he said there would be no charge. However, Wilburn said that later Miller had asked him to give him I think the amount was $1000, but Miller didn't say why he was asking for the money since he had originally offered his services free of charge.

When I heard Wilburn's testimony I had to wonder if this money from the FBI that Wilburn provided to Miller was used to put Potaski in a position where he either had to resign or face criminal charges. I assume that we will never know why the money was asked for or who was the eventual recipient. What we do know is that as soon as the Senator's case was over, Potaski quietly left the position of power that he had held for years. That is why I believe that Potaski's resignation is an example of selective prosecution.

C) Action Steps:

Action steps proposed in Installments two and three would enable prosecutors to be criminally charged and sued as well as limit public discussion of evidence until the trial are key to curbing prosecutorial terrorism such as we see in my case. However, the question of selective prosecution is one that I haven't discussed. I believe that this issue would require the creation of an office within the Justice Department that would have responsibility to review the actions of the US Attorneys relating to the questions of selective prosecutions, use of criminals in investigations, arrest practices, as well as other areas that can not be dealt with through the creation of laws.

The other issue raised by this installment relates to the question of the appropriate means of handling alleged criminal behavior by elected officials. As I have stated, I think Council President Feeney's actions regarding my arrest and indictment were unjust and politically motivated. Yet, I acknowledge that the arrest of a public official on charges of betraying his or her public trust is a serious and difficult situation, particularly if the person charged is a member of a legislative body. The other members of the body will undoubtedly hear calls for action to be taken against the accused official. At the same time, the constituents supporting the official will insist that the right to replace the person is not the legislative body's but the constituents' through the elective process.

If there are rules in place that prescribe the steps that can be legally taken, it is a less difficult situation since the members of the legislative body will be within their rights to take whatever action is dictated by the law, whether that action is popular or not. The more difficult situation is the one faced by the Boston City Council when I was arrested and indicted. In that situation, there was no legal framework in place. I commend Councilor Ross for his decision to set up a rule so that if I was convicted, there would be a framework for action although the rule was vague on what action could be taken which led to my legal challenge of my ouster in December of 2010.

For those of you living in an area where your city council or state legislative bodies have no laws governing the action that can be taken in such a situation, I urge you to petition the body to explore the alternatives by researching methods employed by legislative bodies throughout the country. This would then present them with a wide range of options for consideration. The key issue is the need for a process to be in place before an elected official finds himself or herself indicted for a crime.

In the midst of the controversy regarding Council President Feeney's actions, Mel King, the Godfather and guru of Boston community based politics, made a suggestion that I think has merit. His idea was that the process should keep the power in the hands of the people. In that light, he suggested that a special election be held within a relatively short period of time in order to assess whether the person continued to have the support of his constituents.

I would suggest that rather than make it a competitive election that consideration be given to structuring as a vote of confidence. If the person was able to get the majority of votes, then they would have received a mandate for staying in office until the trial is completed. If the person was found guilty, then the process for dealing with convicted elected officials could take place. If s/he did not receive a majority of the votes, the person would have to take a leave until after the trial.

There are problems with this approach such as the limited information about the crime that would be available. Also, the cost of the election would be a concern. In addition, if the person was required to take a leave, then there is a vacuum of representation. If the special election is competitive, would the public be able to focus on the issues confronting the district or would all the focus be on the guilt or innocence of the official. However, an approach based on voting would resolve the issue of whether the constituents wanted the person to continue to serve. The most important lesson is that political bodies need to think ahead to assure there are appropriate strategies to deal with this type of situation.

Next Week: What First Amendment?”

75th Anniversary of Spanish Civil War

2011-07-17T13:31:00.000-07:00

Tariq Ali's July 2011 Speech On Economic Crisis & Arab Revolt

2011-07-16T07:54:00.000-07:00

Imprisoned Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner's June 30, 2011 Message From Behind The Wall

2011-07-12T21:18:00.000-07:00

(The following article was originally posted on the "Support Chuck Turner" blog)

Reflections from Behind the Wall

Topic: Anatomy of a FrameUP

In last week’s first installment of Anatomy of a FrameUp, I outlined my background and lifetime of service. My purpose was to put US Attorney Sullivan’s sting and frameup in the context of my life’s work. This week I will focus on the day of the arrest and my reflections on it. Each of the remaining installments will have three segments. The first will be a narrative describing what happened in that particular segment of the experience and my reflections on it. The second will be an analysis examining what we may learn from my experience regarding the method of operation of US prosecutors; their police force, the FBI, and the court system. The third will focus on proposals for actions in our ongoing fight against prosecutorial terrorism.

Installment 2: Keystone Cops Strike Again:

A) Narrative:

On November 21, 2008, at 6:16 a.m. I was confronted in my office at City Hall by 10 white men and women, some in police uniforms. One of them barked at me, “Hang up the phone”. I had been talking with my wife, Terri, who had called me 10 minutes earlier, saying that the FBI had just come to our house to arrest me. My first response was “Well it finally happened” and we both laughed since Terri had been saying for years that my political work would result in my being killed or put in jail.

My second response was “Why are they going to arrest me.” She said she didn’t know and went on to say that they forced their way into the house when she told them that I had left for work. She was still relating her experience with them when the FBI accompanied by Boston Police burst into my office and ordered me to hang up the phone.

The large officer at the edge of my desk who had told me to hang up the phone, then ordered me to stand up and put my hands behind my back. As I followed his instructions, I started to laugh which infuriated him. “What are you laughing at?”, he shouted. I replied, “You would never understand”.

The situation was obviously a serious one. At the same time these ten “public safety officers” standing around me in my small office getting ready to handcuff a 68 year old, black, 9 year City Councilor, and lifelong activist seemed so ludicrous that I couldn’t help but laugh. It seemed that somehow I was playing a part in a grade C detective movie or perhaps even a Keystone Cops movie.

At that point, the leader of the group said move and I and the pack of “public safety officials” began to move out the door, some in front of me and some behind. As we walked down the hall to the elevators, I wanted to ask how much each of them earned per hour because it seemed like a tremendous waste of tax payer money. Did they think I was going to make a break for it and they needed ten officers to take me down? Even if they thought I was going to perform an act of civil disobedience, they wouldn’t need ten officers.

When the elevator arrived, it seemed that they all wanted to ride with me so most of us crowded into the elevator and rode to the first floor level where we walked out to the parking area where I saw a traditional red Ford parked and waiting for us. The young, male FBI agent who had interviewed me three weeks before said “Get in the car”. I turned my back to him so he could take the cuffs off, when he again barked “Get in the car”. I then realized that they were playing “We’ve caught the dangerous criminal who will make a run for it, if we take the handcuffs off”. Or maybe it was the “Now that we have arrested this arrogant, loudmouth “Negro” politician, lets show him whose in charge and how difficult we are going to make life for him”.

Regardless which scene they (the young female agent who had also interviewed me was by then standing beside him) were playing, the best thing to do was to try to make myself as comfortable as possible, hand cuffs and all in the back seat of their car. As I listened to them talk, it became apparent that they were getting ready to take me on a 45 minute ride to Worcester, MA. Apparently US Attorney Sullivan had scheduled my arrest to take place on the day that the judge magistrate who would arraign me was at the Courthouse in Worcester.

After about twenty minutes of trying to get comfortable with my hands cuffed behind my back, I started to have the urge to ask if they could at least loosen the cuffs. However, it occurred to me that their objective was to make me as uncomfortable as possible. So it was clear that the best thing to do was to suck it up and understand that my discomfort was miniscule compared to what others endure at the hands of “public safety officers” every day.

Unfortunately, when we arrived in Worcester, they couldn’t find their way to the court house. They kept asking questions of the person on the other end of their radio unit but it didn’t seem to do any good. However, after what seemed to be a half an hour, finally we arrived at the Worcester federal court house and parked in the back. The female officer opened the rear door and said “Get out”. I thought for a moment about resisting and forcing them to have the court officers carry me out of the car into the jail. But then an internal voice said what would be the point or value of an act of resistance at this point.

Sitting in the barren jail cell, with no idea of my crime, I felt very alone. I had no idea what time I would go before the judge. However, I knew I had to find some way to keep myself calm until that moment. Remembering Nichiren Daishonen, the Buddhist monk who had been imprisoned for his views, I began to chant “Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo” the powerful chant he had developed. After a few minutes I would pause and then begin again.

After about an hour or so, I began to hear this strange clanging against the bars and realized that I was not alone. I assumed that the clanging was a message to stop chanting. At that moment, I was in no mood to take his or her feelings into consideration. I rationalized that whether s/he realized it, my chanting was helping both of us.

Eventually, I dozed off and was awakened by a guard saying that my lawyers had arrived. It was now two thirty. I was told that in a half hour, I would be led into court to begin the most difficult ordeal of my life. While I was being moved to Worcester, Terri had been contacted by Kazi Toure and Steve Kirshbaum, political allies, who when they heard I had been arrested secured legal assistance.

Kazi worked as an investigator for Barry Wilson, a local criminal lawyer, who agreed to represent me at the arraignment. Steve, a steward of the School Bus Drivers Union, asked John Pavlos, also a criminal lawyer, to join Barry. Also through the bus drivers union and the International Action Center, Steve organized a group of men to provide security on the porch of our house bringing a sense of relief to Terri who was being barraged by the ever present, ever insistent press.

In the short time we had before going before the magistrate, John and Barry showed me the affidavit that the prosecutor had given them. The affidavit said that I was being charged with extortion, three counts of lying to the FBI officials who had interviewed me three weeks before, and conspiracy with Senator Dianne Wilkerson, the first Black female state senator. There were also two pictures of a black hand putting something in my hand. I couldn’t see the person’s face but the picture on the wall led me to believe that it had been taken in my district office.

The affidavit identified the hand as belonging to US Attorney Sullivan’s cooperating witness who they only identified as a community business person. The senator and I were accused of being in a conspiracy to extort money from him. The charges of lying to FBI agents were based on the fact that when I was interviewed three weeks earlier on the day of the Senator’s arrest for taking bribes, I was asked three questions by the officers. Did I know a local businessman, Ron Wilburn? Did Mr. Wilburn ever offer to give me a fund raiser? Did Mr. Wilburn ever give me money? To which I answered No, No, and definitely Not. How could I been given money by a person that I didn’t even know. My answers to these questions increased the number of my crimes (counts) from two to five.

After talking briefly about the procedures of the court process and agreeing to meet the following Sunday, the three of us proceeded to court. When the court officer opened the door to the court room, what I saw almost brought tears to my eyes. The court room was filled. There were my wife and one of my daughters in the front row. Around them and back of them were a myriad of other friends and supporters. Despite the fact that Sullivan had arranged that the session would be held 45 miles away from Boston, my family, friends, and supporters were still there with me in my time of need. The moment just confirmed what I have always said, “Our greatest asset in the struggle for justice is the love and support of each other”.

As I turned to look at the judge and prosecutor, I was amazed by the smirk on the face of the person who would be presenting the government’s case, Asst US Attorney McNeil. I assumed he was thinking, “Now we’ve got you!” I said to myself “But you’re not going to keep me without the fight of your life” and smiled back. The formalities went quickly. The prosecutor read the charges. I plead not guilty. The judge said some other things that I don’t remember and released me on my own recognizance with the reminder that if I broke any of the conditions, I would not only go to jail but forfeit a $50,000 bond which meant to me that I would have to give the government $50,000 which would have been an impossibility.

Moving out of the court room surrounded by friends and family, someone said that the Boston City Council President Maureen Feeney had announced at noon that she was stripping me of my Council Committee seats and inviting me to meet with the Council on Monday, the next working day, to decide what they would do. I said to myself, “It’s amazing, a year ago, I went to Maureen as a representative of Team Unity, the four Boston City Councilors of color, and said that if she ran for President, we would support her because we thought she would be a fairer Council President than Councilor Flaherty. Now that’s she President, she’s tried me before I have even been indicted. Looks like we made a bad assumption about fairness.”

Before I could think any more about the irony of her actions, the doors to the outside were opened and in front of us were lights, cameras, and reporters shouting, “Do you have a statement. What have you got to say”. Understanding that to say nothing would be taken as an admission of guilt, I went to the battery of mikes, thinking that it was amazing that during my nine years as a Councilor, I would be lucky if any reporters showed up to cover what I thought were important news stories. Now that I am accused of being a corrupt politician, they all want to hear what I have to say.

So I made it short and sweet. “Let me be clear. I am not guilty of any of the charges. I have served the people of my district with integrity over the last nine years and intend to continue. And Council President Feeney has no right to take away my Council powers, I haven’t even been indicted.” Then it all became a blur as we moved to get into the car and drive to Boston to prepare for Monday’s confrontation with Council President Feeney and the Council.

B) Analysis:

1) Psychological Warfare:

The first piece of advice that my lawyers gave me was that the objective of those who I was fighting, the US Attorney and the FBI, was winning–not justice, not truth, not honest evidence–winning by any means necessary. As I talk with the men with whom I’m incarcerated, they say that their experience confirms that fact. I’ve heard estimates of the federal conviction rate that run from 92% to 98% with the vast majority of the convictions coming through the accused pleading guilty to try to get a lower sentence because of the fear of trying to fight.

One of the reasons, I believe, that there is a fear of fighting is that the key strategy employed is to convince the person that they have accused that there is no way to win so why even try. Even the way that I was arrested was designed to psychologically intimidate me and establish their power in my mind. It was also racist because it was not used with white elected officials arrested in Boston in the past.

In the cases of both the Senator and I, the FBI came to our houses a little before 6 in the morning, at a time when people are either still asleep or just waking up. Their purpose is to conduct the arrest at a time when the person is not fully conscious. This enables them to more easily implant the thought that they are too powerful a force to resist and creates a fear that further weakens resistance.

Since I was at the office when the FBI came to my house to arrest me and was warned by Terri that they were on the way to the office, they did not have the psychological advantage of surprise and disorientation when they arrived. However, their arrest strategy had other elements designed to psychologically intimidate. Sending 10 “public safety officers” to arrest a 68 year old City Councilor is absurd unless the point is to psychologically intimidate through a “show of force”. Then to have me stand up and be handcuffed made no sense unless their objective was to reinforce the thought that regardless of what position I held before they came, now I am a criminal and under their complete control.

The fact that they initiate the arrests at such an early hour also creates an additional psychological advantage for them. The wait between arrival at the courthouse jail at 6:30 or 7:00 o’clock in the morning and the arraignment that will probably occur in the late afternoon is also psychologically disruptive. The person therefore has to cope with a long period of time without support during which anxiety is bound to develop with a psychologically weakening effect

The staging of the arrest on a day when the judge was in Worcester, 45 miles away from Boston, I believe, was also part of their psychological design. Having me arraigned in a City a significant distance from Boston, they thought would cut down on the number of people who could come to support me as well as give me psychological strength. The implied message of this action was, “You might have support but we can find ways to cut you off from that support, anytime that we choose.”

The other crucial element of their strategy is to begin a process of convincing the public that the person is guilty before there can be any possibility of defense. This element is put into action through their ally, the media. Less than 2 hours after my arrest, the media locally and nationally were carrying the story of my arrest with pictures allegedly showing the crime taking place.

To reinforce the psychological imprint of the early news release, US Attorney Sullivan called an early morning press conference at which he told what I call “The Big Lie” in my next installment. The purpose of the lie was to hide the fact that the criminal scenario had been arranged by him not the Senator and I as he alleged in the affidavit and press conference.

If Sullivan had told the truth in the press conference, I couldn’t have been charged with conspiracy. How could the Senator and I be conspiring to extort money from Ron Wilburn, when Sullivan had been paying Wilburn, the alleged extorted businessman, for over a year to carry out a sting to entrap both of us. As I said earlier, the objective is not justice but winning. To tell the truth would have exposed his plot to frame me. But more about the “Big Lie” in the next installment.

2) Media: The Storm Troopers of Federal Prosecutors’ Psychological Warfare:

While the US prosecutors have direct control over the FBI to aid their efforts, they have indirect control over the media whose hunger for breaking news leads them to publicize the stories of the prosecutors without critical analysis. After the “reporters’ write what they have been given by the prosecutors to convict the defendant in the court of public opinion, the columnists follow up by giving their views to further convince the public that the FBI “Got the right man” or “woman”. All of this often before there has even been an indictment, as in my case.

The other role played by the media in the terror process is to incessantly hound the person and h/er family. It is hard to describe the feelings caused by having tv trucks and reporters’ cars outside your house from early in the morning to late at night. The incessant knocking on the door. The hounding while at work to answer their questions as if you owe them. The knocking on neighbors’ doors to get their opinions. In my case, reporters even called relatives in my home town to get their reaction before I could talk with them.

For me, it was particularly galling because in the past when there were important issues I wanted the media to cover, they acted as if I didn’t exist. However, now having an opportunity to ridicule and harass me, they were constantly at the door. The effect is a emotional wearing down not only through the intensity of their presence but also through the negative stories put in the press as well as on tv and radio. All of this takes place before the defense lawyers even have an opportunity to see the evidence. I believe this barrage of negative energy and coverage is one of the reasons why the federal prosecutors have such a high percentage of those accused taking a plea rather than going to court.

3) The Counts (Charges):

The charges themselves play a key role in the psychological warfare, through the number of counts and the description of the counts. For example, I was charged with extortion which made people think that I was being accused of threatening or coercing, Mr. Wilburn in some way. However, on the first day of the trial, the Judge explained to the jury that to find me guilty they did not have to find that I had put any pressure on Mr. Wilburn. In fact, I didn’t even have to ask him for anything (which I didn’t). All that was needed under the extortion law for me to be found guilty was for me to have been given something with the understanding that it was being given for me to take a particular action. When I heard the judge’s statement, I assumed that the law and its name had been designed by J.Edgar Hoover so that he could take down any elected official he didn’t like.

As I said above, the conspiracy charge would have been exposed as a lie if the truth about Ron Wilburn had been told by the US Attorney at the press conference. By keeping the conspiracy charge alive for two and a half years, they were able to cover the lie but by the time I went to trial, that charge had been dropped. So when the prosecutor admitted on the first day of the trial that Wilburn had been paid $30,000 by them to operate a sting, the fact that they had lied about the conspiracy was irrelevant because there were only four charges and extortion was not one of them. One of the four charges of course was extortion for allegedly accepting a thousand dollars in return for calling a hearing regarding discrimination in the distribution of liquor licenses. This was a hearing that the FBI admitted on the stand they did not want to take place because of the fear that it would embarrass the members of the Licensing Commission.

The other three counts (charges) related to the visit by the FBI agents on the day of the Senator’s arrest. Since I had nothing to fear as far as I knew, I agreed to meet with them. If I had exercised good judgment I would have refused to meet with them until I had consulted with an attorney. It is obvious now and should have been obvious then that the only reason the FBI would visit me on the morning of the Senator’s arrest would be to tie me into her case. The fact that I didn’t exercise good judgment I have to admit is one of the key reasons why I am writing this from a federal prison. Let that be a warning to all. If the FBI come calling, immediately call your lawyer.

The essence of the meeting was their asking me three questions. Do you know Ron Wilburn? Did Ron Wilburn offer you a fund raiser? Did you accept money from him. As I said earlier in this installment my answers were no, no, and certainly not. Even today I don’t remember the twenty five minutes we spent together as he carried out his instructions from his FBI handler. Yes, I’ve seen the pictures. Yes, I’ve listened to recordings of two conversations that lasted about 25 minutes and I’ve seen the transcript of our five minute conversation on the day that it is alleged that he gave me a $1000. But I still don’t remember meeting him. Even he admitted at trial that we had never met before he initiated contact at the request of the FBI. However, those three responses to their questions led to my being convicted for four felonies rather than one and added to their ability to put me in jail for 36 months. The judge also added another unofficial count by saying that he knew I had committed perjury when I testified in my own defense and used that “unofficial count” to add to my time of incarceration.

C) Actions:

I recommend six actions that needed to counteract the prosecutorial terrorism practiced by the prosecutors and the FBI. First, the most important action to stop prosecutorial terrorism is to start a national campaign to create a law that makes it legal for prosecutors to be criminally charged as well sued for misconduct. At the present time prosecutors can Not be sued for conscious or unconscious acts of misconduct. The rampant prosecutorial terrorism is a logical consequence, I believe, of the desire of prosecutors at the federal, state, and local level to win by any means necessary and the inability to take legal action against them. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Even federal judges are relatively powerless to punish federal prosecutors for their misconduct. In Massachusetts, Mark Wolfe, Chief Justice of the Federal Bench, a former federal prosecutor, in 2007 asked the Bar Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers to take disciplinary action against Jeffery Auerhahn. a veteran federal prosecutor. Asst US Attorney Auerhahn had withheld key evidence in a Mafia case in the 1990s. The panel established by the Bar Counsel took no action until the end of 2010 when they recommended that he be suspended. I am not sure whether that recommendation was approved.

In January 2009, two months before Sullivan resigned to become a law partner with John Ashcroft, former US Attorney General, Chief Justice Wolfe wrote a 42 page memorandum to Sullivan threatening to censure Asst US Attorney Susan Sullivan (no relation) or the US Attorney’s office or both based on her failure to disclose that a Boston police officer gave testimony in court in a Dorchester drug case that contradicted what the officer had told her on many occasions.

Expressing his frustration with continuous prosecutorial misconduct, he stated in the memo, “The egregious failure of the government to disclose plainly material exculpatory evidence in this case extends a dismal history of intentional and inadvertent violations of the government’s duties to disclose in cases assigned to this court”.

To reinforce his frustration, he listed nine major cases he presided over during the last two decades in which prosecutors working for US Attorney Michael Sullivan and his predecessors allegedly withheld important evidence. In several cases, he said the misconduct led to mistrials and convictions that were overturned (Boston Globe, January 27, 2009).

Interviewed by Johnathan Saltzman of the Glove after the memorandum was issued, Wolfe said that his only successful sanction in cases of prosecutorial misconduct over two decades occurred in 2002, when he ordered an inexperienced prosecutor to attend a seminar on wrongful convictions after the lawyer repeatedly withheld critical evidence.

It seems clear that if the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Federal Bench has not been able to appropriately sanction misconduct on the part of prosecutors working for US Attorney Sullivan and previous US Attorneys, we can not expect federal judges in general to stop prosecutorial misconduct. We have to demand justice. We have to demand that prosecutors not be allowed to be above the law; that they be held accountable for their actions. The only way to accomplish this is to pass a law making it legal to criminally charge them as well as sue them for prosecutorial misconduct such as the lie that US Attorney Sullivan sent around the country on November 21, 2008 regarding my arrest.

Second, I think we need a campaign to require federal prosecutors to present to the court at the time of arraignment a statement of the procedures used in the arrests and an explanation of why those procedures were used. I believe this is a critical element in curtailing their use of psychological warfare as well as racism in handling arrests. Forcing them to expose to the court and the public how they conduct the business of arrests, I believe, will force them to end the double standards as well as the terror tactics that we have seen practiced in Boston and elsewhere.

Third, we need to require that affidavit which give the information regarding the crimes that led to the arrest be sealed until the trial begins and that similar action be taken regarding indictments based on grand jury proceedings. The public has a right to know the charges leading to the arrest. However, if there is any validity in the concept that a person should be viewed as innocent until s/he has been convicted by a jury of peers, the prosecutors and media have to be stopped from trying the defendant in the court of public opinion. Also, the sealing of the documents will stop prosecutors from using the pre trial media as a way of building their public image, heightening the possibilities for career advancement. This law would also have to carry criminal penalties for anyone distributing or publishing information from sealed court documents.

Fourth, the area of compiling the counts (charges) needs to be carefully examined for possible reforms. As said above, I believe the counts are part of the psychological warfare process. I couldn’t understand why the prosecutor and FBI kept searching for the book in which Ron Wilburn said he had written his telephone number on the day that he allegedly gave me $1000. I thought that if it could be found, it would actually support my contention of innocence since the jury would question why I was asking him for his telephone number if I had called him four hours before, giving him the signal to bring me $1000. Later, I realized that they would have used it to give me another count which would strengthen in their eyes the credibility of their case and increase the time that I would have to spend in jail if found guilty.

Fifth, we need to consider reforming the grand jury process that leads to indictments moving the court process to the pre trial stage. As now structured, particularly at the federal level, the prosecutors are in complete control of the process and spend months working with the grand jury. This naturally builds a strong relationship between the prosecutor and the grand jury which strengthens their willingness to support the government’s perspective. At the very least, people summoned to testify need to be allowed to have their lawyer present. At this time, only the person summoned is able to be in the grand jury room.

Sixth, we need to begin to train activists to understand psychological warfare; how it’s used; and how to resist it. It is understandable that our educational institutions don’t prepare us to develop our mental capabilities so that we are not susceptible to their psychological terror tactics. We have to appreciate that we are at war with those who use their power to create psychological havoc and mentally coerce people into a mindset where they are afraid to fight back against oppression. We have to arm ourselves with a science of the mind that will enable us to control our emotions even in the face of tactics designed to destroy our psychological stability.

Clearly, the fight to end prosecutorial terrorism will be long and hard. However, if America is to be strengthened as a democracy where the people in reality are in control, we have to develop a criminal justice system that focuses on justice.

Next Week’s Installment: The Big Lie

San Francisco Anti-War Activists Protest Against Endless U.S. Military Intervention In Libya

2011-07-11T06:53:00.000-07:00

Imprisoned Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner's June 24, 2011 Message From Behind The Wall

2011-07-10T07:27:00.000-07:00

(the following article was originally posted on the "Support Chuck Turner" blog)
Reflections from Behind the Wall:

Topic: Anatomy of A FRAME UP!

This is the first installment in an eight part series in which I
discuss my two and a half year experience with the Justice Department
that has led to my being a convicted felon at the work camp at USP
Hazelton, Bruceton Mills, West Virginia.

Installment 1: A Lifetime of Service

My first reaction was that I was dreaming; no, I was having a
nightmare but I couldn’t wake up. After a lifetime of fighting for
justice, I was in handcuffs being led out of City Hall. I didn’t even
know what I was being accused of. Later, it became all too clear, not
only from the prosecutor describing me as a corrupt politician but
also from the newspaper headlines the next morning screaming that I
had been indicted for conspiracy to extort money from a local
community business man and lying about it to the FBI.

How could this happen? I knew I hadn’t done what they said but there
were the camera trucks in front of our house. Reporters knocking at
the door, urging me to talk to them as if it was my responsibility to
answer their questions. Sure, they were just doing their job but they
were part of an establishment that I had been fighting for decades.
Yet, here they were ridiculing me, mocking me, gloating over my
alleged hypocrisy. I felt like Alice in Wonderful and I had no idea
how to get out of the rabbit hole.

The situation was totally absurd. Just eighteen months ago I had
declared my intention to launch a Peace and Prosperity Campaign. I had
said to my constituents that after eight years in office, I was
convinced that we needed to revise our strategy. It was not enough to
organize and fight against the external forces of oppression, those
who believed they had the right to abuse us. It was not enough to use
the City Council process to establish new laws and regulations. We had
to recognize that we had to do for self. We had to be the source of
our strength and development.

We had to recognize, I said, that through our own individual and
collective actions we had to create the foundation for the future that
we needed and desired not only for ourselves but also for our children
and their children’s children. I argued that we needed to recognize
that the prosperity that we hungered for as a community and
individually could only be realized by establishing peace in our
community and dedicating ourselves to using our talents and resources
to regenerate ourselves. I said we needed a Campaign for Peace and
Prosperity. We needed to put into action a pledge to constantly work
to develop ourselves and our community. There was even a motto, “Do No
Harm”.

I wondered what would be the questions in the minds of people who had
heard and remembered my call. What would be the thoughts of those who
had slowly begun to get involved in the strategy I was urging? While I
was trusted in the community that I had lived and worked in for over
forty years, how would they withstand the media bombardment. How would
they resist the accusations that their Councilor was an extortionist,
conspiring with our first female black state senator to extort money
from a local businessman, attempting to get a liquor license for a
club that he planned to open in the community’s new and first hotel.

What could I say to my constituents that could allay their fears and
doubts? How could I convince them that I was not a hypocrite? I knew I
was innocent but I also knew that the constant barrage of convicting
information would make even those close to me wonder what had
happened. At least, I knew that eventually the truth would come out
and I would be able to laugh at what a horrible mistake had been made.
I hadn’t done what they said so how could I be convicted. Even the
FBI’s affidavit was full of holes that would allow my lawyer to
quickly end the nightmare.

Yet, today 31 months after my arrest, I am an inmate at the Hazelton
Federal Prison work camp in the mountains of West Virginia. I am
ending the third month of my 36 month sentence. Despite my optimism
that the truth would come out; despite the fact that the U.S.
Attorney’s Cooperating Witness said in the Boston Globe 6 months after
my arrest that as far as he was concerned I was innocent, naive but
innocent; despite the constant display of support from friends,
constituents and allies before, during, and after the trial; and
despite over 700 letters to the judge saying that I should be put on
probation, here I sit a convicted felon.

However, I have learned during my 71 years that the art of living is
not demonstrated by how you celebrate your victories but by your
ability to turn seeming defeats into victories. Yes, I feel battered
but certainly not broken. The struggle for justice is a continuing one
and my commitment to devote my life as a warrior to that struggle
still burns bright. The question as always is what to do and as usual
the answer is clear. Even before I entered USP Hazelton I knew I
needed a plan to guide my actions. My plan would have to focus on
preparing myself to reenter the struggle stronger on every level than
when I left. It would have to enable me to continue to share my
thinking with my community, and finally it would need to enable me to
fulfill a commitment made to my community at a rally in front of my
community office six days after my arrest on the day before
Thanksgiving, 2008.

At the rally, energized by having survived a plot initiated by the
City Council President (and others I assume) to drive me from office
on the day after my arrest, I decided to focus on the opportunities
that the situation presented us. I urged my supporters to build a
communications network among friends, coworkers, and colleagues. I
talked about talking points that they should raise to counter the
media’s incessant attacks on my character. It was an opportunity, I
declared, to stimulate critical thinking and increase our community’s
capacity to see through the smoke screens put out by the
establishment’s mouthpieces.

I emphasized that while I was fighting for my survival, the struggle
is more important than anyone one individual. I stressed that those of
us who commit ourselves to struggle for justice have to be prepared to
use the attacks to strengthen our community despite the casualties
that will inevitably take place. From that perspective, I knew that
regardless of what happened to me, i had a responsibility to turn this
attack into a learning experience through which we all could learn and
grow.

Since it was obvious that US Attorney Sullivan and his police force,
the FBI, were conspiring to frame me for a crime that I didn’t commit,
I pointed out the golden opportunity we were presented to examine up
close and personal how they operate. They continuously study us to
assess our strengths and weaknesses. We should do no less if we are
serious in our pursuit of justice. Through such a rigorous analysis
and examination of their tactics, we could help our brothers and
sisters in the struggle become wiser in evading the “criminal justice
system’s” continuous attempts to thwart justice and use prison to turn
us into a permanent underclass and thus re enslave us.

With this focus on education, I will share with you each week over the
next seven weeks an installment exploring the twists and turns of the
Frame Up that led to my incarceration. As with all initial attempts to
deepen understanding of our experiences, I know that there will be
gaps and issues that others will see the need to explore. The
objective of this exercise is to stimulate our thinking and sharpen
our ability to critically analyze the stratagems that are used against
us. It is clear to me that if we are to be successful in ending the
use of the “criminal justice system” to perpetuate injustice, we have
to sharpen our thinking so that we can act more effectively.

In 1975, there were 500,000 people of all races in jail in this
country. Today, there are 2.3 million and the numbers are growing.
Over a million are of African-American descent. The correction
officers union, I’ve been told, is the fastest growing union in this
country. It is clear that if we are to lay the foundation for justice
for future generations we have to stop the prosecutorial terrorism
that is plaguing us all. In that spirit, please view this as an
initial attempt to use my personal experience to broaden the needed
national dialogue on how to end this terrorism.

In the remainder of this installment, I am going to share my
background and the life of activism that it inspired. I have always
believed that a fundamental principle of organizing is that the
organizer should not be the focus. Campaigns are successful when the
focus is on the goals to be achieved, the plan to achieve them, and
the process of analyzing successes and failures. Too much attention on
the organizer is distracting and dims the organization’s focus.
However, since one of the objectives of former US Attorney Sullivan’s
plot was to create the image that I was a fraud, hypocrite, and
fundamentally corrupt, I think it is important that I begin by helping
people better understand who I am.

I was born in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1940. I was blessed to have been
born into a family that had two predominant passions–a thirst for
knowledge and a desire to serve. Education was the “family business”
on both my mother’s and my father’s side of the family. My mother’s
mother was a teacher who became an elementary school principal. My
mother was a school teacher and my brother became a college professor
and dean. My father’s father was a high school biology teacher by day
and a scientist by night having earned a PHD in Zoology from the
University of Chicago in 1907. Upon his death in 1923, he was honored
by the St. Louis Science Society for his work on animal behavioral
psychology. Later the City of St. Louis named a school after him.

While education was viewed as a service, other members of the family
found other ways to serve. My mother’s sister was a social worker,
focusing her work on children. Her brother, my uncle, was a
landscaper. My father was a pharmacist and owned with his brother, my
uncle, a drug store that had the unique feature of having a pharmacy
on one side managed by my father and a bar on the other, managed by
his brother. Other members of the family sorted themselves out along
the same lines of education and business with service to our people as
the link. One of my grandmother’s brother was at Niagra Falls in 1909
as a participant in the founding of the NAACP.

My father and mother divorced when I was young and I grew up in
Cincinnati with my mother and her family while my father lived in
Chicago where he operated his business. Given Cincinnati’s location on
the Ohio River, I remember as a child hearing stories of my
grandmother going with friends and her children down to the landing
where the river boats would bring new arrivals from the South. My
grandmother’s purpose was to welcome the new families into Cincinnati
and help them establish a new life as part of the community. I
remember going with my family to Ms. Stewart’s Home for Young Women
which was a boarding house for young “colored” women coming to
Cincinnati. Outings to Ms. Stewart’s where we would have dinner with
the young women were a delight not only because of the food but also
because of the beautiful young women and delightful conversations.

While I grew up with a sense of community, sharing, and service, there
also was the other side of life for the African-American community.
The time was the 40s so segregation was the way of life once you
crossed the river and it had a strong influence on life in Cincinnati
despite the strong and wealthy Jewish community that flourished in the
city. The local amusement park was not integrated until I was 10 years
old and I grew up hearing stories of the times when you couldn’t try
on clothes in a store or had to sit upstairs in the movie theatre.
Black children living in a public housing development in a white
neighborhood were bussed to a black school miles away.

By the time I was a teenager, overt discrimination was not legal in
the city; yet that didn’t prevent the manager of a coffee shop in
downtown Cincinnati refusing me service when I was 13 and looking for
a job in the market area. When she asked me to leave because they
didn’t “serve Negroes”, I said that the law said I didn’t have to
leave so she called the police. Upon arriving, the policeman
apologized to her that there was nothing he could do. She then closed
the coffee shop. By that time, I was enjoying the game and waited
until she opened and again entered. At this point, she decided I think
that business was more important than showing me who was in control
and served me.

So I grew up in two worlds: one warm, supportive, and nurturing; the
other cold and hostile. That is not to say that there were no shades
of grey. I went to an integrated high school where I had friends of
all races. I participated in organizations designed to bring people of
all races together to understand our differences and to work
collectively on the problems confronting us. Yet, the sense of living
in two worlds was always there. Even more disturbing was the fact that
there were constant reminders that as African-Americans, we had to
understand that we were inferior. It was even said that the Bible
documented the sin that had led to our eternal inferiority. Yet, my
mother was the youngest graduate of the University of Cincinnati,
graduating at 18 in 1928 until my brother graduated from U.C. in 1947
at 16. It all seemed like a bad dream–a nightmare in fact.

With an ingrained two world perspective, I headed off to Harvard at 18
with a full scholarship in my pocket. My years there resulted in a
Harvard BA in government and a thorough exposure to the glories of the
Anglo-Saxon culture and its contributions to the world. In addition,
it further ingrained the fact that I lived in two worlds that did not
mesh. Probably, the most frustrating part was that with a Harvard
degree, I was viewed as having a excellent education. However, given
the constant emphasis on the inferiority of my people, I gained no
knowledge that helped me understand why this Christian nation behaved
in such a devilish way. I was looking for answers to the questions:
Where do we come from; why are we here; and where do we go after our
spirits leave our bodies. They were questions that I thought were
reasonable for an educated man but Harvard had no answers.

So off into the world I went. Harvard degree at the bottom of a box of
books. My family’s warning imprinted on my mind. Despite the
impressive individual accomplishments that family members had
achieved, there was a constant reminder that what we had accomplished
had only been possible because of the sacrifices and struggles of
countless unknown others who had laid a foundation upon which we could
build. In other words, no matter how much individual success and how
many accomplishments I might achieve, they would have no meaning if
the accomplishments didn’t create a base that future generations could
use in the continuous struggle for justice. “To whom much is given,
much is expected.”

I didn’t know what I was to do but at least I had a standard to
measure my success. Having majored in government and thinking that law
might provide the framework for the service I was seeking, I headed to
D.C., ironically arriving on August 23, 1963. Thus, I had the
opportunity to stand with hundreds of thousands and hear Dr. King and
others give the call to action. A few days later, I was able to get a
job as a reporter on the Washington Afro-American newspaper that
granted me access to downtown and uptown life.

It was a fascinating opportunity to be in what seemed to be the hub of
the universe, chronicalling the change happening around us. However, I
soon bored of writing about what others were doing. As if life felt my
need, in November I ran into a college classmate and Alpha brother,
Bill Strickland, at a SNCC convention I was covering who asked if i
was interested in joining him in New York as editor of the newsletter
of the organization he was heading, the Northern Student Movement
(NSM). NSM had begun as a northern group of students providing support
for the movement in the South. However, Bill and others had changed
the focus to organizing in black communities of New York, Chicago,
Boston, Philadelphia, and Hartford, Conn.

Again, while editing was interesting, when the opportunity to join a
rent strike organizing project in Harlem came, I went. I joined with a
group of young organizers who were apprenticing with Jesse Gray who
had been using the rent strike tactic to challenge landlords for
decades. In 1964, the courts had declared the strategy legal as long
as certain guidelines were followed. So into the streets of Harlem we
went ready to organize all those who previously had been afraid but
needed change.

After a few weeks, the romance wore off. Despite deplorable conditions
and the new law, we encountered people’s internal resistance to
change. Hearing our frustrations, Jesse would patiently say to us,
“People know when they are ready. You don’t. Your job is to test their
readiness. If they aren’t ready, move on”. As my experience grew over
the years, I began to understand how that philosophy had enabled Jesse
and others to maintain their energy and optimism despite the
frustrations and slowness of the process.

From Harlem, I went to Hartford to replace the director at the NSM
project in Connecticut’s capital city. The challenge of building and
maintaining a multifaceted organization was fascinating and
frustrating. We organized around a variety of issues from slum
landlords to job discrimination, raising money to pay ourselves when
national funds ran scarce. Challenging people to stand up was
exciting as well as grueling work. However, it came to a screeching
halt when a demonstration we organized to confront police brutality
led to confrontations between the police and community, resulting in
my arrest and the arrest of others in the organization and community.

We were charged with sedition and a variety of other charges that
hadn’t been used since the Sacco and Venzentti days. In view of the
media focus around outside organizers, the national organization
suggested that those of us who were not from Hartford should leave
until the trial to allow for the situation to cool down. Given that
there was an NSM project in Boston’s black community I went there. By
the time the cases were heard and I received probation, I had obtained
a job as an organizer with a local poverty program and was ready to
plant my roots in Roxbury, the heart of Boston’s black community.

During the three years between my leaving Cambridge in 1963 and
returning to Boston in 1966, I gave up the idea of becoming a lawyer.
While organizing was tough, demanding work, I was convinced that
organizing people always needed to be at the core of my work. I had
come to realize that through organizing I would be able to meet my
family commitment to have my life’s work have benefit and meaning for
the African-American struggle for justice. It was also beginning to
become clear that organizing could be a means to bring together the
two worlds that I lived in. Perhaps, most important, it satisfied my
growing appreciation for our human ability to create new realities as
we come together to focus our physical, mental, emotional, and
spiritual energy on a common purpose.

During the last forty five years, I have been driven by a desire to
both fight back against oppression and to demonstrate the power of
organized action to bring justice. My motto could have been, “Have a
need, let’s organize”. Organizing the burning of trash as a community
worker in Lower Roxbury in the late 60s led to an agreement with my
boss to leave the organization but pushed the City to clean an area,
ignored for years.

The need for unity in the late sixties in the Black and Latino
community led to the formation of the Boston Black United Front which
became the voice of the progressive community of color in Boston. A
highway threatening our community spurred the development of Operation
Stop, the joining of a regional transportation alliance against the
highway, and the formation of the Southwest Corridor Land Development
Coalition which produced a plan that guided the development of the
land once the Governor rerouted the highway around Boston.

The need for a greater share of the construction jobs in Roxbury
stimulated the development of a state wide black, Latino, and Asian
alliance, The Third World Jobs Clearing House with offices in Boston,
Cambridge, Worcester, and Springfield that operated for five years
until the Reagan administration eliminated the funding base.

At the same time the need for a multiracial political alliance in
Boston to protect affirmative action in the construction industry led
to the formation of the Boston Jobs Coalition, an alliance of black,
white, Latino, and Asian community groups, that led the fight for a
local jobs policy, guaranteeing a share of all City financed and aided
projects to Boston workers of all races, people of color, and women.
This policy, linking affirmative action to residency, became a
national model that is used today in cities across the country under
the name, the First Source Program.

My need to see workers develop economic power by pooling their talents
led to my becoming education director of the Industrial Cooperative
Association, a nonprofit consulting firm, focused on aiding workers in
the formation of businesses that they could own cooperatively. I then
spent the next five years helping workers throughout the country
develop the capacity to be owners as well as workers.

Organizing around the need for a community voice in the land use
decisions in Roxbury led in 1983 to Mayor Flynn granting the Roxbury
Neighborhood Council a guaranteed role in all land use decisions and
granting five other communities the right to establish such Councils
with similar powers.

The need to assure that community workers would get jobs as part of
the Boston Jobs Policy led to the formation of the Greater Roxbury
Workers’ Association which became a major force in securing
construction jobs for community workers for the next fifteen years.

Frustration with the level of violence in the community and the need
to develop strategies to change the thinking of the perpetrators led
me to take a job as a counselor and eventually a manager at Emerge,
the nation’s first organization to provide counseling services to men,
convicted of domestic violence. My objective was to develop an
understanding of the psychological dynamics that lead to violence in
order to develop behavior modification strategies.

The need to educate the community on the devastating effects and
extent of domestic violence in the community, led to the development
of the Community Task Force on Domestic Violence, as a vehicle through
which education and organizing could be initiated.

After 35 years of fighting against injustice from outside of
government, a need to strengthen organizing in the community led me to
attempt to use elective office as an organizing tool. In 1999, I ran
for and won a Boston City Council seat representing the community in
which I had lived and worked for decades.

Once in office, the need for a vehicle through which to link my
political representation to community organizing led to the
development of the District 7 Roundtable, a monthly forum bringing
residents and activists together to discuss issues, exchange ideas,
and develop policy initiatives that could lead to political organizing
and legislative action.

The 2000 Census showing that people of color were now the majority
population in the City put a spotlight on the need for more political
operational unity. To strengthen the unity between groups and people
of color, the institutes at U Mass Boston focused on the black,
Latino, and Asian communities sponsored a conference which led to
organization of the New Majority Coalition.

The need to end the discrimination against those with criminal records
led to the formation of the Boston Workers’ Alliance (BWA) which
played a leadership role in the development and passage of a state law
combating such discrimination as well as removing the question of
criminal conviction from the state job application.

Knowing that political victories alone are not enough, the BWA in its
six year history has also established a worker staffing agency to
provide income to the organization and jobs for its members. In
addition it has helped its members establish businesses based on the
philosophy that a job is not enough.

The recognition of an opportunity for additional community resources
in an era of shrinking dollars led to my advocacy for the City to
lease rather than sell City owned land in Roxbury designated for
economic development. Eventually the City agreed to the policy on the
city owned parcels in the Dudley Square area and to share the lease
fees with the community. Negotiations are now taking place regarding
the size of the community’s share and the vehicle for the
determination of use and distribution of the funds.

Obviously, those of us who seek to institutionalize the practice of
justice in this country are far from our goal. Therefore, the struggle
for justice and a civilized society must continue through the
development of new forms of organization and strategies. As Maulana
Ron Karenga said in the January 11, 2011 issue of the Final Call,
“…to be organized is to be in ongoing structures that harness our
energies and house and advance our interests and aspirations and unite
us into an aware and active social force for African and human good in
the world”. Former Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan has
temporarily succeeded in removing me from the front lines of the
Boston struggle for justice. However, while I rest and prepare myself
my return to the battle, others are continuing relentlessly to
struggle to make Boston and this country a beacon for the practice of
justice throughout the world.

As I look back over my 48 years of activism, I realize that I have
been walking in the footsteps of my grandfather, Charles Henry
Turner*, for whom I was named. His passion focused on studying the
behavior of mice, roaches, insects of all kinds, and particularly bees
and ants with their highly organized group behavior. He focused his
life on understanding the behavior of life forms that many consider as
“pests”, unwanted intrusions into their space rather than seeing them
as my grandfather saw them, as an essential aspect of God’s creation.

My passion has been and continues to be the study of the innate
ability of human beings to create new realities through organized
action. Because of my African-American ancestry, I have focused on the
demonstration of those capabilities by those human beings considered
by many in this country as inferior life forms, an unwanted intrusion
into their space. Hopefully, we will soon learn to recognize all human
beings as beings created “in the image of God”, each possessing a
divine creative spirit.

A Luta Continua–The Struggle Continues,

chuck

* The following books have more information on my grandfather’s scientific work:

1) Bug Watching with Charles Henry Turner, Michael Elsohn Ross, 1997
(A children’s book)

2) Selected Papers and Biography of Charles Henry Turner, 1867-1923:
Pioneer of Comparative Animal Behavioral Studies,
Professor Charles Abramson, The Edward Mellon Press, 2003 (An
academic study of his life and work including a history of
the Troy-Knight-Turner Family that I wrote at the author’s request)

Next Week: Installment Two: The Keystone Cops Strike Again

`Democracy Now!' Show Funder Censors Anti-War Journalist John Pilger

2011-07-09T08:42:00.000-07:00

According to the Lannan Foundation's Form 990 financial filing for 2008, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! Productions was given three grants, totaling $375,000, by the Lannan Foundation. And that same year the Lannan Foundation also gave three grants, totaling $545,000, to The Nation/Nation Institute alternative left media group and three grants, totaling $475,000, to Foundation for National Progress/Mother Jones magazine.

But the Lannan Foundation apparently doesn't want to allow anti-war journalists who criticize the Democratic Obama Administration's failure to end the endless U.S. military intervention in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan-Libya-Yemen-Somalia to speak too freely in the United States these days, as indicated by Australian anti-war journalist and anti-war filmmaker John Pilger's recent experience with Democracy Now!'s foundation funder. In an article, titled "The Strange Silence of Liberal America," that was recently posted on the Global Research site, Pilger wrote the following about how the Lannan Foundation apparently operates these days:

"The Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico, believes in free speech. The foundation’s website says it is `dedicated to cultural freedom, diversity and creativity'. Authors, film-makers, poets make their way to a sanctum of liberalism bankrolled by the billionaire Patrick Lannan in the tradition of Rockefeller and Ford.

"Lannan also awards `grants' to America’s liberal media, such as Free Speech TV, the Foundation for National Progress (publisher of the magazine Mother Jones), the Nation Institute and the TV and radio programme Democracy Now! In Britain, Lannan has been a supporter of the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, of which I am one of the judges. In 2008, Patrick Lannan personally supported the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, he is `devoted' to Obama.

"On 15 June, I was due in Santa Fe, having been invited to share a platform with the distinguished American journalist David Barsamian. The foundation was also to host the US premiere of my new film, The War You Don’t See, which investigates the false image-making of war-makers, especially Obama.

"I was about to leave for Santa Fe when I received an email from the Lannan official organising my visit. The tone was incredulous. `Something has come up,' she wrote. Patrick Lannan had called her and ordered all my events to be cancelled. `I have no idea what this is all about,' she wrote.

"Baffled, I asked that the premiere of my film be allowed to go ahead as the US distribution largely depended on it. She repeated that `all' my events were cancelled, `and this includes the screening of your film'. On the Lannan website `cancelled' appeared across a picture of me. There was no explanation. None of my phone calls was returned, nor subsequent emails answered. A Kafka world of not-knowing descended.

"The silence lasted a week until, under pressure from local media, the foundation put out a brief statement that too few tickets had been sold to make my visit `viable' and that `the Foundation regrets that the reason fr the cancellation was not explained to Mr. Pilger or to the public at the time the decision was made'. Doubts were cast by a robust editorial in the Santa Fe New Mexican, The paper, which has long played a prominent role in promoting Lannan events, disclosed that my visit had been cancelled before the main advertising and previews were published. A full-page interview with me had to be hurriedly pulled. `Pilger and Barsamian could have expected closer to a packed 820-seat Lensic [arts centre].'

"The manager of The Screen, the Santa Fe cinema that had been rented for the premiere, was called late at night and told to kill all his online promotion for my film, but took it upon himself to re-schedule the film for 23 June. It was a sell-out, with many people turned away. The idea that there was no public interest was demonstrably not true.

"Theories? There are many, but nothing is proven. For me, it is all reminiscent of the long shadows cast during the cold war. `Something is going to surface,' said Barsamian. `They can’t keep the lid on this.'

"My talk on 15 June was to have been about the collusion of American liberalism in a permanent state of war and the demise of cherished freedoms, such as the right to call government to account. In the United States, as in Britain, serious dissent – free speech -- has been substantially criminalised. Obama, the black liberal, the PC exemplar, the marketing dream is as much a warmonger as George W. Bush. His score is six wars. Never in US history has a president prosecuted as many whistle-blowers; yet this truth-telling, this exercise of true citizenship, is at the heart of America’s constitutional first amendment. Obama’s greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the United States, including the anti-war movement.

"The reaction to the Lannan ban has been illuminating. The brave, like the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, were appalled and said so. Similarly, many ordinary Americans called into radio stations and have written to me, recognising a symptom of far greater suppression. But some exalted liberal voices have been affronted that I dared whisper the word, censorship, about such a beacon of `cultural freedom'. The embarrassment of those who wish to point both ways is palpable. Others have pulled down the shutters and said nothing. Given their patron’s ruthless show of power, it is understandable. For them, the Russian dissident poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko once wrote, `When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.'

"The War You Don’t See" is available on www.johnpilger.com

John Pilger is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by John Pilger

(Not surprisingly, neither The Nation, Democracy Now! nor Mother Jones magazine has apparently provided its readers, listeners or viewers with much information about either the historic or current business activities of Lannan family members or about which transnational corporate stocks are contained in the investment portfolio of the Lannan Foundation. Yet, according to its Form 990 financial filing, on December 31, 2008 the Lannan Foundation owned $942,000 worth of Microsoft stock, $953,683 of Disney Company stock, $1,267,640 worth of Wells Fargo stock, $1,389,789 worth of Coca-Cola Company stock, $1,580,982 worth of Wal-Mart stock and $44,145 worth of Goldman Sachs stock.--bf)

Black Worker Jobless Rate: 16.5 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives

2011-07-08T10:50:00.000-07:00

Between May and June 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Black workers in the United States increased from 16 to 16.5 percent under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives; while the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all white workers in the United States increased from 7.7 to 8.2 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The number of officially unemployed African-American workers increased by 134,000 (from 2,838,000 to 2,972,000) between May and June 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of officially unemployed white workers in the United States increased by 722,000 (from 9,618,000 to 10,340,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data..

The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years of age jumped from 40 to 45 percent between May and June 2011, while the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years of age increased from 20.6 to 24.8 percent during this same period.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age jumped from 13 to 13.9 percent between May and June 2011; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 16.7 percent in June 2011. The number of unemployed Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 79,000 (from 1,172,000 to 1,251,000) between May and June 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed white female workers over 20-years-of-age increased by 205,000 (from 3,753,000 to 3,958,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

Between May and June 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic workers in the United States also increased from 11.1 to 11.5 percent; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic workers increased by 125,000 (from 2,518,000 to 2,643,000), according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, during this same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers increased from 11.1 to 11.4 percent between May and June 2011; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers in the United States was still 9.8 percent in June 2011. According to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, the official unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19-years-of-age jumped from 26.1 to 35.4 percent between May and June 2011; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic youths increased by 130,000 (from 236,000 to 360,000) during this same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

For all U.S. workers (male and female) over 16 years-of-age, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate increased from 8.7 to 9.3 percent between May and June 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all male workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 9.2 to 9.6 percent and the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all female workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 8.3 to 9.1 percent during this same period. Between May and June 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers over 16-years-of-age increased by 988,000 (from 13,421,000 to 14,409,000), according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ July 8, 2011 press release:

“…Since March, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 545,000, and the unemployment rate has risen by 0.4 percentage point…

“The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 412,000 in June. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was essentially unchanged over the month, at 6.3 million, and accounted for 44.4 percent of the unemployed…

“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged in June at 8.6 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job…

“In June, 2.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…

“Among the marginally attached, there were 982,000 discouraged workers in June…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them…

“Employment has been essentially flat for the past 2 months…Government employment continued to trend down…

“…Employment in temporary help services changed little over the month and has shown little movement on net so far this year…

“Employment in government continued to trend down over the month (-39,000). Federal employment declined by 14,000 in June. Employment in both state government and local government continued to trend down over the month and has been falling since the second half of 2008…

“Manufacturing employment changed little in June…Employment in this industry has been flat for the past 2 months…

“Construction employment was essentially unchanged in June….Employment in construction has shown little movement on net since early 2010…

“In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased…”

Imprisoned Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner's June 13, 2011 Message From Behind The Wall

2011-07-07T07:13:00.001-07:00

(The following article was originally posted on the Support Chuck Turner site)

Reflections from Behind the Wall:
Topic: Preview of Anatomy of a FrameUp

June 13, 2011
Dear Supporters,

I was arrested by the FBI on November 21, 2008 at 6:15 a.m. at Boston
City Hall where I had served as a City Councilor for 9 years. At 3
p.m. on the same day, I was arraigned before a judge magistrate in
Worcester, MA, 45 miles from Boston, on one count of extortion, 3
counts of lying to FBI agents, and 1 count of conspiracy. On October
29, 2010, I was convicted of 1 count of extortion and 3 counts of
lying to FBI agents. The conspiracy charge was dropped without
explanation. On January 25, 2011, I was sentenced to 36 months in a
federal penitentiary. The sentence was based on my conviction on the
four counts and the judge’s assertion that I had perjured myself when
I took the stand to testify in my own defense.

Today I am in my 11th week at the work camp at USP Hazelton in
Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, where 130 men convicted of nonviolent
financial crimes serve as the work force for the Hazelton prison
complex, composed of a women’s medium security prison with 1000
inmates and a men’s maximum security prison with 1700 inmates. Based
on the Bureau of Prison Sentencing Monitoring Computation of
3-31-2011, I will be released on November 2, 2013 if I maintain my
good time.

Due to my financial insolvency, I applied for a court appointed
appeals lawyer and was fortunate to have the appeals court appoint,
Attorney Charles Rankin of the firm of Rankin and Sultan. Attorney
Rankin is a prominent Boston appeals lawyer. Based on his reputation,
I am convinced he will make an excellent presentation of the appeal.
However, I believe I have a responsibility based on my experience with
the Justice Department during the last two and a half years to show
how U.S. Attorneys and their special police force, the FBI, use their
law enforcement powers as well as media and political relationships
to eliminate those who they view as a threat or as not cooperating
with their political objectives.

I made this promise to my supporters at a rally in front of my Roxbury
office on the day before Thanksgiving 2008, a few days after my
arrest. I think I have enough objectivity now to effectively make such
a presentation. Each week for the next eight weeks, I will send an
installment of what I am calling, “Anatomy of a FRAME UP”. My purpose
is not to prove my innocence. While I am innocent of the crimes of
which I was convicted, I understand that regardless of the outcome of
my appeal, I will always carry the label of being a convicted felon.
Fortunately, I have learned through my 48 years of activism that it
does not matter what people label you as long as you live by the
principles that you believe are appropriate for a civilized society.

I realize that there is a danger in accusing a former member of the
Justice Department of what i view as a crime, especially while I am
under the control of the Bureau of Prisons, a bureau of the Justice
Department. However, I have spent my life urging those who are being
oppressed to stand up, speak the truth, and fight the power despite
the dangers. I have pointed out that justice can only result when
those experiencing injustice loudly and publicly oppose the forces
perpetuating it. How can I do less at a time when the “criminal
justice system” is so ruthlessly taking away the liberty of my
brothers and sisters of all races. We must all do what we can to fight
“Prosecutorial Terrorism”. It is our responsibility to free our
country of this cancer. We owe it to our future generations,
particularly those of us who have experienced their terrorism.

What follows are the titles of the eight installments and a brief
summary of what will be the focus of each.

Installment I: A Lifetime of Activism:

Since US Attorney Sullivan alleged that my crime was a betrayal of my
public trust as an elected official, I feel it is necessary for me to
share my background that led to a life time of activism; the nature of
that activism; what led me to run for political office at age 59; and
how I carried out those responsibilitIes for nine years before I was
convicted of being a corrupt public official and removed from the City
Council by a vote of my fellow Councilors 11-1 (I couldn’t vote).

Installment 2: The Keystone Cops Strike Again:

My arrest was obviously a very serious matter. At the same time, the
way they handled the arrest of a 68 year old activist and respected
public official seemed to me at the time and today as a scene out of a
grade B FBI movie of the 40s. However, it also had shadings of the
slapstick comedy of the Keystone Cops movies of the 20s. Their
behavior certainly did not seem appropriate for Justice Department
officials handling the arrest of a fellow officer of the government.

Installment 3: The Big Lie:

A few hours after my arrest on November 21, 2008, US Attorney Sullivan
called a press conference to announce that I had been arrested for
conspiring with a black female state senator, Senator Dianne
Wilkerson, to extort money from a Roxbury business man, Ron
Wilburn,who was trying to obtain a liquor license. However, since US
Attorney Sullivan had authorized in March 2007 the hiring of Mr.
Wilburn to attempt to entrap the Senator and I, he was obviously lying
about the participants in the conspiracy. He was the chief conspirator
using the FBI, his staff, and Wilburn to attempt to create a crime
around the Senator and i. I believe Sullivan’s lying to the media
about the background of my arrest is what should be prosecuted as wire
fraud. Unfortunately US Attorneys can not be tried for the crimes they
commit “under color of law”.

Installment 4: A Jury of My Peers:

Less than five hours after my arrest, almost as if synchronized with
the US Attorney’s press conference, the then President of the City
Council, Maureen Feeney, having consulted with Mayor Menino’s lawyer,
William Sinnott, announced to the press that I was being stripped of
all my City Council Committee responsibilities and would be invited to
a special meeting of the City Council the following work day when the
Council would determine what action to take based on the accusation
that I had committed a crime. She backed away from her plan when she
saw five hundred of my supporters come to City Hall to attend the
meeting that i had requested be open to the public. However, she
continued her quest by getting the Mayor hire a lawyer to gather
evidence and explore althernatives at $500 a hour. Fortunately, the
new Council President Ross rescinded her actions.

Installment 5: What First Amendment?:

Infuriated with the fact that I had been challenging the actions of
his office since the day of my arrest, US Attorney Sullivan had Asst
US Attorney McNeil file a motion on January 5, 2009 requesting that
the presiding magistrate approve a gag order to silence me. The order
which the magistrate approved required that all the evidence in the
case be withheld unless I signed a gag order saying that I would not
publicly discuss anything in the evidence. I refused to sign for the
following reasons. First, I was running to retain my Council seat and
believed I had a responsibility to my constituents to speak to the
issues involved in the case. Second, I believed I had a responsibility
to defend my first amendment rights. The third reason was that since
the US Attorney had begun the public discussion of my case, by showing
alleged evidence of “my crime” to the media, I didn’t think that I
should be denied the opportunity if I chose. This led to the U.S.
Attorney’s office withholding their “evidence” from my lawyer for 10
months until I won the election and signed the order.

Installment 6: The Three Ring Circus:

This installment will focus on the trial. Its title does not refer to
Judge Woodlock’s handling of the trial. I use the term because at a
circus, the action takes place in three rings. During my two week
trial, there were three elements/rings that served from my perspective
as the foundation of my conviction for a federal crime: a)Judge
Woodlock’s explanation to the jury that while I was being charged with
extortion, I did not even have to ask for money in order to be
convicted on the charge; b) My decision that as a public official I
had to take the stand despite my lawyer and the judge urging me not to
do so; and c) The testimony by a liquor wholesaler that if Mr. Wilburn
had obtained a liquor license, and if he had opened a club, and had
bought liquor from the wholesaler’s 0firm, the alcohol would have to
come from out of state. The fact that the alcohol would have had to
cross state lines gave Sullivan the opportunity to use his federal
powers to initiate a sting regarding the issuance of state liquor
license to entrap the Senator and i
.

Installment 7: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury:

I will use this installment to present the evidence, seen by the jury,
that should have convinced them of my innocence. I will present the
evidence in the form of a closing argument to the jury. I will also
point out in that argument the relevance to my innocence of the fact
that U.S. Attorney Sullivan built his public justification for my
arrest around the lie that Senator Wilkerson and I conspired to extort
money from Mr. Wilburn. How could I be in a conspiracy with the
Senator to extort money from Mr. Wilburn when the evidence presented
at the trial shows that the FBI instructed Mr. Wilburn to suggest to
the Senator that they involve me in the scheme that he was creating to
entrap the Senator.

Installment 8: I Warned You:

The jury found me guilty of one count of extortion of $1000 and three
counts of lying to federal officials when I told them that I did not
recognize their picture of Mr. Wilburn or remember any interactions
with him. Despite the fact that I had never been convicted of a crime,
either state or federal, other than civil rights protests and had 700
letters of support urging that I be given probation, I was sentenced
to 3 years in jail and three years probation. I will use this last
installment to show how they used my assertion of innocence before the
trial as well as on the witness stand to justify a sentence that many
view as cruel and unusual punishment for a crime I didn’t commit.

I debated whether to include an installment on my ouster from the
Boston City Council on Rosa Parks Day, December 1, 2010. I have
decided to not include it in the “Anatomy……” since it was an
action initiated not by the US Attorney and the FBI but by Council
President Ross, supported by Mayor Menino and his lawyer, William
Sinnott. In addition, my lawyer, Chester Darling who is representing
me in my challenge of the legality of the Council ouster, says that
the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) at the request of the Chief Justice
of the Massachusetts Federal Court Mark Wolfe will hear our arguments
regarding the illegality of the Council’s actions and the erroneous
advice of Counsel Sinnott either in September or October. So I will
hold any discussion of this until after the arguments before the SJc.

Next week: Installment 1: A Lifetime of Activism

Libyan People Protest Against Endless US/UK/French/NATO Bombing of Tripoli

2011-07-03T06:12:00.000-07:00

Simon Property Copley Place Owners Involved In Inheritance Litigation

2011-06-18T17:44:00.000-07:00

The Indiana-based billionaire Simon Dynasty that wants to build a 47-story luxury residential skyscraper on top of the Copley Place shopping mall that it owns in Boston's Back Bay has apparently been involved in a "Simon vs. Simon" court battle in Indiana in recent years. According to a WISH TV website posting of July 2010:

"NOBLESVILLE (WISH) - Initially we expected the fight over Mel Simon's billions to continue today in Hamilton County Superior Court. Both sides will now be at it again later this month.

"Simon's widow Bren and Simon's children are at war over his $2 billion fortune. 24 Hour News 8 has learned just how explosive the feud is; we obtained a copy of Bren Simon's deposition where she reveals her husband's dying wish -- to fight the kids (from Mel's first marriage) so she could have a 'say' after his passing.

""For three weeks, the last three weeks of his life," Bren tearfully testified: "every night I would sit with him and he would squeeze my hand and say, 'fight 'em Bren, fight 'em.'"

"The Simon kids claim their father was coerced to change his will while on his death bed, drastically reducing their inheritance and upping Bren's by as much as $300 million.

Watch 24 Hour News 8's Brad Edwards' full report (to the right) where in a 5 hour deposition, Bren Simon details her husbands final days and the war with his kids. At one point, tension was so high Bren ordered security to keep the kids out of their $ 50 million Bel Air estate

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/indianas-billion-dollar-family-feud-simon-v-simon

Tariq Ali Speaks Out Against Endless U.S./UK War in Afghanistan-Iraq-Pakistan Libya at June 2011 Anti-War Conference in London

2011-06-16T08:25:00.000-07:00