Ethnic studies books banned from AZ state prisons?

As I said in my previous correspondence, Mr. Ryan: you are the reason  your prisoners have rioted, not me. I don't think I even have contacts on Santa Rita. You appear to have plenty of discretion as to what you will and won't allow inside your institutions...I wish your SSU officers were as vigilant about keeping the heroin out as they are about stopping the flow of my free speech.

In any case, to the rest of you: here is the newsletter in question, in case you missed it. I mailed a list of the ethnic studies books banned from Arizona's public schools to a bunch of prisoners this summer, encouraging them to request and read them in solidarity with students - and in defiance of racism, which is necessary to uphold the current power structure inside. 

I really didn't think those books would be off limits to adult prisoners too, but that sure is what it sounds like - this is the AZ DOC's General Counsel they sent to intimidate me, by the way. She really is scarier than Chuck - she used to be a capital crimes prosecutor at the AG's office. This newsletter isn't what I was so concerned about being confiscated, though - they still haven't responded to me on that count.

Here is the beginning of DO 914.08, by the way:

"UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATIONS AND MATERIAL - Prohibited publications include those that by their nature or content threaten or are detrimental to the security, safety and orderly operation, or discipline of the facility, or inmate rehabilitation, or, are found to facilitate, encourage, incite, promote or instruct in criminal activity or unauthorized prison activity."


Shame on me for urging anyone - especially criminals - to resist racism and violence...
 

Carlo Krakoff, age 29, 

died in an AZ state prison of a heroin overdose.

Substance abuse treatment programs are nearly impossible to get into in the AZ Department of Corrections, even for those who want it desperately - only 4% of all state prisoners were able to participate in one last year, including those we sent to private prisons specifically for DUI offenses. That's despite AZ DOC records stating that oapproximately 75% of prisoners are there for substance abuse-related crimes. Too many prisoners going in are actually clean but come out addicted to herion, as the drug is so plentiful and alternative activities for the mind, body and soul  are so few. 

Arizona Prisonwatch <arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com>

---

Prisonwatch Newsletter 2 messages

---

NORTHUP, DAWN <xxxxxx@azcorrections.gov>	Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:24 PM
To: Arizona Prisonwatch <arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com> Cc: "RYAN, CHARLES" <xxxxxx@azcorrections.gov>, "PATTON, ROBERT" <xxxxxx@azcorrections.gov>
Ms. Plews: On behalf of Director Ryan, I am responding to your October 30, 2012 email, inquiring about the reason your Prisonwatch Newsletter has not been disseminated to inmates at ADC complexes.  In your Summer, 2012 Newsletter, titled: “Prisoners’ Justice Day 2012: Justice For Dana” you advocated that prisoners “push back” and show resistance from injustice by requesting a subversive book or by “support[ing] another prisoner’s resistance.”  Although your intent may have been to provoke non-violence, inmates may construe your suggestion that they “fight the injustice from within” as an invitation for unrest and non-compliance.  Contrary to many of your assertions, the safety and security of the inmates and staff is of paramount concern to ADC.  In accordance with DO 914.02, staff at each complex is authorized to withhold publications that may have a detrimental impact on the safe and orderly operation of the institution.  Encouraging inmates to request books that you know are prohibited or to conduct themselves in a manner to show “resistance” violates that policy. In accordance with DO 914.02 and 914.08, your Newsletter, as with all other incoming publications, is subject to screening and review.  Your Newsletter will be disseminated to intended recipients after review provided it complies with Department Policy.   Dawn Northup General Counsel Arizona Department of Corrections 602-542-2323 dnorthup@azcorrections.gov

---

Arizona Prisonwatch <arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com>	Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM
To: "NORTHUP, DAWN" <xxxxxxx@azcorrections.gov> Cc: Daniel Pochoda <xxxxxxxx@acluaz.org>
Thank you for getting back to me on the July Newsletter. My greater concern, though, is that my more recent correspondence - not all of it containing calls to "resist" in a way that could seriously threaten institutional order - has apparently been disrupted to nearly all the prisoners I previously corresponded with. This includes prisoners trying to access both health care and safety because they are in harms way; I hate to answer people in such desperate straits with silence. Since I haven't gotten any feedback from you folks about what may be getting confiscated or contrabanded until now, I have no idea if your office has legitimate things you want me to tone down, or if Chuck Ryan just doesn't want me arming his prisoners with information about appropriately asserting their civil rights. Those are two very different things. In any case, I'd like to know what procedures I need to follow to protect my own rights - the "free speech" ones. How do I grieve an ADC action that adversely affects me as a civilian? That correspondence represents a tremendous investment of time, money, and other resources. Much of my correspondence with prisoners is time-sensitive, as I'm sure you are aware, so I'd really prefer confrontation over avoidance on such matters. Please let me know what's happening with the rest of my mail - both to and from prisoners. Regards, Peggy Plews [Quoted text hidden] -- Margaret J. Plews, Editor Arizona Prison Watch P.O. Box 20494 Phoenix, AZ 85036 480-580-6807 "Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness, and our ability to tell our own stories..."  - Arundhati Roy Prison Abolitionist http://prisonabolitionist.blogspot.com Arizona Prison Watch http://arizonaprisonwatch.blogspot.com Survivors of Prison Violence - AZ http://azprisonsurvivors.blogspot.com

Trespassing charges dismissed against Phoenix Occupiers

I should have written a complete post on this matter myself, but it was a tiresome ordeal, all those court dates, and rather anti-climactic. I'm thrilled that the charges were finally dismissed, but wanted my day in court, too, and I feel for all those folks who plead out early to get on with their lives who now have the consequences of a criminal record affecting their employment and housing opportunities. If it wasn't a crime worth prosecuting for us, then why should they still be getting punished for it? They should all get their plea agreements squashed and the charges dismissed, given the prosecutor's stand on this.

Blessings again to all those I did my brief stint with in Joe's jail, and to all those good souls fighting for truth, peace and justice (which includes decolonization, fellow Occupiers) out in the world today..if all you suffer through are cold floors, green oranges, and funky bread with Blue HUGS, count yourself fortunate - especially if you endure it with your comrades in the span of less than 24 hours. Many people have been tortured, imprisoned, and died around the world for what we did so casually that night. That's not a celebration of the Phoenix Police or the US Constitution, by the way - plenty of Americans have suffered and died in protest at the hands of the American military and police, and still are - they just call the protest something else these days, like "terrorism" or "gang-related crime", so no one pays attention to what happens to suspects labeled by the state that way now. 

I believe that those of us who have survived such encounters with law enforcement unscathed - and have even come through stronger - have a duty to pay closer attention now to those who don't: like the folks in Phoenix who really don't have a place to lay their head at night without being threatened with arrest for camping, for example. Most of the rest of us had a choice about being vulnerable to arrest or going home for the night - they didn't. Occupiers aren't out under tents anymore, but we still have a responsibility to challenge that law because we know first hand it's implementation is unjust, and the consequences of fines and jail time are far more devastating to the poor and those who lack privilege than they are to the white middle class that was so active with the Occupations, but - as history shows - is so easily appeased and convinced to abandon such causes, because the system they complain no longer works can be fixed to work for them - but only as long as it continues to oppress others...


My thanks, by the way, to attorneys Joy Bertrand and Shannon Peters for all their unpaid work on my case, and to Jane Joyce for her assistance and encouragement (Jane is also a pretty good rocker!). I guess I wrote a post of my own after all. Now here's the news and the court document to go with it...

Abolish the Phoenix Camping Ordinance!

Occupation of Margaret T. Hance Park

October 15, 2011

 -------------------------

Phoenix drops last charges vs. 'Occupy' defendants

JJ Hensley
Arizona Republic
June 1, 2012

Charges against the final "Occupy Phoenix" protesters accused of trespassing were dropped this week after city prosecutors determined that justice would be served by dismissing the charges.

Twenty suspects remained of the 45 who were arrested on suspicion of trespassing and loitering at Margaret T. Hance Park in mid-October for refusing to leave after the park had closed. Twenty five of those arrested pleaded guilty, but the remaining 20 decided to fight the citations in court.

The anti-Wall Street movement known as "Occupy" started in Manhattan and spread to cities throughout the country last year. Occupy Phoenix started as a relatively large group when about 300 protesters demonstrated on Oct. 14 near Arizona State University's campus in downtown Phoenix. Protesters ultimately moved to Cesar Chavez Plaza at Washington Street and First Avenue, where dozens of people took shifts at kiosks during the day and then left in the evening to keep from violating a curfew.

But on Oct. 15, when an estimated 400 protesters walked through Hance Park, dozens of protesters refused to obey the commands of Phoenix police officers who were trying to clear the park by its 10:30 p.m. closing time. At 12:16 a.m., police began to arrest the defendants, according to court documents.

Aaron Carreon-Ainsa, a prosecutor on the case, said the reasons for the arrests were clear: Police repeatedly told the protesters to leave and after waiting nearly two hours began to make arrests.

Carreon wrote in the motion to dismiss the cases that the freedom to assemble, speak and protest are fundamental values protected by the U.S. Constitution and that the police were there to protect the protesters' rights. But they were also there to enforce the park's hours.

"We evaluate each case on its own merits and in no way should the dismissal of the charges that occurred on May 30 in city court be interpreted to mean that future trespasses will not be prosecuted," he said.
The city spent at least $200,000 on officer overtime in the first two weeks of the protests, according to former interim Police Chief Joe Yahner. But those costs do not include salaries for other city employees, including park workers and prosecutors.

----------------Motion to Dismiss--------------

The prosecution's motion to dismiss from court this week was a cut and paste job that doesn't describe my own "criminal" act of trespassing or loitering accurately - this thing just reads the same for everyone, except for our names and personal pronouns. I was out running around the field filming the riot police as they advanced on us when they took me down. I was the first one they grabbed, in fact...I guess I was kind of in the PPD's face, having pissed them all off earlier with my camping ordinance protest (the raising of the tents). But I'll settle for this account of what I did instead, since the dismissal came with it. Just know that the state's narrative of crime and protest isn't always right, even if they claim to have reached a "just" verdict or punishment. It's so often based solely on the version they buy from cops taking shortcuts and committing crimes of omission on reports...a uniform, badge and a gun hardly makes one honest or right, it just seems to make it unlikely that their credibility will be challenged nearly as much as that of the accused and our witnesses are...

Criminalization will not arrest our dissent: The Trespass Bill of 2011.

Came across this after seeing it twittered by Naomi Wolf. Good editorial. I had no clue about this legislation. This goes out to all my fellow protesters trespassing and loitering their way through our city courts with me  this year...

ABOLISH THE CAMPING ORDINANCE!!

Occupy Phoenix Opening Day: 

Margaret T. Hance Park

October 15, 2011

-------------from the firedoglake blog of Jeanne Molloff---------------

H.R. 347 aka The’Trespass Bill’ of 2011 Criminalizes Protest

Tuesday March 6, 2012

By: Jeanine Molloff

As I write this op-ed, I primp for the mirror–looking for the most flattering pose–for my mug shot. Now, don’t get the wrong impression; I haven’t been arrested and charged with a federal felony–yet. Nor is the preparation done in anticipation of a guest stint on “America’s Next Top Model”–but as a common sense reaction to Obama’s predictable signing of the latest assault on the Bill of Rights–namely–H.R. 347 (and it’s companion senate bill S. 1794); aka the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.” Sounding more like an appropriations bill authorizing monies for federal grounds LANDSCAPING– this bill, better known to those in the DC beltway as the ‘Trespass Bill’– potentially makes peaceable protest anywhere in the U.S.–a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The legislators responsible for bringing this legislative excrement to life are Representative Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) in the House of Representatives and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT.) leading the Senate version. (Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf) (Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b=112-1794)

Rep. Thomas Rooney–HR 347 Sponsor…

Rep. Rooney, the proud sponsor of HR 347 has served in the Army as a JAG Corps attorney. Since 2002 he has taught law at West Point with his specialty being Criminal Law and–Constitutional Law. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Rooney_(politician) ) Ironically, this ‘constitutional law’ professor has no qualms criminalizing protest and free speech.

H.R. 347 & Senate Companion Bill S. 1794–Criminalizing protest and free speech…

This bill makes protest of any type potentially a federal offense with anywhere from a year to 10 years in federal prison, providing it occurs in the presence of elites brandishing Secret Service protection, or during an officially defined ‘National Special Security Event’ (NSSE). NSSE’s ,( an invention of Bill Clinton’s) are events which have been deemed worthy of Secret Service protection, which previously received no such treatment. Justified through part of ‘Presidential Decision Directive 62 in 1998; Bill Clinton created an additional class of special events explicitly under the authority of the US Secret Service.
 
Past NSSE Events Such as …SuperBowl XXXVI….

Past NSSE events included the funerals of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, and the national security concern that was–Superbowl XXXVI. Other NSSE protected events include the Academy Awards and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions. I suppose presidential candidates, no matter how insane they may be are deserving as much security protection and Brad and Angelina’s sex life.

The dangerous part of this ‘executive order’ lies not in the triviality of a SuperBowl receiving taxpayer funded Secret Service protection–but in the convenience manufactured for any President desperate to hide deliberations of groups like the G-8, the G-20 and the World Trade Organization. The classification of such events as NSSE–insures the rich and powerful against any pesky accountability or transparency to the unwashed minions–namely the US public. HR 347 & S. 1794 insulates such events as the G-8, WTO and presidential conventions against tough questions and politically justified protests. (Source: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Special_Security_Event )

3 Sole Dissenters Against HR 347…

The House vote tally which took place 02/28/12, was 338 for and 3 against. The three dissenters were Rep.Paul Broun R-Georgia, Rep. Justin Amash R-Michigan and Rep. Keith Ellison D-Minnesota. Rep. Ron Paul was reported earlier as having voted against the bill, but that was based on the original vote conducted 02/28/11. Rep. Ron Paul ABSTAINED on the final vote. (source: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/h/73)

Rep. Amash, a rising star in the Tea Party, explained his position on Facebook…
…”Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect its illegal. (It expands the law by changing “willfully and knowingly” to just “knowingly” with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.” ___Rep. Justin Amash (Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change-any)

So, Amash as one of the three dissenters has no problem with criminalizing protest on the ‘royal’ grounds of the Congress or the White House, or even a hotel hosting a fundraiser where legislative aristocracy are protected by the Secret Service–his objection lies with the average tourist unwittingly stumbling onto ‘hallowed’ ground occupied by legally anointed royalty from our government.

This bill can be found in pdf form at the following url : (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf).

As you can see, copies were sent both to Speaker of the House Boehner and Vice-President Biden, subsequently–any claim of rogue congressmen or senators running amuck ranges from disingenuous at best to plain, calloused, obvious lies. Frankly, most members of the House and Senate regarded these two bills as a procedural duty, never questioning the ramifications of this anti-democratic action.

Rooney’s defense of the indefensible–criminalizing dissent…

Rooney’s communication director, Michael Mahaffey dismissed any concerns about civil liberties violations caused by H.R. 347 as…”a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This (HR 347) doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever.” (Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change-any)

Mahaffey further added that this bill is nothing more than a benign ‘DC-centric update’ of Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, designed to safeguard persons under Secret Service protection. Blandly attributing HR 347 as an extension of that protection to the DC area (where such protections fall under the scope of local trespassing ordinances)–Mahaffey explained that…"right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

Mahaffey further claimed that this change was requested by the Secret Service itself. (Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change-any) To his credit Mahaffey did answer my inquiry with a carefully worded email, explaining further that this bill only offers consistent protection for those requiring Secret Service details such as the President, Vice-President. At the surface the explanation seemed reasonable until closer examination revealed vague terms in the bill regarding the term “knowingly” , “disruptive conduct” and “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or offical functions.” (Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf) Furthermore, neither Rep. Rooney or Mahaffey actually answered my question regarding legal precedent, legal case citations, and associated theories. We are merely supposed to take their word for it.

Sloppy Legislation…Vague Wording 

The problem with Rep. Rooney’s response via Michael Mahaffey lies in the very nature of protest. Mahaffey claims that this bill does not trample the constitutionally protected right to protest–yet the bill itself criminalizes ‘disruptive conduct’ in such vague terms that a 7th grader disrupting visiting dignitaries receiving Secret Service protection, over any issue–(no matter how trivial), such as school uniforms–would be potentially guilty of a federal felony. What Rooney, and so many government elites cynically ignore is the very nature of protest. Protest in its very nature, is intended to disrupt government business as usual, for without such disruption the protest would be as effective as a leaky condom.

Congressmen like Justin Amash who quibble over the omission of the word “willfully” as justification for arresting and charging citizens with the federal felony of ‘trespassing’; on grounds where a Secret Service protected person happens to be–miss the point. Amash is correct in noting that the omission of the word “willfully” represents an unfair burden to the citizen. In legalese, this omission creates a situation where anyone can be charged with a federal felony for ‘trespassing’ on grounds shared by a person or group receiving Secret Service protection (including NSSE’s); even if the ‘trespasser’ had no knowledge of such protected persons being present. In theory, anyplace where there is a protest–could also be the setting for mass felony charges against constitutionally protected behavior such as the right to protest.

Unfortunately, Amash takes in no further. What he fails to recognize is the constitutional right to protest, to petition a government for redress of grievances. In short, this Congress and this President have established themselves as would be aristocrats and monarchs. This bill represents a legislative Maginot Line separating Congress, the President and the corporations who appear to own them–from the rest of us rabble. Amash’s offering is tantamount to an obese glutton offering crumbs to the starving–symbolically empty and useless.

The Senate’s Response….Dead Silence

To date, no response has been received by the Senate sponsor of HR 347′s companion bill Senate Bill 1794, Senator Richard Blumenthal. In fact, this bill was passed in the Senate by ‘unanimous consent,’ which is significant in terms of senatorial accountability and transparency. To quote www.govtrack.us…
…”This bill passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.” (Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1794) How very convenient for each senator that their position was never recorded–anywhere. No accountability and certainly no transparency–just gross arrogance. ( The House of Representatives DID have a record of each representative’s vote. Here is the link to the House vote record : ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-149).

The following link can be used to contact any member of the US Senate regarding their vote and the lack of transparency on such an important issue. (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)

The Senate rule of ‘unanimous consent’ is defended as a method of expediting legislative business otherwise considered inconsequential. The Senate’s ‘volume of precedents’ explains the nature of unanimous consent:
…”Whereas Senate Rules permit virtually unlimited debate, and very few restrictions on the right to offer amendments, these (unanimous consent) agreements usually limit debate and the right of senators to offer amendments.” (Source : http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm)
Though a majority of Senate business is dispensed with using ‘unanimous consent’–it is inherently troubling that our Senators view the dismissal of our basic right to ‘peaceably assembly’ as -inconsequential.

In Conclusion…

In this age of ever increasing police militarization and shrinking civil liberties both here at home and worldwide; the US government under President Obama has morphed into a third Bush term. No longer content to stonewall the public with empty slogans issuing from ‘empty suits’–the political class has degraded to writing obviously illegitimate ‘laws’ in a desperate attempt to crush any dissent. As this bill made its way through the illustrious halls of Congress–no open discussion was entertained for an entire year. Not a single member of Congress spoke out against this obscenity. Not a single member of Congress alerted the press. Not a single member of Congress contacted legal advocacy groups such as the ACLU, Bill of Rights Defense Committee or the National Lawyer’s Guild. The silence deafening– if not conspiratorial.

Congress Shall Make No Law…

Just this past year we saw the President who campaigned on ‘hope’ and ‘change’–announce some galling changes, with Congress (for the most part) rubber stamping each and every death blow to what remains of the Bill of Rights. President Obama has claimed the right to declare anyone a ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorist sympathizer’ based on nothing more than presidential opinion, and order their assassination. (Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005) No evidence is required–at least that the public can see. We are told to blissfully ‘trust’ our public officials even when they are unworthy of such trust. The galling fact that Rep. Tom Rooney has taught constitutional law to cadets at West Point is chilling in light of this sneaky ‘end-run’ around the 1st amendment. In case Rep. Rooney has forgotten that amendment–I’ll quote it here :

“CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Perhaps Congress and the President will find their inner patriot and reverse this vile stripping of our rights. It could happen. By the way–can anyone pass the Prozac?

Limits on free speech at the AZ State Capitol...

Was down at the Capitol yesterday following the announcement that our prisoners and survivors have filed their class action lawsuit against the Department of Corrections; this was the day when I planned to finally lay down one of my murals on the plaza between the two legislatures. Dana Seawright's mother, Kini, joined us. I managed to get the main part of it down - sans the names - before the cops stopped to hassle me. 

Fortunately, there were a couple of cameras trained on me at the time Officer Anderson of the Capitol Police confronted me, and ultimately - after giving me the new list of protest rules- they backed down. While trying to dissuade me from finishing my project he fumbled over what law, exactly, I was breaking by chalking the walk, despite his repeated threats to arrest me if I didn't "take it out there" (gesturing to the city sidewalk out by 17th Ave. and Wes Bolin Plaza, where I usually chalk). My response to his directions was to maintain that the free exercise of political speech is meaningless if we are relegated to places where no one can hear us before we're allowed to speak - for which reason, I refused to take my protest elsewhere, and challenged him to ticket me, arrest me, or leave me alone to finish my task. 

Anderson made sure to let me think I'd been both warned and trespassed, telling me I'm not allowed to return to the Capitol grounds unless I have "legitimate business" to conduct there. I asked who made this decision to ban me, who I appeal to, and who, exactly, determines each time I come to the legislature whether or not my business is "legitimate". As far as I was concerned, what I was doing at that moment was a very legitimate effort to communicate information to my lawmakers and governor. All the information I could get out of Anderson, though, was the name "Joe" - that's apparently who's in charge of the Buildings and Grounds department. 


So, how is it that the guy in charge of lawn maintenance is also the one who determines whether or not my exercise of free speech is constitutionally protected? That doesn't seem like it would fly in court, so I plan to challenge it this spring - stay tuned for that one. Besides, it's hard to take cops seriously whenever they go the whole gamut from being Mr. Nice Guy doing me the favor of cutting me a break by letting me go if I stop chalking immediately, to aggressively posturing and threatening to arrest me if I don't comply, to backing off and saying things like "I'm not going to arrest you because you WANT me to arrest you - I'm not talking to you anymore. We're just going to wash this off as soon as you finish so no one that you want to see it will see it" (Anderson's final answer to me yesterday - after which I finished my mural in peace and took photographs so everyone can see). 

I've had way too many cops try to bullshit me into believing that whatever they say is law that I've learned to insist that they cite the law and apply to me it if they really think I'm breaking it - but to otherwise leave me alone. There's also a big difference between rules or codes of conduct and "laws", and cops like to act as if they can arrest me for the former when I haven't broken the latter. I guess I can be trespassed from a property for violating rules, but I don't think they can outright arrest me unless it's also a violation of law.


Anyway, here's the new list of rules for "ACTIVITY" (read: "Protest") at the Capitol. I think we should have a day this spring to do nothing up there but protest them for trying to silence their dissenters, breaking every rule in the book in the process. Until then, my friends, if you plan to protest at the Capitol, be sure to have someone backing you up with a camera rolling on the cops - and the Buildings and Grounds crew - when they come after you...

As far as I'm concerned, the importance of alerting  the right people to what's going on trumps the need for the Legislature to have an "orderly" sidewalk. As long as this Governor denies the severity of the crisis of violence and despair in the state prisons, I'll keep on trying to get the message across in as many ways as possible...

Copwatching the FBI: If an agent knocks.

Bravo to the Peace Mom from Austin! This is an awesome lesson in dealing with the FBI - and police interrogations in general. This agent's approach is pretty classic - they always "just want to make sure that everyone stays safe," and they're often "confused" when we don't want to answer questions if we have nothing to hide.


Here's the link to the ACLU-AZ, in case this really happens to you. They'd like to hear about it, I'm sure. Also, here's the handbook, "If an Agent Knocks" from the Center for Constitutional Rights. And if you get any good video, then please contact me (Peggy prisonabolitionist@gmail.com) or Phoenix COPWATCH (here's their face book page) and share...

The work of a true revolutionary...begins at home.

I just came home from court this morning, and finally had a chance to get my police report, detailing what I'm being charged with and what evidence is against me. I already gave them most of it in letters, blogs, and postcards about my protest. I was relieved I didn't have to actually enter a "not guilty" plea this morning, because after all that, it would seem pretty dishonest. I may have a defense against some of this, though, so I'm going to speak to the attorney they gave me at the public defender's office before digging a much deeper hole. But I still have amends to make to my neighbors, since I made such a thoughtless public display of vandalizing them. I even seemed to make light of it in the process.

See, this is all about me throwing that red paint down in an alley already covered in paint during the First Friday June Artwalk. I openly admitted doing that, and committed my act of resistance in front of the graffiti detectives themselves. In the process, though, my paint splattered a few inches up the wall of the building next door, an art studio/ collective that it turns out does work with people involved in mental health programs. I'm so clueless about some of my neighbors that I had no idea they were doing that kind of work, or I would have talked to them about this all in advance, even though I had no intention of hitting the alley side of their studio wall. Instead, I learned about my neighbors from my own criminal report, listing them as my victim. I feel pretty crummy about that.





In my police report, the manager of the place said she wanted to prosecute because what I'd done would have been so upsetting for some folks participating in the programs - which I inferred was of particular concern for those folks with pre-existing psychiatric conditions. I get that - and can see it upsetting others as well. That explains to me why it was important to clean it up, without messing around with my offer to re-paint it myself - even I would have called Graffiti Busters to clean up after myself if I thought it through. It really was unintended - that doesn't mean I'm not responsible, though. I acted out without much thought for the neighbors over there, or their members and guests. That's not very excusable, given what I could have brought out for some folks with images of bloodshed across the alley, as well as the names of the dead. That's me acting out my own unresolved trauma, in part - they don't need my help with theirs.


So, this blog post will no doubt be added to the evidence they use against me in the end, but I'm truly deeply sorry for having dragged you all into the middle of my protest. You're already doing your part to protect our people from ending up in prison in the first place. I hope that if my activities ever trouble you that way - criminal or not - you feel okay contacting me.


Most people with mental illness, by the time we're my age, have already been through too much. I'm dually-recovering myself, survived a horrible, violent suicide of a loved one, and the last thing I would want to do is traumatize someone else further. We all need to feel safe in order to grow, and I undermined that for some folks, I suspect, by all my agitation and graffiti - which invited others to contribute more. I was also wrong to define the terms of resistance by my own standards without talking to others living and working around there that night, outside of what I call my own community.


I thought this protest would be all about getting my message out about the state's violence, not mine. It still is, in a way, but not how I thought it would be. It's been said that the work of a true revolutionary begins in the our own communities, taking care of others. Despite all I preach about the importance of doing so if we're to really hold each other accountable and not rely on the criminal justice system for amends to be made in cases like this, when it came down to it I didn't practice that. I think this is the bigger lesson in all this - it's for me, not for the cops. I understand why people get upset about graffiti, now. My total lack of concern for the effect of my actions that Artwalk on the people right next door is my real crime, though - even if I hadn't even touched their property.



But an apology alone is not an amends. I'm inclined to think that only those folks - and perhaps the participants they were concerned about - can say what they feel justice would be, having been harmed in some way by me - and I respect it if they feel the criminal justice system is the way to get that, and to restore their own sense of safety and order in their community. I'd have a pretty hard time pleading not guilty to that charge, after all this. The charges filed about city property, though, I'll probably fight.


I think I just threw myself at the mercy of the court - or my victims, I'm not sure which. I guess now I should wait until I talk to an attorney before commenting much further on all this. Thanks to my friends for showing their support today.



Peg

--

Margaret J. Plews, Editor
Arizona Prison Watch
P.O. Box 20494
Phoenix, AZ 85036
480-580-6807

"Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness, and our ability to tell our own stories..."

- Arundhati Roy

Prison Abolitionist
http://prisonabolitionist.blogspot.com
Arizona Prison Watch
http://arizonaprisonwatch.blogspot.com
Arizona Juvenile Prison Watch
http://azjuvenileprisonwatch.blogspot.com
Hard Time Alliance - AZ
http://hardtimehepc.blogspot.com
Survivors of Prison Violence

http://azprisonsurvivors.blogspot.com

Copwatching in the land of the free...

For all you copwatchers out there...

----------------------------

Ground-Breaking Victory For the Common Man: First Circuit Court Rules Videotaping Cops Is Protected By First Amendment

Mac Slavo
September 2nd, 2011
SHTFplan.com

Whip out those cell phones and video cameras – we have great news!

It’s official, and the message to public servants is clear – Americans’ right to video record police while they are executing their duties in a public venue fits comfortably within first amendment activity:

Hear ye, hear ye!!

The First Circuit Court of Appeals–the highest federal court for New England just below the U.S. Supreme Court–last Friday handed down a ground-breaking decision defending our right to videotape the police and other public officials as they engage in their official duties.

On Friday, the First Circuit agreed. In a decision that reads like an ode to the First Amendment as key to both liberty and democracy, the court wrote:

“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity]. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

“Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative.”

The Court further stated that such protections should have been clear to the police all along, noting that the right to videotape police carrying out their duties in a public forum is “fundamental and virtually self-evident”

“The public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press.”

“Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” the Court continued. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

Source: Boston.com

It’s possible that the case, or a case of a similar nature, will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, but we are hard pressed to find a legitimate argument to the contrary, and thus believe that the Supreme Court would uphold the decision of the lower First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Of course, public officials, namely those who are themselves breaking the law and violating the rights of others, will continue to attempt to intimidate the general public – but only for a bit longer. Take, for example, the case of Michael Allison, who faces life in prison on multiple counts of wiretapping in Illinois for recording law enforcement officers in public. The Illinois Attorney General continues, at least as of this writing, to pursue the case after Allison refused a plea bargain that would have left him with no jail time. Allison rebelliously responded to the plea offer by saying, “if we don’t fight for our freedoms here at home we’re all going to lose them.”

The First Circuit Court’s decision would override any decision by a State judge, as it falls under the umbrella of the US Constitution, so we have no doubt Allison’s charges will be dropped, or simply overruled by a Federal court if it comes to that.

Once it becomes broadly known that this decision has set a ground breaking precedent and that there can be no criminal liability, Americans all over the country will undoubtedly begin documenting law enforcement activity and making that documentation available on the internet for all to see.

An open society, and one that is legally protected from the threat of intimidation and unwarranted arrest for simply making a record of police activity, is a freer society and this recent decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals helps to ensure that freedom.

This is true transparency in government, an example which should be carried on to the U.S. Congress, where it would be in the best interests of the people to have cameras and microphones in any and all meetings where legislation or negotiation is taking place.

NLG Attorneys win Internet Free Speech Case

For Immediate Release: July 18, 2011

National Lawyers Guild Lawyers Victorious in Internet Free Speech Case

Contact: Jamie Munro, 212-679-5100 x12, www.nlg.org/news/press-releases/guild-attorneys-victorious-in-internet-free-speech-case

New York. In a case with precedential value for internet free speech, National Lawyers Guild members Larry Hildes of Bellingham, Washington, Devin Theriot-Orr of Seattle, and Mark Sniderman of Indiana successfully defended several activists who received subpoenas from Mt. Hope Baptist Church demanding they turn over their internet account records. Federal judge Richard A. Jones ruled that technology collective Riseup.net did not have to turn over the records. Riseup.net provides online communication tools for individuals and groups working for social change. Google received subpoenas in the same case and turned over its Gmail information without informing the individuals involved.

Mt. Hope Baptist Church subpoenaed the records of several Riseup.net users alleged to have taken part in a 2008 protest. They were members of the queer rights group Bash Back! which disrupted a 2008 Sunday Service at the conservative Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan. Months later, the church and the Alliance Defense Fund, a reactionary Christian nonprofit organization, sued Bash Back! and named 15 activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The church and Alliance Defense Fund subpoenaed identifying information from dozens of emails addresses; Risup.net was the only email provider to challenge the subpoenas.

“This was a major victory for the rights of those engaged in political action or supporting those who are to freely associate safe from the prying eyes of the government, corporations, and fundamentalist churches and law firms. We are proud to have successfully defended this challenge, which is essential to effective political organizing, and proud to have worked with Riseup to do so,” commented Larry Hildes after the victory.

Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund representing Mt. Hope Baptist Church claimed that the Riseup.net users did not deserve protection because their speech was not “patriotic” free speech.

“To assert that some speech is unpatriotic and therefore unworthy of full First Amendment protection is an affront to this nation’s venerated principles of fostering robust debate,” said NLG Executive Director Heidi Boghosian.

The National Lawyers Guild, founded in 1937, is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state.

The First Amendment right to deface government property.

Uh oh. This ruling does not bode well for me or the Friends of Marcia Powell - I hope it goes further. I just found out today that I'll be charged with felony criminal damage for my June Artwalk protest (during which I painted the alley without the city's permission)...this looks like it could quash my less obnoxious free speech activity, too.

-----------------------

Chalking Prohibited Outside White House, Appeals Court Rules

Blog of Legal Times

June 21, 2011

Just a few weeks ago the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said dancing is prohibited inside the Jefferson Memorial. Critics protested. Through dance.

Today, the appeals court turned its attention to a different form of expression—chalk art. The court unanimously said in a panel ruling (PDF) that D.C. law prohibits chalk scribbling on the street in front of the White House.

“No one has a First Amendment right to deface government property,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh declared. “No one has a First Amendment right, for example, to spray-paint the Washington Monument or smash the windows of a police car.”

Kavanaugh said the law prohibiting defacement of public and private property in a content-neutral manner provides “no serious First Amendment objection.”

Rev. Patrick Mahoney, the plaintiff in the suit in Washington federal district court, sought permission for a chalk demonstration in late 2008 to protest against abortion. City police said Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, could show up with thousands of supporters. He was allowed to bring signs and banners. But he was prohibited from marking 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest.

Mahoney sued the city and the Metropolitan Police Department in January 2009 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He wanted an injunction to block the city from preventing him from writing with chalk on the street. A trial judge rejected the request.

Two days later, the appeals court said, Mahoney took his chalk to the street in front of the White House. Police confronted Mahoney, confiscated the chalk and told him to stop. Mahoney obliged. He was not arrested. Mahoney amended his complaint to add the officer who stopped the chalking.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote the opinion for the appeals panel, which included Kavanaugh and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.

The appeals court said the District’s defacement statute is content neutral, banning certain activity—including cutting, chipping, writing and marking—without reference to control of the speaker's message.

Also, the court said the “special nature” of the street in front of the White House—closed to vehicular traffic but open to pedestrians—“serves to heighten esthetic concerns” of the government. “[T]he District’s interest in controlling the esthetic appearance of the street in front of the White House is substantial,” the appeals court said.

The court noted that the District's defacement statute still provided Mahoney other avenues for communication, including signs and banners.

"The District’s threatened use of the defacement statute did not curtail Mahoney’s plans," Brown wrote. "Mahoney was free to announce any “verbal” message he chose. And, Mahoney could depict visual messages on signs, banners, and leaflets. Thus, ample alternative channels of communication existed."

Lawyers for Mahoney were not immediately reached for comment this morning on the appellate court ruling. Carly Gammill of the American Center for Law and Justice argued for Mahoney in the D.C. Circuit in September.

Gammill and James Henderson Sr. of the ACLJ said in court papers that the chalk art demonstration was the only speech activity for which Mahoney sought permission. The city's restriction, then, "prohibited the demonstration in its entirety."

"[W]hatever the storied history and traditions may be that pertain to the street in dispute, Pennsylvania Avenue is nothing other than an archetypical public forum," Mahoney's attorneys said in a brief.

Mahoney's lawyers called the chalk art ban a "peculiar, targeted denial of expression." The attorneys said the District regularly "conducts contests and promotions to entice the public into the public space for the purpose of creating chalk art."

Posted by Mike Scarcella on June 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Defend Free Speech for a Happier New Year.

December 22, 2010

I complained to the Phoenix Police today about being handcuffed and perp-walked Wednesday morning while exercising my First Amendment rights outside of City Hall. Then I informed them of my intention to chalk in front of their HQ. I was really just telling them what I was up to so I wouldn't get tasered or shot; I wasn't asking them for permission or to cut me a "break".

It didn't go over very well.

We argued for about 20 minutes, during which time one officer insisted that the "ground" in the Arizona Revised Statutes (pasted below) refers to dirt, not the sidewalk or street or anything paved. I was ultimately threatened with arrest on the spot and being booked into jail for criminal damage if I proceeded to chalk the walk, which I did.

I told them as I was walking out the door that I'd respect their access to their loading zone - which one officer made a good point about - but that as I understood it, chalking sidewalks isn't against the law, and if they really believed it was to come and get me. I'd rather have it out once and for all in court than haggle with them about it every time. Sooner or later, one of them is bound to hurt me.

They left me alone once I got started. They didn't even take down my personal information when I offered it (they probably already know who I am and where I live...).

Perhaps the "Graffitti Detectives" will chase me down another day. In the meantime, though, since my free speech at City Hall had just been stomped on, I still needed to make a "Happier New Year" card.

Here's two:

Let me know which one you like most and I'll send it to you -

just be sure to give me your snail mail address.

-------------------------------

From the Arizona Revised Statutes: Criminal Code

13-1602. Criminal damage; classification

A. A person commits criminal damage by recklessly:

1. Defacing or damaging property of another person; or

2. Tampering with property of another person so as substantially to impair its function or value; or

3. Tampering with or damaging t he property of a utility.

4. Parking any vehicle in such a manner as to deprive livestock of access to the only reasonably available water.

5. Drawing or inscribing a message, slogan, sign or symbol that is made on any public or private building, structure or surf ace, except the ground, and that is made without permission of the owner.

B. Criminal damage is punished as follows:

1. Criminal damage is a class 4 felony if the person recklessly damages property of another

in an amount of ten thousand dollars or more.

2. Criminal damage is a class 4 felony if the person recklessly damages the property of a utility in an amount of five thousand dollars or more or if the person recklessly causes impairment of the functioning of any utility.

3. Criminal damage is a class 5 felony if the person recklessly damages property of another

in an amount of two thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars.

4. Criminal damage is a class 6 felony if the person recklessly damages the property of another

in an amount of one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars.

5. Criminal damage is a class 1 misdemeanor if the person recklessly damages property of another in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars but less than one thousand dollars.

6. In all other cases criminal damage is a class 2 misdemeanor.

Tales of the Freewayblogger!

Here they are! My friend in Amsterdam found this!

www.freewayblogger.blogspot.com/

Freewayblogger - you're so awesome - your my inspiration - get ahold of me in Phoenix!!! (just look out for who might be following me - and tracking the IPs of visitors to my blogs.) - PA.

Sheriff Joe's Circus at Cronkite

 Just a reminder that this is an action coming up, folks (for a lot of groups). Looks like a good opportunity to confront the abuse of his office to repress first amendment rights...this should be an interesting protest. I guess tea partiers and minutemen will be counter-protesting.

-----

Large crowd expected at live interview of Arpaio

Nov. 27, 2009 11:13 AM
Associated Press

 

A live interview with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in downtown Phoenix has drawn so much interest that organizers are making it available on a large video screen and the Internet.

Three professors with Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication are set to interview the sheriff at 7 p.m. Monday.

A Cronkite school spokeswoman says the event was going to be open to the public, but Phoenix police told school officials earlier this week that they expect large crowds, citing a Facebook page protesting Arpaio and showing about 400 people saying they would attend. Another 440 were "maybes."

Meanwhile, the capacity of the interview site is 210 people.

Levasseur Talk at UMASS Back On

Here's the press release. The Right is still flipping out, though, so we'll see.