Mumia Case on Hold as Appellate Judges Deliberate

Mumia Case on Hold as Appellate Judges Deliberate
by Dave Lindorff
http://www.opednews.com

Momentous decisions are ahead in the 25-year-long case of Philadelphia death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal, following a hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia Thursday.

Burns, who has been the lead attorney for the Philadelphia DA on this case since at least 1995, and who heads the appeals unit, went up against San Francisco death penalty appellate attorney Robert R. Bryan, who assumed the role of lead attorney for Abu-Jamal in 2003.

Abu-Jamal, who was not present at the packed hearing in the ceremonial courtroom of the Federal Courthouse across from the Liberty Bell museum in Philadelphia, had three claims before the Appellate Court, all challenging his conviction for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Judith Ritter, Abu-Jamal's local counsel, argued argued against a claim by the District Attorney to overturn a 2001 decision by a lower federal court which threw out his death sentence. Christina Swarns, a counsel with the NAACP Legal defense Fund, argued in support of Abu-Jamal's appeal as a "friend of the court."

The two-and-a-half-hour hearing began with prosecutor Burns tryng to make the case that Federal District Judge William Yohn had erred in vacating Abu-Jamal's death sentence. Judge Yohn had ruled in 2001 that an ambiguous and poorly worded jury verdict form, and an even more ambiguous instruction from the judge in the case, Albert Sabo, had left jurors believing, wrongly, that they had to all agree on any mitigating circumstances before weighing them in their decision as to the death penalty. In fact, any one juror can find a mitigating circumstance, while a death penalty decision must be unanimous. Burns claimed that Yohn's basis for his ruling was flawed. But all three of the judges—Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowen, both Reagan appointees, and Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee—seemed to take a dim view of Burns' arguments. Judging from their challenging questions to Burns, and their generally favorable questions to Abu-Jamal's attorneys, it seemed likely that they would, in the end, uphold Yohn's decision.

If they do, Abu-Jamal's death sentence would be lifted once and for all. At that point, the DA would have 180 days to decide whether to seek a retrial on just his sentence (not guilt). Several years ago, in an interview with this reporter, Joseph McGill, the original prosecutor at Abu-Jamal's trial, said the DA's office had apparently not decided whether it would seek a retrial on the death penalty if Yohn was upheld on appeal, as this would require impaneling a new jury, and essentially retrying the case, since a new jury would not know the issues leading to conviction. The DA has to realize that a death sentence would be much harder to win in today's Philadelphia, where it would be much harder for the prosecution to obtain a jury of 10 whites and two blacks, as it managed to do for the trial in 1982. Also, in 1982, Jamal had an attorney who had never handled a death penalty case before, and he didn't even attempt to bring in witnesses to offer mitigating evidence against a death sentence.

A definitive end to Abu-Jamal's death sentence, even if his conviction remained in place or on appeal, would mean a major change in his status. For one thing, the DA's office would no longer be able, as it has done since 2001, be able to pressure the courts into keeping him locked away in solitary confinement on the state's super-max death row outside Pittsburgh.

On the conviction issues, the court and Abu-Jamal's attorneys focused on a claim that his jury had been unconstitutionally purged of African Americans by a prosecutor who had a history of removing blacks from capital juries—a so-called Batson claim (after the US Supreme Court decision in 1986). The main presentation of the case by attorney Bryan was hampered by frequent questions from the judges, who kept asking for more evidence than just the undisputed fact that prosecutor McGill had used peremptory challenges to remove 10 otherwise qualified black jurors from the jury, compared with only five whites. Bryan pointed out that McGill had made his concern about black jurors clear when, during the trial, he raised an alarm that a black judge had entered the courtroom and sat near Abu-Jamal's supporters in the spectators' gallery. Reading from the court transcript, Bryan noted that McGill had said, "If the court pleases, the two black jurors may know him." (Of course, as Abu-Jamal's then attorney Anthony Jackson noted, there was an equal chance any of the white jurors might have known the judge, but McGill didn't seem to care about them.) In his written brief to the court, Bryan also notes that McGill, over the course of six capital trials including Abu-Jamal's, used peremptory challenges to strike 74 percent of qualified black jurors, compared to only 25 percent of white jurors. That brief also notes that over Ed Rendell's two terms as Philadelphia district attorney, when the man who is now Pennsylvania's governor was McGill's boss, the DA's office struck black jurors in capital cases 58 percent of the time, compared to only 22 percent of the time for whites. (Indeed, in 1982, and until the high court's Batson ruling in 1986, the Philadelphia DA actually followed a state supreme court decision called Henderson, which ruled that it was permissible for prosecutors to strike blacks from a jury if they thought they might tend to favor a defendant of the same race.)

DA prosecutor Burns, for his part, focused on an argument that Abu-Jamal's jury bias claim had been forfeited on procedural grounds because he allegedly had not made it soon enough—either during his trial or in the early stages of his state court appeal. This argument was weakened by the fact that the Supreme Court only made race-based jury selection clearly illegal in 1986, well after Abu-Jamal's trial, and by the fact that documentary scientific evidence of the Philadelphia prosecutor's systematic rejection of black jurors did not come to light until after 1997, after Abu-Jamal's state appeal had been exhausted.

At least one judge, Ambro, seemed clearly sympathetic with Abu-Jamal's Batson claim. The other two judges were harder to read, as they asked tough questions of both Bryan and Burns. One judge, Cowen, on several occasions suggested the improbable possibility that since nobody knew the racial mix of the Abu-Jamal jury pool, it "might have been" majority African-American, "in which case the prosecutor's peremptory challenges might be seen as having been biased against whites." This view is clearly preposterous in a city where the court system had been--and to some extent still is--struggling to obtain an appropriate representation of African Americans on juries. Indeed, back in 1982, the city was still using only voter registration lists to call people to jury duty, and blacks at that time, while constituting 40 percent of the city's population, were notoriously under-represented on the voter rolls. Years later, following a federal lawsuit, the city has changed its method for compiling jury pools, but a lawyer long familiary with the issue says it would have been "almost inconceivable" for there to have been a majority black jury pool in 1982 under the old system.

If at least two of the three judges on the Third Circuit panel were to find prima facie evidence of a Batson violation in Abu-Jamal's trial, they would likely send the case back to the Federal District Court, where Judge Yohn would be ordered to hold a full evidentiary hearing on the issue. In general, courts have held that the threshold for proving a prima facie case of a Batson violation--and thus winning an evidentiary hearing--is fairly low, while proving an actual case of bias--and winning a new trial--can be much harder.

The second appeal claim by Abu-Jamal--that his trial had been unconstitutionally tainted by a summation statement to the jury by prosecutor McGill in which he told jurors their guilty verdict would "not be final" because Abu-Jamal would have "appeal after appeal," was given relatively short shrift at the hearing, because of the time spent on the Batson issue. Nonetheless it won support from a surprising quarter.

Prosecutor Burns argued to the court that they should not even be considering the issue, since the US Supreme Court has never ruled that such clearly improper language by a prosecutor should undo a conviction--only a death sentence. But Judge Cowen, looking incredulous, asked Burns, "Isn't saying that undermining a defendant's right to a fair trial?"

If Cowen took that question seriously--and feels that telling jurors that their judgment isn't really final, could undermine the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"—then he could be considering overturning the guilty verdict. If a second judge went along with his view, that would mean a new trial for Abu-Jamal--except for the fact that the DA would certainly appeal such a decision to the US Supreme Court, (which would be bound to consider it, because of such a ruling's far-reaching implications).

There was no discussion of Abu-Jamal's third claim, which was that his post-conviction hearing had been constitutionally flawed because of a pro-prosecution bias on the part of Judge Albert Sabo, the same judge who had presided over his trial. The fact that there was no argument on this claim by either side doesn't matter much, since both sides have filed detail briefs with the court, as they also did on the other claims. Apparently, the three judges had no major questions for either side regarding their respective arguments.

There is no specific timetable for the court to decide on the four claims before it, though some attorneys predict a decision can probably be expected in one or two months.

Outside the courtroom, in the plaza in front of the courthouse, and along 6th Street, several hundred pro-Abu-Jamal demonstrators, many carrying "Free Mumia" signs, staged a spirited demonstration. Inside the courtroom, Abu-Jamal supporters filled most of the seats reserved for spectators. Near the front sat Officer Faulkner's widow, Maureen, and several family members and supporters, who were allowed to enter the courtroom via a private entrance while other spectators had to go through security gates and line up at the courthouse's main entrance.

Prosecutor McGill was also in attendance.

London Protests Call for Mumia's Freedom

Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! Abolish the racist death penalty! Mumia is innocent! were among the chants from a 100-strong crowd outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.

Protests took place internationally on Thursday 17 May, the day Mumia's case was heard before three judges in the US Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit – just below the Supreme Court. A decision is expected within 90 days.

Greetings were read to the London rally from the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal in Philadelphia,along with a statement from William Singletary, a witness to the 9 December 1981 events, who asserts that Mumia did not arrive on the scene until several minutes after police officer Faulkner had been shot.

Contributions to an open mic were made by supporters of MOVE, Friends of Africa, the Partisan Defense Committee, the International Bolshevik Tendency, the Spartacist League, Legal Action for Women and individual Mumia activists. A collection for Mumia's legal defence raised £40.

Just before the protest began, Colourful Radio interviewed Mumia campaigner Michael W.

For more pictures of the demonstration see: http://www.freemumia.multiservers.com/

For the latest news from the court hearing, see this interview with Mumia's attorney Robert Bryan.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/18/1429203

Radio interviews at Mumia's court hearing

More audio from the actions around Mumia's court hearing, from Hans Bennett who spoke with a number of those present in the courtroom about their reflections on the procedure, including MOVE member Ramona Africa, scholar and activist Ward Churchill, German legislator Volker Ratzmann and Mark Taylor of Educators for Mumia.

Listen to the interviews here

May 17 Oral Arguments - The People Gather in Solidarity

Thank you to all who showed support on May 17th for Mumia's Oral Arguments which were heard before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the next coming months we will receive word on the court's decision which could be anything from granting Mumia a new trial, to an execution date.

CLICK HERE for radio interviews at Mumia's court hearing with Ward Churchill, Ramona Africa and others.

CLICK HERE for pictures taken by Eroc of the Foundation Movement on May 17th in Philly.

CLICK HERE for more pictures!

Statement by William Singletary, a witness in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal

Following is a Statement by William Singletary, a witness in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (1995 PCRA hearing). This statement was sent to the Labor Action Committee To Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, in order that it be read at rallies held in solidarity with death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, on the day of what likely is his last appeal hearing--before a panel of the Third Circuit federal court in Philadelphia, PA, May 17th 2007.

Singletary says he is perhaps the only true witness to the events of the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981, at 13th and Locust streets in Philadelphia, at which radio journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was beaten, and fingered by police for the murder of a police officer. Singletary was never called to testify at the rigged and racist charade, which is sometimes referred to as Mumia's1982 trial.

Singletary insists that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not even arrive on the scene until after the officer was shot, and did not in any way participate in the shooting. Mumia himself was a victim, having been shot and then viciously attacked by white Philadelphia cops.

The hearing on May 17th may be Mumia's last. It concerns only a few issues out of a great many outstanding questions in this case, most of which have never been heard in court. The evidence shows that Mumia is innocent, and the statement below is just one of the many proofs of that fact. Rallies in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal are being held in Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, San Francsco and San Jose California, as well as London, Toronto, Amsterdam, and others internationally.

(for a photocopy of the original signed statement, send a request by email to: LACFreeMumia@aol.com.)


Good-morning/Afternoon;

My name is William Singletary. I am an eye-witness to the murder or assassination of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981, in the early morning hours at 13th and Locust Street in Philadelphia, PA.

Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Daniel Faulkner. I stood as close as 12 to 15 feet when Officer Faulkner was killed. When two bullets were viciously pumped into Officer Faulkner, the shooter then looked into my direction.

We locked eyes for a few seconds. His stare was like a thousand ice picks aiming for my heart. I slowly backed up; we never unlocked eyes until he flung the 22 caliber pistol to the right rear wheel of the Volkswagen.

That's the type of weapon that killed the officer. I saw it and I told the cops where to retrieve the weapon.

This story has had many twists and turns, according to the police, D.A., and prosecutor's office. None of what they stated is true. As I said, I saw the whole thing as it happened and it was not the way they said. They concocted a story, and put it on paper and the whole world believed what they said. I was told to keep quiet by the police, by Mr. Jamal's attorneys, and people on the street that I had always confided in. No one wanted to lose their business or their jobs. So I was left alone, by myself with this burden of "who will listen to me?" In the city of Philly I was a loner or the "Crazy Nigger" that won't shut up. But when we would be alone or with some brothers that truly believed that Mumia was innocent, guided me through turbulent times.

I came through by moving time after time and taking low-paying jobs to support my family. My family even turned their backs. I lost everything I owned just for telling the truth. I never knew people could be so mean; I am talking about professional people. I watched those cops turn into pure animals when they did their dance around Mr. Jamal. They beat him and kicked him, spit on him, called him nigger and violated all of his civil rights. Every one of those cops on the scene took part in the beating and the little dirty dance they did.

Mr. Jamal cried and begged them to stop because he had been shot, but they continued to punch, kick, and beat him with their blackjacks until he was unable to move on his own power. They then picked him up and tried to split his body on a "No Parking" sign. At this point he was too weak to say anything. The cops kept chanting, "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" in reference to an officer that was slain at an early Move confrontation. This was a retribution for his reporting of that incident.

I don't know about all the ins and outs of this case. But what I do know is that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Mr. Jamal was savagely beaten by the Philadelphia police. The whooping of Mr. Jamal makes Rodney King's beating look like a picnic. I mean I have traveled the world, been in a war zone, and come home to witness this barbaric, savage, animal-like beating of another human being. These are sworn officers of the law, all white, not one black. They know what I saw and I've been threatened ever since. Not to the point of bodily harm, but to the point of the loss of my businesses and all my friends.

When I speak of this I sometimes shiver to think of all the pain he suffered at the hands of people who were sworn to serve and protect. I would just like to say I am not crazy or fantasizing about anything. What I said is the whole truth. I am glad to have you all listen and speak to whomever to give this man a new trial. I was never called to the first trial so maybe I will be called to the next one. I am a Vietnam Veteran; I did receive a purple heart for wounds received in combat. I received an honorable discharge. I successfully ran legit businesses in Philly before I was "ran out of town."

Hopefully there is someone within the sound of my voice that can reach out and help these twenty-five years of hell to be brought to some kind of closure. As I said and keep saying, "Mumia Abu-Jamal is an innocent man."

I was there and I said what I saw. So please continue to support him however you may.

Thank you. "Peace brothers and sisters"

Signed,

William Singletary

Tyrants hate free speech

by Hans Bennett
Wednesday, 09 May 2007

Police intimidate Mumia supporters as May 17 court date looms

"I received nothing less than 10 or 15 death threats over the last four weeks from so-called Philadelphia police officers. I assured them that I would show up today, so they would have an opportunity to kill me. They've intimidated and scared folks. They've done what the Ku Klux Klan has always done in America: terrified Black people, poor people, immigrants and good white people" into stepping down and not confronting racism, declared Sgt. DeLacy Davis, of Black Cops Against Police Brutality.

Davis was speaking at an April 24 event in Philadelphia organized by supporters of Black death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal. Widely considered to be a political prisoner, Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing white Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in a 1982 trial that Amnesty International has declared a "violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty,"

Hundreds had gathered in Philadelphia on April 24 to celebrate Abu-Jamal's birthday and to publicize his upcoming oral argument before the federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on May 17.

The event was met by a counter-demonstration of over a hundred plainclothes police officers - a culmination of recent intimidation tactics by the Fraternal Order of Police, who have long been key opponents of a new trial for Abu-Jamal.

Condemning both the police counter-demonstration and the death threats he had reported, Sgt. Davis passionately declared that "the behavior and tactics" he had observed from police outside was "exactly" what he had witnessed from the Ku Klux Klan. "It is that intimidation factor that we have to address and deal with."

Other guest speakers on April 24 criticized the recent FOP intimidation. Emphasizing the long history of resistance to U.S. racism, Philadelphia journalist Linn Washington told the crowd that "this struggle today around Mumia is not new."

Washington then cited the 19th century Black journalist and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, who observed, "Tyrants hate free speech." Pointing to the large police counter-protest outside the building, he asked, "If the evidence against Mumia is as overwhelming as it is claimed to be, why is there such a shrill reaction" to someone questioning the evidence?

In his column written the previous week in the Black Philadelphia Tribune newspaper, Washington documented how the April 24 event had to change locations after police intimidation of the previous Clef Club venue. He wrote that the "anti-Abu-Jamal barrage of emails and telephone calls unleashed on the Clef Club included declarations perilously close to terroristic threats."

Earlier that month, an April 15 hip hop concert and fundraiser for Mumia organized by youth in New York City was also forced to relocate when police intimidated the owner of the Remote Lounge. The Amsterdam News, the venerable Black Harlem-based paper, reported that "after receiving 16 citations, thousands of dollars in fines and allegedly malicious threats, the night club owner canceled the concert, two days before the scheduled event."

Acting as the NYC Free Mumia Coalition's legal representative, attorney Michael Tarif Warren later declared at a press conference outside City Hall that "the police engaged in a conspiracy to close this event to prevent a worthy cause." Quoted by Amsterdam News, Warren called for "a fair hearing to air the legal improprieties" of the NYPD.

Comments posted by police officers on the infamous NYPD "RANT" blog website detailed the intimidation campaign. One post stated, "This f--ker should be dead, we should ruin this event and make life miserable for every f-ing Hollywood liberal scum liker that shows up, fry Mumia."

Other posts threatened to send the violent Hells Angels motorcycle gang into the Remote Lounge, set up road blocks, send in undercover police, lure people with prostitutes, write up tickets, throw citations on the club and more.

After the event was forced to relocate, an April 15 thread on the "RANT" site was titled "NY Mumia Hip Hop Benefit Rally Gets Bitch Slapped." One post under the name "Philadelphia Police Highway Patrol" said: "A sincere thank you to all of my NYPD brothers and sisters. You men and women are truly the best!"

Several other posts continued to boast of their actions with comments like "good job guys , f--k you mumia you dirty savage," "I'm shocked, amazed, and feel a warm glow! Great work. Outstanding!!!," "16 citations - and guess what the hits are gonna keep coming you f--k wad," "Does anyone sell Mumia targets, so I can keep his cause alive in spirit?"

Another wrote: "Everything I know about islam I learned on 9/11."

One post used imagery that explicitly drew the connection to the brutal history of U.S. lynchings, where Black victims of racist white mobs were literally burned alive, stating that "I'm waiting for Mumia to be well done on the rotisserie."

Yet another post used the racist "Sambo" dialect attributed to African Americans for so many years in mainstream culture: "OH SNAP!!! da venue be changed? i hopez publik transpotation be making itz way ova dere fo me!"

Mobilizing for May 17

Pam Africa is the coordinator of The International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal. She's asking people to come to Philadelphia on May 17 and "show that the whole world is watching these oral arguments."

And she urges people to organize local events if they are unable to travel. "We need public pressure to ensure the court's fairness."

"I believe Mumia is innocent and am personally calling for his immediate release. However, I'll work with anyone supporting a fair trial. By demanding a new trial, we can work with those who know the trial was rotten but are unsure of Mumia's innocence.

"Mumia can still be executed. Further, since the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear his case, this is realistically his last chance to get a new trial. We understand that they're getting ready to kill another Black revolutionary who has refused to bow down and suck up to his oppressor. His case represents all that is wrong with this system. We must take action now before it's too late."

On Thursday, May 17, the day of the hearing, San Franciscans will show the world is watching by rallying in support of Mumia in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 95 Seventh St., near Market, at 4-6 p.m. For more information and to get involved in saving and freeing Mumia, call (415) 255-1085.

Hans Bennett (insubordination.blogspot.com) is a Philadelphia-based photojournalist documenting the movement to free Mumia and all political prisoners, and is co-founder of "Journalists for Mumia" whose new website is: Abu-Jamal-News.com

Mumia Teach-In May 16

EMAJ
EDUCATORS FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
12 Years Educating and Organizing for Abu-Jamal and Justice

Contacts:
Professor Mark Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary, 845 893-5721, at mark.taylor @ ptsem.edu;
Prof. Johanna Fernandez (Carnegie Mellon), jfernan1 @ andrew.cmu.edu;
Tameka L. Cage, (Bucknell Univ), tlc022 @ bucknell.edu
Institutions for identification purposes only.

EDUCATORS TO HOLD TEACH-IN ON MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

SCHOLARS OF HISTORY, LAW, JOURNALISM, LITERATURE, AND RELIGION GATHER IN PHILLY

May 16 Teach-In on
Eve of Key Arguments in Courthouse on May 17

Princeton, NJ. May 11, 2007. Key scholars from Pennsylvania and around the country will meet in Philadelphia on Wednesday night, May 16, to conduct a Teach-In on the controversial case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal was convicted in 1982 for the shooting death of Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner, in a trial so controversial that public outcries for Abu-Jamal's new trial, and even release, have become ever more frequent in human rights communities. Amnesty International wrote that "justice would be best served by a new trial."

One of the Teach-In organizers, Mark Taylor of Princeton, said, "It is important that the U.S. Third Circuit Court will be hearing, on May 17, three of Mumia's claims about his denial of due process in the original trial." Another organizer of the EMAJ conference, Johanna Fernandez of Carnegie Mellon University, added, "In his case, the pillars that guarantee a fair trial were terribly broken: The presiding judge was openly racist, and Abu-Jamal was convicted without hard evidence."

Present at the Teach-In will be German literature professor, Michael Schiffman of the University of Heidelberg, who has published information on photos taken early at the crime scene, potentially exculpatory for Abu-Jamal, which were not used by police and prosecutors at the original trial. Also present will be Kathleen Cleaver (law professor, Emory University), Linn Washington (journalism, Temple University), Joy James (Africana Studies, Williams College), Tameka L. Cage (English, Bucknell University, also on the EMAJ advisory council) and Dave Lindorff (independent journalist)
______________________
DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Matheson Hall, Rm. 109. 32nd & Market Streets, Philadelphia

INTERVIEW: Linn Washington, Jr. on Mumia, MOVE, and the Philly Media

Dissecting May 13, 1985, Mumia Abu-Jamal’s May 17 oral arguments, the FOP, racism, police brutality, and mainstream media bias

"I think the level of fanaticism with Mumia’s case is a reaction to the level of support that he has received internationally. Further, I think the intense reactions revolve around race, specifically racism…plus Abu-Jamal’s identification with the Black Panther Party and MOVE. 'Law & Order' types hate the Black Panthers. And Philly police hate MOVE. Focusing anger on Abu-Jamal gives police a counter to criticism directed against them for persistent police brutality."
---Linn Washington, Jr.

The full text transcript and audio of the interview are available at Hans Bennett's blog, Insubordination


Interview by Hans Bennett

“Attention, MOVE: This Is America!” Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sambor declared through a loudspeaker 22 years ago, minutes before the May 13, 1985 police assault on the revolutionary MOVE organization’s home. This assault killed 5 children and 6 adults, including MOVE founder John Africa. After police shot over 10,000 rounds of bullets into their West Philadelphia home, a State Police helicopter dropped a C-4 bomb, illegally supplied by the FBI, on MOVE’s roof. The bomb started a fire that eventually destroyed 60 homes: the entire block of a middle-class black neighborhood. Carrying the young Birdie Africa, the only other survivor, Ramona Africa dodged gunfire and escaped from the fire with permanent burn scars.

The 1985 police bombing was the culmination of many years of political repression by Philadelphia authorities. At the time of the 1985 confrontation, MOVE was working to publicize the imprisonment of the “MOVE 9”: Janine, Debbie, Janet, Merle, Delbert, Mike, Phil, Eddie, and Chuck Africa. These nine MOVE members were jointly sentenced in the 1978 killing of Officer James Ramp after a year-long police stakeout of MOVE’s Powelton Village home. Their parole hearings come up in August, 2008.

In this interview, veteran black journalist Linn Washington, Jr. talks about reporting on the city of Philadelphia’s confrontations with MOVE, mostly focusing on the August 8, 1978 standoff, and the subsequent evidence used to convict the MOVE 9 prisoners. Washington passionately critiques the mainstream Philadelphia media’s bias against MOVE: “when you look at the media coverage of MOVE, everything that was perceived as MOVE doing something wrong, was publicized. In contrast, the attacks on MOVE, the injustices, and the deprivations that they endured never found any coverage in the mainstream media.”

On May 17, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the case of Linn Washington’s former colleague, black death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal. Widely considered to be a political prisoner, Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing white Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in a 1982 trial that Amnesty International has declared a "violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty."

Abu-Jamal is a longtime supporter of the MOVE organization, dating back to his days as a Philadelphia journalist in the 1970s. Since his imprisonment, MOVE has spearheaded the international support network for Abu-Jamal that is now organizing for a new trial.


Concerning the injustice in Abu-Jamal’s case, Washington is just as passionate in calling for a new trial, and in this interview, he documents the bias of the Philadelphia media: “It’s not for the press to take a position one way or the other, but it is the responsibility of the press to scrutinize all sides with the same rigor. One side (the Danny Faulkner side) can say anything they want, even if it makes no sense at all, yet it gets credibility and traction in the media. On the other side, Abu-Jamal’s side can say anything they want, and irrespective of the substance and factual accuracy, and they get no coverage at all.”

Washington concludes: “Where’s the journalistic fairness, balance, and accuracy? These are the three things that are supposed to be fundamental to journalism. Are they happening in this case? No, they are not.”

Linn Washington, Jr. is currently a columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune newspaper and a freelance journalist for publications nationwide. He writes extensively on matters involving the criminal justice system and racism. An Assistant Professor in the Journalism Department at Temple University in Philadelphia, he holds a Master Degree from the Yale Law School and a B.S. in Communications from Temple University.

This interview was conducted on May 8, 2007.

Hans Bennett: You recently traveled to France with recently exonerated death-row prisoner Harold Wilson and others?

Linn Washington, Jr.: I was over there for the one year anniversary of the naming of a street for Mumia, Rue Mumia Abu-Jamal, in St. Denis, just outside of Paris.

HB: How did that go?

LW: First, it was fascinating to me to actually see the street, considering the fact that the Philadelphia City Council, Pennsylvania State Senate, and US Congress were so outraged. This is the same US Congress that does nothing about global warming, health care for people without insurance, the Iraq war, etc., but it could take the time to order a town 3500 miles away to take a name off a street.

The incredible thing is that this street is about 150 paces long and sits between two one-way streets in a secluded section of St. Denis. This is not a place that The Tour de France or any tour buses will be going through because the streets are so small that you could not get a tour bus to the area. For this to cause so much consternation I think takes absurd into the level of obscene. The significance of the street for people in St. Denis is not its size but the symbolism of it standing for the notions of equal justice and a fair trial as represented in Abu-Jamal's struggle. So that’s my personal reaction.

In terms of the overall visit, there was a brief ceremony with 20-30 people that included the current Mayor of St. Denis and the previous Mayor who is now the equivalent of a congressman of that whole area, also one of the deputy Mayors, in a little park about a block away from the street. They were reaffirming why they had dedicated the street, and explained that they feel Mumia has not received a fair trial and they are calling on the United States to live up to the constitutional mandate that everyone receive a fair trial.

The US contingent included Suzanne Ross from the NYC Free Mumia Coalition, and Sundiata Sadiq, who is the President of the Ossining, NY chapter of the NAACP. Sadiq was the one that spearheaded the efforts that led to the national NAACP adopting a resolution calling on all of its chapters around the country to support Mumia getting a new trial. Curiously, for a civil rights organization that prides itself on being progressive, the President of the NY state chapter, Hazel Dukes, filed some very specious reason to suspend the Ossining chapter, which again takes absurdity into obscene dimensions.

HB: How do you explain such an intense reaction here at home?

LW: It typifies US arrogance where we can tell everyone what to do but we don’t actually practice what we preach. We are all over the world “installing democracy” literally at the barrel of a gun, or at the tip of a cruise missile, depending on which goes in first, yet we do not practice democracy here at home.

A couple examples:

There are strong reactions to this street and very little concern about what the case represents. There are fundamental flaws in our criminal justice system. Not only from the perspective of the death penalty, but all the way down to minor crimes like “breaking and entering,” where justice is not fair. Justice in America is a matter of how much money you have, where there is not “equal justice under the law” (which is THE PHRASE chiseled in stone at the entrance to the Supreme Court in Washington).

We don’t have equal justice under the law. There are some people who commit crimes and get virtually no criminal penalties, if they face any at all. Meanwhile, others get severe penalties for the same crimes committed under similar circumstances.

Let me give you an example close to home.

May 13, 1985, what happened? Police conducted a raid in the 6200 block of Osage Avenue in West Philadelphia. Essentially to fulfill misdemeanor warrants, the Police Commissioner authorized the dropping of a bomb that caused a fire, and the Ppolice Commissioner gave the unconscionable order to let the fire burn. MOVE members attempted to exit the building with temperatures as high as 2000 degrees, according to subsequent investigations, but were shot at and forced back inside. In the end, 11 people in the house were incinerated, including 5 children. 61 homes were completely destroyed and 250 people were homeless.

Not a single police officer or city official even faced any kind of criminal prosecution. Note that this is totally separate from whether they should have been convicted of crimes committed that day. Given the fact that there were a series of crimes committed, they should have at least faced their day in court. That is equal justice where no one is above the law. The District Attorney, Ed Rendell (now Governor) initially refused to do a Grand Jury investigation. That was a dereliction of duty. The subsequent DA, Ron Castille, who now sits on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, did do an investigation and just white-washed it. He claimed nobody that day had criminal intent that day, which is a very specious argument.

However, there are crimes that could have been brought against the Police and Fire Commissioners which were not “intent based” crimes. Maybe murder and arson are intent based, but “risking catastrophe” and “reckless endangerment” are based on what happened as a result of the actions.

This grand jury, under the control of the DA’s office issued a report written by the DA’s office stating that charges won’t even be brought against police officers, who had been caught lying to the grand jury. Lying to a grand jury is a crime called perjury, and perjury is a crime all day and every day. The Grand Jury Report stated it would be unfair to bring perjury charges against low-ranking police officers, when, in fact, top city officials were at least morally responsible for what had happened on Osage Ave. on May 13th.

Well a crime is a crime, and equal justice would mean that you bring charges against all who committed crimes…particularly since most major investigations begin with charges against lowly folks who provide evidence on higher ups. So, on many levels, America doesn’t practice what it preaches. So that is under girding the reaction to Rue Mumia.

Let me give you another example.

In the early 90’s in New York City an Irish Republican Army operative, named Joe Doherty, was being held at a jail in NYC. He had been convicted in Northern Ireland of murdering a British Special Forces officer during one of the IRA’s clashes with the British. Set aside for the moment the propriety of what was going on there, and whether the IRA were actually terrorists or were fighting for their homeland. The fact of the matter is that Britain is a major US ally and Dogherty had been convicted of murdering a British military officer. He escapes from Northern Ireland and comes to the US as a fugitive, hides out a couple years and is eventually arrested, and is being held in a federal detention facility. Efforts by the US government to deport him and send him back, were countered by officials in NYC and about 100 members of Congress.

They’re standing up for this convicted murderer on the claim that he did not receive a fair trial in Northern Ireland. In 1990, as a part of this effort to Free Joe Doherty, his supporters authorized the renaming of the street in front of the federal prison in Manhattan, and renamed it to Joe Doherty Corner.

Here you have officials rename a street for a convicted murderer, but then people are outraged when France does the same thing for an alleged cop-killer on the same basis, that they don’t feel that Abu-Jamal received a fair trial. Hypocrisy, contradictions, double-standards of justice, you choose the name.

HB: What do you think it is about Mumia’s case in particular that causes such a fanatical reaction?

LW: I think the level of fanaticism with Mumia’s case is a reaction to the level of support that he has received internationally. Further, I think the intense reactions revolve around race, specifically racism…plus Abu-Jamal’s identification with the Black Panther Party and MOVE. “Law & Order” types hate the Black Panthers. And Philly police hate MOVE. Focusing anger on Abu-Jamal gives police a counter to criticism directed against them for persistent police brutality.

The police are taking it on the chin all the time for continuing brutality, and this is the case that they have decided to dig in on. You get all this police rage against Abu-Jamal despite the fact that he’s not the only person that allegedly shot and killed a police officer in US history. There were at least three police officers shot and killed in Philadelphia in 1981, do you know about that?

HB: Yes, you’ve been researching that, and the two others in Philadelphia were black police officers?

LW: Yes.

HB: Do you feel that the Fraternal Order of Police’s behavior is racially motivated?

LW: Yes, and it has always been racially motivated. This is one of the most outrageous aspects of it, because that organization is racist. I became a full time reporter in Philadelphia in October of 1975. One of the first big stories that I covered was a protest in front of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) headquarters, by members of the black police officer organization, The Guardian Civic League. Some of the people who participated in that demonstration are now State Rep Harold James, who was a police officer at the time, and also the current Sheriff of the City of Philadelphia, John Greene.

Why were these black police officers out in front of the FOP headquarters?

Because there is a bar in the basement of the FOP building, and black police officers (including ones there with their wives) would receive racist treatment when they went to the bar at their union headquarters and they were protesting against that. That type of racism didn’t end in the 1970s. Do a lot of officers find themselves treated badly on a bureaucratic level within the PPD? Yes, but who does the FOP stand up for?

Invariably, it’s white police officers.

One example, a couple years ago, the FOP made some public statements about the unfairness of the police departments in terms of their refusal to allow a police officer, I think his name is Flemming, to move up to become a detective. Flemming has cost the City of Philadelphia over one million dollars in legal settlements because of police brutality. Just a year or so before this controversy about his being promoted to detective, the City had to pay out $750,000 because Flemming beat up a man at the airport without provocation. So here’s the FOP standing up for a chronically brutal cop, instead of saying, “No, this isn’t the type of behavior that we as an organization want to endorse.”

But, it gets worse.

This officer Flemming also beat up a former police officer in 1995, an ex-cop named Gary Wakshul, days before that officer became a witness for the prosecution during the appeals hearing for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Flemming and one of his partners on the police force beat the stuffings out of Gary Wakshul in the hallway of Philadelphia’s Criminal Justice Center, beating him so bad that he sustained multiple injuries. Wakshul subsequently sued the City for the beating and got $60,000 for it.

As you know, Wakshul was a police officer involved in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. He was the one who brought Abu-Jamal from the scene to the hospital on the morning of Dec. 9, 1981 and Wakshul stayed with him until he was brought in for surgery. Initially, Wakshul filed an official report stating that “the negro male made no comment.” Two months later, he came out and said that he had heard Abu-Jamal confess. Then, when the police asked him about the contradiction between his official report and the later confession claim, Wakshul came up with the absurd response that he “didn’t know the confession had any importance until today.”

Now, why was Wakshul working for the court system in 1995?

Because, in 1984 Wakshul almost beat a man to death in a hospital emergency room, and he was fired. When he was put on trial for this, the judge said, “Well, I think Wakshul’s a good guy and since this happened in the heat of battle,” he chose to acquit him of this unjustified beating. Now, the man he almost killed was in handcuffs, so there wasn’t any battle. And then, guess what? The FOP tried to get Wakshul’s job back.

I will raise the question: what type of law enforcement does the FOP represent? Good lawful law enforcement, or does it support unlawful acts of brutality, many of which are tinged, if not saturated, with racism?

HB: Going back to the Wakshul beating, what do you think was going on there just days before his testimony at Mumia’s PCRA hearing?

LW: The short answer is that I don’t know.

There’s been speculation that the beating was meant to send a message to Wakshul, not to deviate from his testimony that Abu-Jamal actually confessed.

Given all the solid and verifiable facts in Abu-Jamal’s case, I feel that it’s counter-productive and detrimental to engage in a lot of speculation. The factual record is this: Wakshul was beaten up and came to court and gave absurd testimony. The importance is this: Judge Sabo’s 153 page opinion rejected all of Abu-Jamal’s appeal items including claims that Wakshul lied. Incredibly Sabo’s opinion was issued just three days after the hearing, and incredibly Sabo’s opinion was a verbatim copy of the DA’s finding of facts that had been submitted (including grammatical and factual errors).

Sabo ruled that there was no such thing as police brutality in Philadelphia, and that in making that claim, Abu-Jamal was making one more absurd claim to deflect his guilt. Here we have a former police officer who testified for the prosecution during the hearing, who was a victim of police brutality within days of the hearing. That just is yet another
example of the manifest unfairness and factual distortion in Sabo’s ruling and his entire presence throughout the case.

HB: Sabo’s fairness in the PCRA hearings is one of the issues being considered on May 17 by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Any thoughts on next week’s oral arguments?

Clearly Mumia deserves a new trial and I think it is bogus for people to argue that he doesn’t deserve a fair trial because he disrupted his original trial. If you look, his disruptions occurred after it was clear that Sabo in collusion with Prosecutor McGill was intent on violating all of his rights, not just the right to self-representation.

They also hamstrung his attorney by not providing adequate resources, and they tried to sabotage his efforts at every turn. That is when Abu-Jamal started “acting out.” Did he take the right tact in doing that? It’s arguable, but the fact is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

In 1959, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling in a murder case from Philadelphia where a guy pled guilty to the murder, and the judge and prosecutor tried to cut corners. The court said that even with evidence of guilt piled as high as Mount Everest, everybody is entitled to a fair trial.

Now, with the hearing coming up on May 17, I think it’s interesting to note that there are a couple of items that this court wanted to hear in oral arguments that the federal District Court Judge had not certified for appeal. One of the items is the bias of Sabo in the 1995 hearing.

Here’s something interesting.

Sabo’s bias has always been obvious and objectionable to anyone with their eyes open, but in 1995, Sabo was so bad that both the Daily News and Philadelphia Inquirer harshly criticized his behavior. The New York Times criticized Sabo’s behavior and was joined by other national publications like the Christian Science Monitor and also an article came out in the American Lawyer, where a lawyer/journalist named Stuart Taylor observed the entire proceedings and concluded that Sabo was thoroughly biased and also concluded that he thought Abu-Jamal did it, but did not receive a fair trial.

There is this incredible record of Sabo’s biases, and the importance of the criticism from the Philly media about Sabo’s bias is that normally these people are rabidly anti-Abu-Jamal and they felt that because of Sabo’s continuing presence on this case and his obvious and detestable bias, that it would undermine any credibility of a fair trial. By undermining that, it would give further credence to criticism that Abu-Jamal did not receive a fair trial.

They were saying, “Take this clown off the case so you don’t give more ammunition to the Mumidiots.” So when it got to the State Supreme Court and when that Court issued their rejection of Abu-Jamal’s appeal in Oct. 1998, there was a paragraph in there talking about Sabo’s bias, and it said the opinions of a handful of journalists “do not convince us” that Sabo was biased. The court said yes, he was intemperate, and made remarks he shouldn’t have, etc., but the Court declared that Sabo wasn’t biased.”

The law and the logic that has been used consistently by the Pa Supreme Court in their rulings on this case would make a Philly pretzel look straight. The Court has bent and broken law and legal precedents in their rulings on the Abu-Jamal case.

HB: Given all of this that you lay out, how is it today that the media is still so biased and does not report the key facts that expose all this injustice?

LW: Because the media of today is like the mainstream white media has always been in this country. They accept a basic narrative and do not deviate from that.


You have to understand that in 1970, a group published a report on the Philly media and it said they reflexively take the side of the police and the prosecutors anytime there is an allegation of police brutality. This is 1970. It wasn’t until the late 1970s that Philadelphia’s media started covering police brutality. The local white media started reporting on brutality after the Inquirer started reporting on it. The Inquirer subsequently won a Pulitzer Prize for that coverage. But before that, they ignored it.

Now I’m not just telling you that from scholarly research and examination. I’m telling you what I know from experience.

From 1975 on, I worked as a reporter covering police brutality. From 1975-78 when I worked for the Philadelphia Tribune (a black newspaper), almost every other day people would come into our office beaten and bloody. The blood was dried on their faces and clothes.

The police refused to allow these brutality victims to file brutality complaints. They would go to the Inquirer in an attempt to talk to a reporter, but they couldn’t get through the door. The Daily News was the same way. Then, they’d go across town to the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, and still couldn’t get through the door. Finally they’d come to the Philadelphia Tribune and they would get through the door. So, I know from personal experience that the mainstream Philadelphia media refused to cover police brutality and really many other issues involving race. They’ll only write about it superficially.

Listen. Why is it that the media in Philadelphia can occasionally cover issues involving police brutality, but never say that there is a pattern and practice of it? Why do they treat these incidents of police brutality as “isolated incidents” instead of examples of an endemic problem?

The Inquirer also won a Pulitzer Prize writing a story about a man who had been falsely convicted of murder, and their coverage got him out of jail and others. So all these examples they’ve written about people being falsely incarcerated, mistreated by police and prosecutors—which shows a pattern—why is it, then, that they stop and say “Yes, all these improprieties have happened, but it doesn’t have any effect at all on the Mumia Abu-Jamal case.”

HB: You and Mumia both covered the MOVE 9 trial. Looking back at it, what
things about the trial remain most vivid in your mind?

LW: To clarify, I covered the preliminary aspects of the MOVE 9 trial, but I did not cover the trial itself. I covered a few parts of the trial when MOVE was actually representing itself. That right of self-representation was revoked, and I think correctly because MOVE was not really trying to represent themselves, but rather to “put the system on trial.” That may be okay, but when your body is in danger of going to jail for a long time, I think you should direct your attention to the evidence (or lack thereof ) and try to get yourself off.

One of my most vivid memories was of MOVE’s house being destroyed around 1:30 that afternoon, just hours after MOVE’s arrest. The shoot out had stopped around 10:30, and the last MOVE person was out around 11:00.

The police had dumped 250,000 gallons of water into the basement. I know this because I was hiding behind the pumping truck that they used for the water cannon when the shooting started. I was talking to the guy as he was pumping the water in. So I know how much water went into that basement. It was a darkened basement filled with water and tear gas, and you can not adequately do an investigation of that within a few hours. Yet police claimed they conducted a thorough investigation and then they tore the compound down.

So, the destruction of evidence alone raises serious questions about the propriety of the evidence used for the charges against them.

HB: Why do you think they destroyed it?

LW: I think they tore down the house in part because they wanted to destroy evidence. Mayor Frank “the racist” Rizzo’s administration and Police Commissioner O’Neill claimed they tore it down because they didn’t want it to become a shrine for MOVE and they felt that they could not maintain security around the house to prevent MOVE people from occupying it again.

The patent absurdity of that is shown by this: From the beginning of March to around the middle of April, 1978, the police enacted a starvation blockade around the house where they sealed off a whole section of Powelton Village, and did not let anyone in or out. People that lived there had to have special passes like in South Africa to get in and out of their homes. So the notion that police couldn’t adequately secure the house is absolutely absurd.

One point of view is that the destruction of evidence destroyed any semblance of a fair trial.

You asked about “vivid memories,” and I remember covering one of the early preliminary hearings. It was held in prison, where they brought in a mini-courtroom and a presiding judge (who was later fired for corruption). I remember vividly when the medical examiner came in and gave his testimony based on the autopsy report related to James Ramp, the officer who was killed.

The medical examiner testified to one thing, in terms of how the bullet entered the body and such. Then, when the prosecutor was getting ready to introduce the medical examiner’s report as evidence, he looked at the first couple paragraphs, and said “Oh, your honor, the medical report here does not conform with the testimony you just heard, let me correct it right here.” This dude pulled out a pencil and changed the damn report right in the courtroom, and then introduced it as evidence. Unbelievably, the judge accepted it!

Once again, this was a very fundamental and egregious violation of procedures. I left the courtroom and called my boss at the Philadelphia Journal, where I was working at the time. I was told, “Yeah, okay, well, we’ll talk about it when you get back.” I was also covering it for the United Press International (UPI) news service, so I called them up, but they told me they weren’t interested.

I said, “Wait a minute. This whole confrontation between the city of Philadelphia and MOVE, starting from 1972, has been about double-standards of justice and violations of
rules and procedures. Here you have a clear example of one, and it’s not newsworthy?” UPI answered: “No. It’s not newsworthy, Linn. If you find something else out, give me a call back.”

HB: So, did anybody use your story?

LW: No!

Nobody used it because they didn’t think it was important. This is a separate argument from whether MOVE is right or wrong, but when you look at the media coverage of MOVE, everything that was perceived as MOVE doing something wrong, was publicized. In contrast, the attacks on MOVE, the injustices, and the deprivations that they endured never found any coverage in the mainstream media. I know it was covered in the Tribune because I was covering for them. It was also on black radio stations because there were black reporters that believed that you should be fair and balanced, and we were criticized for it, Mumia being one of them. This was just because we felt that there were two sides to the story. We weren’t taking MOVE’s side, but we felt they had a legitimate side that needed to be accurately presented.

If they’re getting beaten up, the women getting kicked in the vagina and having miscarried babies, that should be a news story.

February of 1978, there were MOVE members being held in the Philadelphia prisons. The guards jumped on these guys and beat them horribly and then turned around and charged them with assault on the prison guards.

Now, MOVE would normally say, “No, we don’t participate in any kind of cooperation with the system, because we know the system is corrupt.” But, in this particular instance, they said “We’ll cooperate just to show that even if we do cooperate, it won’t mean anything.” So they cooperated with the DA’s office (then headed by Ed Rendell), and after a lengthy investigation, the DA concluded that the victims had indeed been MOVE, who had been attacked by the guards.

So, that meant that the prison guards should have been charged with assault and other crimes. However, Rendell’s office concluded that the appropriate action was not to take any action against the guards, but rather to simply drop the false charges against the MOVE members.

Now, filing a false police report is a crime, as well as lying about something in the report. There are many crimes short of assault (that had been proven in the investigation) that could have been brought against them, but they didn’t do anything.

And, you know what? Little of this that I just told you about that confrontation at the prison ever got into the news media.

HB: In the recent documentary on MOVE, you cite your sources within the police
department who told you that the police know Ramp was killed by police gunfire. Can you say anything more about this?

LW: I will confirm that I was told that by my sources in the police department. However, I have never identified the sources to MOVE, and I will never identify them to anyone else.

But I will tell you this.

Officer Ramp was allegedly shot and killed by a bullet that came from a weapon that fired a .223 caliber round. .223 is the same caliber used in an M-16. Inside MOVE’s house, police claimed that they found four carbines called Mini-14’s, made by Ruger and they fired this .223 round.

The day immediately after the shootout, police were claiming that not a single officer out there that day carried that particular type of weapon. About three weeks later, during the pre-trial proceedings, the police department began to acknowledge the fact that there were police officers who had the Mini-14s firing the .223 rounds. They first said that they had just been out there, but not near the scene. Then, subsequent reports put the officers with those guns closer to the scene, however the official version was “Yes, they were part of the assault, but no, they never fired their weapon.”

So, if in fact, there were no improprieties, why the constantly changing stories and why the heavy-handed cover-up?

There’s another thing, and this is where the destruction of the property precluded a thorough examination, as well as how the trial was handled by MOVE and when the court-appointed attorneys came in, it really became a circus.

But let’s think about this for a minute. You don’t have to be a ballistician to figure this one out. It’s just common sense. You’ve got four male MOVE members in the basement allegedly armed, according to police testimony. A basement by its very nature means it’s below ground level. They’re allegedly firing out of windows, and let’s understand, this was not like The Alamo where people are close up at the window and shooting out. They’re away from the windows, hiding behind pillars in the basement. So, anything they’re shooting out of the windows has to be at an upward trajectory. They would have to shoot up to get out the window.

Ramp was directly across the street at ground level. So how could something hit him in what was said to be a downward type angle when MOVE members were firing upward from that basement?

Okay, maybe the bullet could have ricocheted a little bit. The apartment building across the street from the old MOVE compound is a brick building. However, their compound was made of wood, so the idea that the bullet ricocheted off the brick, back towards MOVE’s house, and then back again to hit Ramp somewhere near ground level, is highly problematic.

Furthermore, the .223 bullet is actually a very small, light weight bullet. Since it’s a very light bullet it will likely break up bouncing back and forth off a brick wall. It’s not going to maintain its integrity and be able to ricochet back and forth a couple times. Unless this was a bullet like the one that Arlen Specter, when he worked for the Warren Commission, said killed Kennedy. You know, one able to change directions in the air a couple times? It’s questionable to unlikely that the bullet that killed Ramp came from that basement.

But, it’s hard for anyone to ever know, because police destroyed evidence. Earlier that year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it’s illegal for authorities to destroy a crime scene before the defense has a chance to examine it.


Furthermore, a couple days before the Aug. 8, raid, a Philadelphia judge signed an order barring the city from destroying the MOVE house. Yet, the city did it in violation of this order.

And guess what? They were never called to account for violating that court order. There are copies of the court order too, so they can’t say that it does not exist. That’s bullshit.

HB: Do you think the MOVE 9 should be granted parole in 2008?

LW: Parole is supposedly based on adjustment to prison. From what I understand, there have been few infractions, if any at all. So, the short answer is yes.

They’ve served 30 years in jail for a third-degree murder conviction. The average sentence for third-degree murder is 10-15 years, so they’ve already served twice that. So, yes, they should be released.

Will that happen? I don’t think so.

The Parole Board has a couple of arguably illegal standards in place. One of them says you have to accept responsibility for your crime. But, if you’ve maintained your innocence the whole time you’re in there, how can you say “Okay, I did it?”

This next standard is clearly illegal. It will demand that for MOVE members to be released without serving their full sentence, they will have to renounce membership in MOVE. This is something that would easily happen in China, North Korea, or Russia, saying “You have to denounce these un-communist feelings that you have.” But in America, we’re not supposed to do that. But we do that in Pennsylvania with MOVE members, and nobody says that it’s a problem.

Once again, this is another example of what I was saying at the beginning of our conversation, that there is a big gap between what America says it is and what it actually does.

HB: Anything else on your mind?

LW: Looking at Abu-Jamal’s appeal with the Third Circuit, I hope that the court follows its own legal precedent in a case involving Abu-Jamal. The legal precedent is this: there is a rule that courts are supposed to follow previous rulings because this keeps some stability in the law, so a Judge doesn’t wake up one morning with a bad hair day and change everything, and then the next day change it back. Had the Pa Supreme Court followed its own previous rulings, Abu-Jamal would have had a new trial and/or been released over a decade ago.

The Third Circuit has an opportunity to show whether the rule of law actually means something. The Third Circuit has granted hearings that have led to new trials to individuals on the issue of jury discrimination. So, if they follow their own precedent, then Abu-Jamal will receive a new hearing, if not a new trial.

Earlier on, you mentioned a guy named Harold Wilson. One of the legal victories that eventually led to his release was the a claim of jury discrimination and in this case it was a local Philadelphia judge who called for a new trial and the Philadelphia DA didn’t even oppose it.

HB: We have to hope, and of course keep raising awareness and applying pressure.

LW: But for the international movement supporting him, Abu-Jamal would have been executed by now. Let’s look at 1995. Pa prison authorities were illegally opening Abu-Jamal’s mail as a result of the FOP complaints about him writing articles and a book while in prison. So, the Pa prisons, who had previously allowed prisoners to work with authors to publish accounts of their crimes, and actually helped facilitate interviews for them, are now cracking down on Abu-Jamal.

It was bad enough that they were opening his mail, and not just mail from family and friends, but mail from his lawyer, which is fundamentally illegal. They were copying his stuff and sending copies to the Governor’s office. So, when Gov. Ridge signed the death warrant on Mumia in June of 1995, he was doing it with the full knowledge that Mumia’s attorney’s were preparing to formally file an appeal.

What Ridge did was fundamentally illegal. But he later became the first Homeland Security Czar. So what does that say about America’s adherence to law?

These are findings of fact from a lawsuit that was filed by Mumia, and these findings of fact are contained in a ruling favoring Abu-Jamal that was issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. So, these are rulings from federal judges in the late 1990s.

HB: It at least seems like the DA is afraid of the Third Circuit, with their recent request for the court to recuse itself from Abu-Jamal’s case, which the court denied.

LW: That was so patently absurd. They initially started that with a letter, saying “Listen, we think all you guys should step aside.” Abu-Jamal’s attorney, Robert R. Bryan wrote a letter in response, which cited numerous rulings and precedents. The Third Circuit then told the DA that if they wanted to challenge it, they’d have to file a formal legal brief. The DA filed the formal brief, but it still contained all of the factual inaccuracies and inappropriate law that they had alleged in the letter brief. The court threw it out.

Let me tell you something that is of relevance. If they really cared about a fair trial, why did the DA’s office not oppose Sabo sitting on the 1995 appeals, when one of the appeal items was his bias in 1982. If the judge was biased in 1982, would you not think that he’d be biased in 1995? The DA fought that and said that they wanted Sabo on the case.

When the PA Supreme Court was deciding on the appeal that came out of the 95 hearing, the defense said, “Listen, we seek the recusal of one member of the Pa Supreme Court: Justice Ron Castille, who had been a Philadelphia DA.” They wanted his recusal on grounds of the Judicial Code of Conduct, section 3D, it says that any judge who was a lawyer for a governmental agency, and through that position, has knowledge of the facts of the case in front of him, must recuse himself. So, here we have Castille, who was DA of Philadelphia, who signed papers to oppose Abu-Jamal’s appeals, and is now sitting on the deliberation. That is a violation of ethics and the DA office didn’t care about that at all.

So, when the Pa Supreme Court issued its second rejection of Abu-Jamal’s appeals, Castille wrote a second opinion explaining why he had refused to recuse himself. In there he says (paraphrased), “Abu-Jamal’s attorney’s are jumping all over me because I took campaign funds from the Fop because the FOP worked on my campaign to become a Supreme Court Justice, and a few years ago the FOP named me as their ‘Man of the Year,’ well that’s unfair to focus on me, because four other members of this court received campaign financing and campaign support from the FOP.”

So we have five members of a seven member court, and all were saying that it did not show any kind of impropriety. On issues of recusal of judges, its not just impropriety, but it is the appearance of impropriety. If you have five members of a seven member court receiving money and support from the prime organization seeking the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal, does that not raise the issue of appearance of impropriety?

HB: What other examples are there of media bias?

LW: In this Mumia affair there have been many allegations of his misconduct, including allegations of him confessing. In 1995, there was an article in the Washington Post, which featured an interview with Maureen Faulkner, and it was talking about how she was outraged that Abu-Jamal had been able to publish a book. The article started with an anecdote from her where she claimed that in court, during the trial, when her husband’s bloody shirt was displayed, Mumia turned around, looked at her, pulled his dreadlocks back, and smiled at her.

However, the official court transcript documented that Mumia was not even in the courtroom on the day that Mrs. Faulkner claimed this smiling incident took place. So, I wrote a column questioning this account and others. Maureen Faulkner wrote me a three page, single-spaced letter calling me everything but a child of God.

I wrote her back and said, “Ms. Faulkner, listen, if there are any ambiguities in this matter, it’s because of you and what you said.” So she then claimed that the Washington Post reporter had gotten the wrong date. She then cited an Inquirer article that says she left the courtroom after the shirt was displayed. However, when I checked it, the article did not say anything about Mumia turning around and smiling at her.

When you look at the rest of the articles from the trial, nowhere does Ms. Faulkner say that she had to leave the courtroom because Mumia smiled at her.

Interestingly, that article Mrs. Faulkner cited did quote the trial prosecutor telling the jury that his Office had made no deals with key prosecution witness Cynthia White. Of course, after the trial, the DA drop a lot of criminal cases filed against White. If the deal didn’t exist on that date, it happened soon after. The jury never knew White was getting special deals from the DA – which is another element undermining a fair trial.

This smiling incident and other incidents are things where I fault reporters. The problem with much of the media is that due to turnover, there is not much institutional memory, and not enough people who have the expertise to write intelligently about such things. Apparently, that Washington Post writer must have never covered a trial, because otherwise she’d have known that at a high profile trial such as this, there are many people and 80 percent of those people are looking at every twitch, movement, smile, or frown from the defendant. A question should have been asked as to who else saw this and why it wasn’t reported. But that article didn’t contain that type of question.

No one saw this allegedly objectionable action.

That seems so consistent in a parallel to the alleged confession. No one heard this confession, except for Gary Bell (who was Faulkner’s partner) and he didn’t remember it until over two months later. Gary Wakshul initially reported that the “negro male made no comment,” but after a police brutality complaint by Abu-Jamal, he suddenly remembers the confession. Wakshul and Bell allege that there were over a dozen officers in the area who also heard the confession, and in 25 years not a single one came forward.

In 1995, the defense tried to get Judge Sabo to issue subpoenas to bring them in and ask them what they heard, and why they didn’t report it. Sabo refused. He said “These are officers. They’re honorable people, so I’m sure if you ask them, they’ll come in.” They were asked and didn’t come in. Then, in his opinion, Sabo wrote that there was no contrary evidence that the confession didn’t take place, because all the people who testified in court said there was a confession. By his rulings, Sabo made certain that officers would not come in and testify.

The first person to allegedly report the confession was hospital security guard Priscilla Durham. Interestingly, she claims to hear a confession to a murder, but does she talk to a detective, uniformed officers, or police internal affairs?

No.

She claims that she went to her supervisor and allegedly writes this down on a hand-written report. Did her supervisor give this report to the police? No. So what does that say about the validity of the confession?

HB: Did you follow how the week of December 9, two more accounts came out from William Colarulo (now a Chief Inspector for the Philadelphia police) and Kathleen Gerrow (now an executive producer at NBC 10)?

LW: Hans, let me tell you something. These two accounts sound suspicious like dog dirt…dropping on a sidewalk.

Let’s think logically here. William Colarulo was the head of the police department’s press office for over two years, and he never once said anything about this? That’s ridiculous!

But when you read his news media statements about this confession, what he said about what Abu-Jamal was wearing is totally different from what Wakshul said he was wearing, when Wakshul voluntarily went to police on Dec. 16, 1981 and volunteered more information where he was able to remember the type of clothing, the color, and the texture. The last question the police asked Wakshul on 12/16/81 was, “Is there anything else that you would like to add?” He said no. There was nothing about a confession. It is absurd.

Furthermore, what Colarulo said was not based on what he saw or heard himself, but was based on what someone told him. Has the police officer that Colarulo cites as having heard the confession ever come forward and said anything about it?


Absolutely not.

Now, reporter Kathleen Gerrow. This is what’s really strange. We have a reporter that claims to have heard a confession in the largest murder case that was going on in Philadelphia at the time, and she said nothing about it? Journalistic careers are made on bits of information like hearing a major piece of information in a major murder case. If she had this information, it could have made her career. Why did she not say anything about it for 25 years?

These sorts of things defy logic and common sense. But this is what passes as journalism in Philadelphia…and evidence of Abu-Jamal’s guilt. Why didn’t the so-called reporter interviewing Gerrow ask a follow-up question, like “Why didn’t you say something earlier? It could have made your career?” These questions should be asked.

It’s not for the press to take a position one way or the other, but it is the responsibility of the press to scrutinize all sides with the same rigor. One side (the Danny Faulkner side) can say anything they want, even if it makes no sense at all, yet it gets credibility and traction in the media. On the other side, Abu-Jamal’s side can say anything they want, and irrespective of the substance and factual accuracy, and they get no coverage at all.

Where is the journalistic fairness, balance, and accuracy? These are the three things that are supposed to be fundamental to journalism. Are they happening in this case?


No, they are not.


Hans Bennett (insubordination.blogspot.com) is a Philadelphia-based photojournalist and co-founder of “Journalists for Mumia,” whose new website is: Abu-Jamal-News.com

All Out for Mumia May 17th!

Check out this new video commercial for the May 17th Oral Arguments and Mass Demonstration to take place in Philadelphia. For more information please visit our homepage at www.freemumia.com

Report Back from Delegation to France

A delegation of Mumia supporters recently traveled to France on the anniversary of the naming of "Rue Mumia Abu-Jamal" (Mumia Street) in Saint-Denis. On the delegation was Pam Africa, Linn Washington, Harold Wilson, members of the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC), the Harlem Campaign to Name a Street in Honor of Mumia, and many others.

Sundiata Sadiq of the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC) offers the following report-back:

The delegation that went to St. Denis was received enthusiastically by their reception committee at the airport. The next day we were whisked to a park just around the corner from Rue Mumia Abu Jamal. Our hosts were surprised by the controversy caused back in the States by this tree-lined street about 200 yards long with its spotless gardens and new apartments for workers. Lynn Washington, the well-known journalist, commented on this, as did Tigre Hill, who was documenting things for his upcoming movie on Mumia's case.

Dr. Suzanne Ross and I spoke for the Free Mumia Coalition and Lynn Washington summed up with a short and brilliant speech about justice for Mumia. I am one that believes in conspiracies against the movement, and when Pam and Ramona Africa and Harold Wilson, who was exonerated from Death Row at SCI Green, informed us that their clothes had not arrived with them, I said, "Huh." They felt it was because they had a layover and blamed themselves. The clothes did not arrive until it was time for them to leave France. It was reported that the clothes were at the airport all the time.

Tigre Hill was busy asking questions for his documentary and it ws a stroke of genius that we had our own people documenting events, including myself. I captured a woman's conversation who had just moved into a new apartment on Rue Mumia Abu Jamal. She noted that, as an educated woman, she did not know who the street was named after so she did the research and felt honored to be living on such a beautiful street.

I am sure many folk that live on that street (White, Arab, Afrikan) may not have investigated who the street was named after. Tigre Hill failed to capture the reception we received at a local political hall and in particular the ovation that Harold Wilson got. Folk were emotional that this man who was framed by the Philadelphia law enforcement officials survived 17 years on death row and was now in a place being showered with love and respect. That night was a very emotional scene that was captured by our folk on video. It was interesting to hear Lynn Washington mention the same appeals that helped Harold Wilson get off death row to freedom are included in Mumia's appeal hearing.

Suzanne Ross and I were chosen to go to Marseilles to represent the comrades who were scheduled to go but somehow lost tickets prevented three other folk from going. We left Paris for a three hour train ride to Marseilles, where we were greeted by the Mumia supporters. It was a beautiful sight to walk from the train station which is set on a very high hill overlooking Marseilles. As we walked through the streets to our host's house there were Mumia signes all over announcing a meeting to discuss the case at the local book store. We were told we were competing with the Sarkozy debate on TV and a Marseilles soccer game. While walking on the street we heard someone singing the soccer team's song. To the surprise of our hosts the book store was standing room only with about eighty people at its max. Suzanne gave the update and I gave the history of repression against the Black liberation movement in the States and how that tied in the case of Mumia.

The next day we went to the area of the American Consulate in Marseilles and symbolically named the street for Mumia. It is interesting for our own history that it was the Marseilles supporters of Mumia that started the street naming campaign in France. This caught on with the folk in St. Denis and they were successful in their campaign because the city government was not as conservative as the government in Marseilles.

The folk in Marseilles were thrilled to see us because they rarely go to Paris or St. Denis and the folk up north rarely come to Marseilles. They asked us if we would come back.

Of course we replied with a big Yes!! Who wouldn't? We lived in a house with folk who were fired up, possessed militant history and of course, last but not least, we lived with a real chef, who cooked every day for us and served the greatest wine in the world.

We also had a spirited May Day march and attended the Tulip Festival in St. Denis. We had a Mumia table, sold t-shirts and spoke to the crowd and folk danced in the pool with Mumia's banner.

-- Sundiata Sadiq of the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC)

Death Row Inmate Finds Freedom in France: Harold Wilson

A delegation of Mumia supporters recently traveled to France on the anniversary of the naming of "Rue Mumia Abu-Jamal" (Mumia Street) in Saint-Denis. On the delegation was Pam Africa, Ramona Africa, members of the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC), the Harlem Campaign to Name a Street in Honor of Mumia and others. Please read the following article and stayed tuned for a detailed report-back as well as pictures brought back by the U.S. delegation.


Weekend Edition
May 5 / 6, 2007

Death Row Inmate Finds Freedom in France
The Long Ordeal of Harold Wilson
By Linn Washington, Jr.

St. Denis, France.

Harold Wilson drank wine for the first time in nearly twenty years during his recent trip to this working class city located in the suburbs of Paris known for its left-of-center politics.

Lack of access, not avoidance, had driven Wilson's abstinence from all alcoholic beverages.

Wilson spent nearly 18-years in Pennsylvania prisons -- sixteen on death row where he twice faced imminent execution for a triple-murder that DNA evidence eventually proved he didn't commit.

Wilson's drink of good French wine came during salutes to him at a large, communal dinner inside a church on one of the city's most famous squares.

These salutes erupted after Wilson briefly described the injustices he endured, including death row experiences like smelling the burning flesh of an inmate who ignited himself in an insane reaction to repeated callousness by guards.

"I didn't have to go to war to experience brutality and death," Wilson said, fighting to control parallel emotions from recalling death row incidents and reacting to the compassion towards him from those attending that dinner.

Wilson, who is 6'4" tall weighing nearly 250 lbs., is the sixth person freed from Pa's death row and the 122nd person released from death rows nationwide.

Wilson said flawed evidence authorities used to convict him included a bloody jacket that fit a person eight inches shorter and 60lbs lighter than him.

Wilson is now an advocate of providing assistance to persons released from death row.

When Pa authorities released Wilson in November 2005, after a jury acquittal at a retrial, he received sixty-five cents, a public transportation token and a warning: Don't come back.

Wilson traveled to St. Denis as a member of a small delegation from his hometown of Philadelphia to participate in the one year anniversary of the naming of a small street in St. Denis for Pa death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Wilson eagerly says Abu-Jamal, also from Philadelphia, helped him adjust to the deprivations of death row and helped him with the legal research producing his successful appeals.

"Mumia taught me how to read law books. He taught me to fight with a pen," Wilson told a St. Denis supporter of Abu-Jamal hours before the dinner.

"Working to free Mumia and others gives me identity and purpose. I struggle everyday to rebuild my life."

Days before traveling to St. Denis, Wilson spoke at an Abu-Jamal event in Philadelphia featuring Danny Glover, the famed actor/activist who called Abu-Jamal's conviction a "legal lynching."

The legal improprieties leading to a new trial for Wilson discriminatory jury selection practices by the prosecutor and incompetence by his court appointed trial lawyer are core issues in Abu-Jamal's controversial conviction.

Like Abu-Jamal's trial attorney, Wilson's court appointed attorney was trying his first death penalty case. The trial lawyers for Abu-Jamal and Wilson both failed to present critical evidence at trial.

Discriminatory jury selection is the central issue in the scheduled May 17th hearing for Abu-Jamal before the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The prosecutor in Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial for killing a Philadelphia policeman used nearly all of his fifteen challenges to remove blacks from the jury.

The jury that convicted Abu-Jamal contained only two blacks in a city where forty percent of the population was black at the time of trial.

That jury contained a white man who said from the outset that he would not be fair to Abu-Jamal and other whites who "had close friends or relatives who were police officers," noted author/investigative reporter Dave Lindorff in his excellent book "Killing Time: An Investigation Into The Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal."

Rulings by Pa's Supreme Court have consistently rejected allegations of discriminatory jury selection at Abu-Jamal's trial but a federal District Court judge found evidence of this misconduct meriting appellate court review.

In contrast to Abu-Jamal's case, the Pa Supreme Court granted an appeal from Wilson after finding evidence of discriminatory jury selection by his trial prosecutor.

The prosecutor in Wilson's case was the instructor in a now infamous Philadelphia DA Office training video showing new prosecutors how to evade US Supreme Court prohibitions against excluding blacks from death penalty juries.

Lindorff and other experts say the instructions on that 1987 training video reflect long-standing discriminatory jury selection practices utilized by Philadelphia prosecutors.

Lindorff writes in his book, "the Philadelphia district attorney's office, over the period 1977-1986, including the trial of Abu-Jamal in 1982, struck black jurors 58 percent of the time, compared to only 22 percent of the time for white jurors."

The specific prosecutor in Abu-Jamal's trial, according to scholarly research, struck blacks 74 percent of the time during that 1977-1986 period compared to 25 percent for whites.

The fact that the Pa Supreme Court curtly rejected Abu-Jamal's jury discrimination claims while granting relief to Wilson and other defendants using similar evidence is often cited as an example of double-standards authorities employ in the Abu-Jamal case.

Amnesty International's 2000 report on the Abu-Jamal case criticizes Pa's entire state judicial system for rulings against Abu-Jamal based on political considerations instead of legal precedent.

The St. Denis street naming is another case study in double standards.

The April 2006 naming of a block-long street in a secluded section of St. Denis prompted the December 2006 passage of a resolution by the US Congress demanding the removal of Abu-Jamal's name from this small lane sandwiched between two one-way streets.

Months before passage of this congressional resolution, Philadelphia's City Council and Pa's State Senate passed similar resolutions assailing the naming of a street in honor of a convicted murderer.

In contrast to the criticism of St. Denis, in 1990, New York City officials changed the name of a street in front of a federal prison to honor a prisoner being held there, an escaped IRA fugitive convicted in Northern Ireland of murdering a British special forces officer.

Officials across America, including over 100 members of Congress, applauded Joe Doherty's long fight against extradition contending the IRA fighter did not receive a fair trial from British authorities.

St. Denis' Mayor and immediate past Mayor both criticized the unfairness of Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial during their remarks at the recent anniversary of the street naming.

That Amnesty report concluded that Abu-Jamal's trial failed to meet internationally acceptable standards for a fair trial.

A core aspect of a fair trial is an impartial judge and the alleged pro-prosecution bias of Abu-Jamal's trial judge during a 1995 appeals hearing is an item under review by the Third Circuit appeals court.

The outrageous bias exhibited by Judge Albert Sabo during that '95 appeal hearing triggered harsh editorial criticism from Philadelphia's normally anti-Abu-Jamal mainstream media.

However, Pa's Supreme Court brushed aside that editorial criticism.

Years later, the same Court curtly dismissed a disturbing charge that Sabo was overheard on the eve of the '82 trial saying he was going to help prosecutors "fry the nigger!" The Court claimed Sabo's racist remark was irrelevant.

Harold Wilson, while in St. Denis, participated in a short protest march demanding a fair trial for Abu-Jamal. He later participated in the May Day March in Paris, walking with a large 'Free Mumia' delegation.

After those dinner salutes to Wilson, he later laughed with diners sitting near him saying French wine is "much better than Thunderbird" and other faux wines he drank prior to incarceration.

Linn Washington Jr. is a Philadelphia based journalist who has covered the Abu-Jamal case for 25-years.

New video on Mumia!

Check out the following video created by Mumia supporter, Orlando the Truth Scholar, in anticipation for Mumia's upcoming Oral Arguments on May 17th.



view the video on youtube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nm6KUIM0K4

Concert for Mumia in Philly!

Concert for Mumia in Philly!
May 16th, 2007 (in preparation for May 17th's Oral Arguments)
08:00 PM
Movement for Mumia Demonstration Preparation Jam
The Rotunda
4104 Walnut St, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Movement for Mumia Preparing to be out in the streets May 17th for Mumia Abu-Jamal's hearing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals! Wed. May 16th 8pm sharp! at the Rotunda 4014 Walnut St. Philadelphia featuring... Bojah & the Insurrection Broadcast Live (hip hop/rock from Albany, NY) with Taina Asili (Philly/Albany word warrior) and special guest performance to be announced! Donations at the door.

More info at:
215.476.8812 .
icffmaj@aol.com
myspace.com/bojahtheinsurrection
www.freemumia.com

May 13, 207

May 13, 2007 marks 22 years since vicious governmental bombing and murder of innocent MOVE family members, including babies and animals. The root of that vicious attack is the government’s attempt to put an end to our unrelenting fight for the release of our innocent family members, The MOVE 9, who have been in prison for almost 30 years now, since 1978. Our fight has never ended. The parole date for The MOVE 9 is August 8, 2008 and they’re beginning the parole process now. For this and many other reasons we are commemorating the May 13, 1985 bombing of MOVE people with a working session on the issue of parole for the MOVE 9 & political prisoners in general and also a demonstration at the liberty bell in center city Philadelphia, to expose the contradictions and viciousness of this country to all the national and international tourist that come to see that cracked bell.

The MOVE family is urging you to join us for these two events because they are programs that are not just for MOVE but are examples that benefit everybody, and we mean everybody.

Join The MOVE Family on Saturday May 12, 2007 for the working session on parole, from 12:00pm-5:00pm at The American Friends Service Committee, located at 1501 Cherry St. in center city Philadelphia. Also join us on Sunday May 13, 2007 for a serious demonstration at the liberty bell, from 12:00pm-3:00pm at 5th and Market Sts. in center city Philadelphia.


For more information, contact us at 215 387-4107 or at onamovellja@aol.com. Also, view our website at www.onamove.com and check out www.cafepress.com/onamove

Mumia's Son Needs Your Help!

Mumia's Son Needs Your Help!

Attention Comrades!

This is a special alert going out to you: At this time Jamal Hart, the son of Mumia Abu-Jamal, faces intense restrictions! Here's an update:

Jamal currently has an Attorney based out of Chicago to assist him in his case. He recently found out that he has an assault charge dated back to 1995 that does not exist! He was given Federal time as a result of this "error".

I received a call on April 20th from Jamal to say that he was charged with fighting via an Agent Provocateur. He was given 30 days inthe hole because of it. I received a letter from him on April 30th to state that not only will he serve 30 days in the hole, he has LOST his visits and personal phone calls for 6 months! This is an outrage and it MUST be addressed!

All of this is a result of Jamal coming so close to exposing his unjust incarceration through his own research. Now he has an Attorney to represent him in court!

Everyone needs to BOMBARD the prison with phone calls, E-mails and faxes to express your outrage in this matter!

Address all correspondence and phone calls to the Warden ONLY.
The information to the prison is as follows:
Phone: 570-544-7100
Fax: 570-544-7350
E-mail address: SCH/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV

FREE JAMAL HART NOW!
draft
by Free Mumia 1:24:00 PM
Delete

Writers for Mumia - May 12!

The New York City Writers Union will be holding a writers' celebration of Mumia's 53rd birthday, and a mobilizing event for May 17th's "ALL OUT IN PHILADELPHIA FOR MUMIA'S LIFE DECIDING ORAL ARGUMENTS, HIS LAST CHANCE FOR A NEW TRIAL".

SATURDAY, May 12th
TIME: 1 to 5 PM
PLACE: The Community Church, East 35th Street, between Park and Madison, NY

Mumia supporters expose police terror

Published Apr 26, 2007, in Workers World

Following are excerpts from a N.Y. Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition press release.


On April 23, a press conference was held on the steps of City Hall in New York denouncing the outrageous and illegal police tactics aimed at silencing support for internationally renowned journalist and writer, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for almost a quarter of a century.


From left to right, Gwen Dobrow,
Monica Moorehead, City Councilperson
Charles Barron, Orie Lumumba and
Suzanne Ross at City Hall press conference.
WW photo: Lal Roohk

A Hip Hop concert, organized by young supporters of Abu-Jamal, was scheduled to take place on April 15 at the Remote Lounge. For a week prior to the scheduled concert, the police pressured the club owner to cancel the event, but the owner stood firm. Then, two nights before the scheduled event, the police barged in on the club, issued 16 citations, involving thousands of dollars in fines, and escalated the threats against the owner. Fearing for his family and himself, the owner at this point cancelled the event. The event was promptly moved to Solidarity Center and was held with great enthusiasm, but with anger at the police action.

The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal will be heard on May 17 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Mumia has his first real chance of winning a new trial in that court after being convicted of the murder of a policeman almost 25 years ago. The Fraternal Order of Police, the prosecution and their allies are doing everything possible to undermine that possibility.

It is in that context that the attack on the Remote Lounge must be responded to seriously, as it mirrors a long history of similar actions in Philadelphia. In that city, a scheduled event highlighting famed actor Danny Glover for April 24, Mumia's birthday, at the Clef Club, was just moved because of similar police tactics.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

MUMIA CONCERT SHUT DOWN BY NYPD
by Leslie Ann Murray
Special to the AmNews
Originally posted 4/26/2007

Supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal congregated on the steps of City Hall on Monday to condemn the NYPD for what they claim was intimidating and issuing illegal citations to the club owner of the Remote Lounge on Bowery.

On April 15th, the New York City Collation to Free Mumia (NYCCFM) organized a benefit hip-hop concert for Mumia's legal defense fund.

The police engaged in a conspiracy to close this event to prevent a worthy cause,” activist attorney Michael Tarif Warren said. Warren, who is the collation's legal representative, added, "We need a fair hearing to air the legal improprieties" of the NYPD.

After receiving 16 citations, thousands of dollars in fines and allegedly malicious threats, the night club owner canceled the concert, two days before the scheduled event.

In a mad rush for time, the NYCCFM was forced to relocate the concert to the International Action Center (IAC) in Midtown.

On the infamous NYPD Rant blog, a slew of comments were posted by police officers informing cops about their illegal actions to shut down the hip-hop event.

One post on the blog read, "This f--ker should be dead, we should ruin this event and make life miserable for every f-ing Hollywood liberal scum liker that shows up, fry Mumia."

Monica Morehead, coordinator for the Millions for Mumia Committee with the (IAC), suggested that the recent police repression of Mumia Abu-Jamal activists has been ignited because on May 17th, oral arguments for a new trial for Mumia will be heard in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Morehead said, "The movement to free Mumia will not be intimidated by any arms of this oppressive state, especially the police." She continued, "The police are trying to discourage the movement."

Report on April 24 in Philly

On Tuesday, April 24th hundreds gathered at the American Friends Service Committee in Philadelphia on Mumia's birthday to mobilize for his highly anticipated oral arguments scheduled for May 17th. We would like to thank and congratulate all who came, including Danny Glover, Sgt. DeLacy Davis, Linn Washington Jr., Harold Wilson, Lynne Stewart and others, to show their uncompromising support as they did so in the face of a large FOP protest and building police terror which has resulted in death threats and extreme intimidation throughout the last few weeks. Your continued support is recognized and appreciated.


To hear a few sound clips from the event, click on the following links…

Linn Washington, Jr.

Ramona Africa

Sgt. DeLacy Davis