March 31, 2015 at 2:00 P.M. Mumia Abu-Jamal was taken to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a local hospital in Pennsylvania from his prison cell.
Allegedly, today's hospitalization is necessary because of "dangerously high blood sugar levels" since Mumia Abu-Jamal is a diabetic.
No member of Abu-Jamal's family (nor his attorneys) were informed of this decision and action by prison authorities in violation of federal laws.
No one has been permitted to see Abu-Jamal, nor will doctors explain to family members (or the media) the exact state of Abu-Jamal's health, but the internationally celebrated writer and thinker is effectively prevented from commenting concerning arguments over his rights before the federal courts today.
Mr. Abu-Jamal may have been beaten by guards -- or otherwise injured, or harmed, deliberately -- in order to prevent him from speaking to the media about the specific arguments before the Third Circuit concerning First Amendment issues raised by numerous attempts to silence him. Hence, oral arguments in this matter before the Circuit Court have become a performance of Hamlet without the prince. ("Justice For Mumia Abu-Jamal" and "Freedom For Mumia Abu-Jamal.")
As set forth below, the latest efforts to prevent persons from accessing Abu-Jamal's ideas resulted from a speech delivered to graduates of a community college to which law enforcement persons -- who were not invited or present as the speech was read -- took exception.
November 11, 2014 at 4:09 P.M. My access to the Internet has been denied for several days from my home computer. I will continue to struggle to write from public and private computers, every day. ("How censorship works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")
I wrote an essay on the Mumia Abu-Jamal situation in Pennsylvania. I call it a "situation" because I cannot think of what else to call it.
A sitting governor in that state has "generated" legislation aimed at prohibiting further speeches being given by Mr. Abu-Jamal to students, or other persons interested in hearing what he has to say. I am one such person.
Presumably, Abu-Jamal will also be prohibited from writing and reading any speeches or books. Evidently, this may include his own books, which he is not going to be allowed to read. (Again: "How censorship works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")
I have chosen not to type my entire text on to this blog today. If I am able to return here and continue writing -- a questionable proposition, at any time, even though I have never been charged with a crime -- I will attach the full essay to this post, including some references to case law that readers may deem relevant to this "controversy" or political-legal conundrum.
Much of the reality in Mumia Abu-Jamal's life is jurisprudentially unique to the point of being surreal, or absurd.
After his conviction and sentence was overturned by the Circuit Court, he should have received a new trial if the state were able to proceed with such a trial.
Only if he were convicted, again -- at a second trial -- should he have received a new sentence following upon consideration of timely sentencing reports and/or testimony or submissions from experts on both sides.
The federal appeals court specifically stated that racism had "pervaded all of the proceedings" against Abu-Jamal. Strangely, only the death sentence was overturned and not the conviction.
The prosecutor's office then unilaterally announced a sentence of "life imprisonment without parole" based on ex post facto considerations, including laws not in effect at the time that the alleged incident occurred.
Sentencing is normally a judicial responsibility. It is not the role of judges to "rubber stamp" the decisions of prosecutors concerning a sentence for any defendant.
All of this information is found in public media accounts of this trial and its aftermath.
Assuming this information is accurate, the only plausible conclusion is that, regardless of the law and procedures normally followed, the state of Pennsylvania has decided that they will not allow Abu-Jamal to leave prison or to speak and express his opinions on public issues as he is entitled to do under international human rights laws and the U.S. Constitution. ("John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")
Mr. Abu-Jamal's factual innocence may be irrelevant to the issue.
Pennsylvania's cops and politicians, seemingly, HATE Mumia Abu-Jamal because he refuses to legitimate or accept what he, rightly, believes are violations of his legal and moral rights together with an unjust conviction of a criminal offense.
Mr. Abu-Jamal cannot express contrition about crimes he has not committed, even if he is more than ready to express regret at the loss of a police officer's life. And Abu-Jamal cannot accept the status of a "non-legal subject" or "prisoner of conscience" in America because this would make him a slave in a society that makes such a status for anyone unconstitutional. ("Freedom For Mumia Abu-Jamal.")
When a court system comes to disregard the rights of some persons because they -- these disfavored persons -- hold opinions and/or express views and/or behave or dress in a manner that is "offensive" to powerful officials, the integrity of the legal system (indeed, legality) is simply lost or discarded. ("So Black and So Blue in Prison.")
A system of vendettas and revenge is dangerous in a heterogeneous society where the same tactics may be used against their proponents when victims acquire political or legal power. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and, again, "John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")
This brings me to the current election results. Republican multiple orgasms at the interim election results should be tempered by the realization that: 1). minorities did not turn out for this election (boredom) and are more likely to do so for national presidential elections; 2). far from endorsing Republican proposals ("let's cut social security and taxes for the rich!"), this vote was a referendum on Obama's presidency. The media onslaught and grid-lock effort to make Obama a "failed president" in the perception of the voters ("he just makes nice speeches!") finally paid-off; and 3). hostilities and tensions along the fault-line of race are no longer under the surface, they are on the surface and quite ugly, which will motivate minorities to vote and that is the last thing Republicans want.
Certainly, no Democrat -- Hillary Rodham-Clinton included -- can win without enthusiastic minority support. No Democrat (at this time) has a lock on that support. The right Republican could steal a huge chunk of the minority vote, but not if the G.O.P. is perceived as racist or conspiring with foreign leaders to humiliate and undermine the American president. ("Politics Makes For Strange Bedfellows!")
The message in celebrations among the "angry white men" were unmistakable. ("America's Banana Republicans.")
Many Republicans simply do not want and still cannot accept an African-American president and will never come to terms with this affable and well-meaning, brilliant -- recently exceptionally fine president! -- who is correct to suggest that both parties must govern the nation as it faces serious crises in its history.
A Republican capable of agreeing on that issue -- it is time to do what is right for the country -- could well win some of the minority vote.
People are tired of the grid-lock in Washington, D.C. and disgusted by the egotism and petty squabbling of politicians from both parties.
Someday, our Republican friends delighting in the beauties of money, may be forced to contemplate the face of Mr. Obama on a two hundred dollar bill. I will never face this dilemma as I am unlikely ever to see two hundred dollars.
My full essay on this interesting story in Pennsylvania that reminds me of my adventures in New Jersey will appear below soon -- unless I am shipped off to Guantanamo or prevented from creating new blogs.
The usual games with bold script and size of text may deform this text. A list of sources will be added to this essay in the days ahead.
I have received return receipts from the U.S. Attorney's office, stamped with the date of receipt (November 7, 2014), and from the Bronx District Attorney and New York Attorney General, but not yet from Mr. Vance's office which received the full package much earlier on October 30, 2014, as confirmed by the post office.
No prosecutor or law enforcement officer is able to respond or comment on evidence of serious criminality provided by a citizen -- whose life may be in danger -- even as an international audience of many thousands of persons witnesses these singular events. ("Menendez to be Indicted; Christie's Self-Destruction.")
Naturally, in Manhattan, "pressures" from political figures -- or from Mr. Bloomberg or Mr. Morgenthau perhaps? -- may "delay" matters. It may be that Mr. Vance will have a conflict of interest as a result of his predecessor's possible "arrangements" with Mr. Rabner or Ms. Poritz, Mr. Netanyahu or "others." ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
AP, "New Jersey Teacher Is Charged With Sex Assault of 5 Students," The New York Times, September 20, 2014, p. A21. (Keep in mind the events of this story as other items in October and November are listed. Ms. Nicole "Default," 35, [sic.] of Maplewood, New Jersey faces new charges after more students claim they were sexually assaulted.)
Liz Robbins, "Sports Betting In New Jersey is Challenged: Major League Asking U.S. Court For Injunction," The New York Times, October 21, 2014, p. A23. (Mr. Christie is determined to provide assistance to wealthy contributors by lowering their taxes and expanding gaming to sports betting. The risks of increased organized crime in the state have been discounted: "Mafia Influence in New Jersey Courts and Politics" and "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State.")
Michael Paulson, "Voyeur Case Spurs Rabbi to Add Post for Women," The New York Times, October 21, 2014, p. A18. (A rabbi who is fond of spying on women disrobing has generated a movement to "control" this temptation among his colleagues, including in Mr. Rabner's neighborhood in Millburn, New Jersey.)
Jodi Rudoren, "Amnesty International Says Israel Showed Callous Indifference to Human Life in Gaza," The New York Times, November 5, 2014, p. A19. (Israel deemed a "violator of human rights" for disregarding of the lives of Palestinians and others in Gaza. Policies against Palestinians are deemed "genocidal." Despite overwhelming evidence of "crimes against humanity," according to Amnesty International, the International Court of Human Rights has not yet decided whether to prosecute any individuals. "The Audacity of Hope" and "Israel Heightens Gaza Crisis.")
Marc Santora, "Falling Tape Measure at Construction Site Kills a Man in Jersey City," The New York Times, November 4, 2014, p. A17. (A man was killed as a one pound weight measure that fell 400 feet struck him in the head. Several more injuries occurred as twenty-five lawyers collided with each other in trying to reach the man's relatives offering to represent the deceased person's heirs in a law suit. The authorities in Jersey City are suing the man's estate claiming that the accident was his fault because he chose to walk under this tape measure. The dead individual is still drawing a public salary and voted -- at least once -- in the recent elections and he may have won the lottery from beyond the grave. "New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
"A Prisoner Swap With Cuba," (Editorial) The New York Times, November 3, 2014, p. A30. (Negotiations are under way, allegedly, for the release of Alan Gross -- an American and/or Israeli spy held in Cuba -- in exchange for the release of the remaining members of the Cuban Five group of prisoners in U.S. facilities. "Restoring Ties With Cuba.")
Monica Davey & Alan Blinde, "Ferguson Protests Take New Edge, Months After Killing," The New York Times, October 14, 2014, p. A10. (Cornel West is among the persons arrested. As General De Gaulle cautioned: "One does not arrest Voltaire.")
Dan Bilefsky, et als., "2 Nobels Fail to Quiet Talk of France's Malaise," The New York Times, October 14, 2014, p. A4. (Patrick Modiano's novels are being reissued in November, 2014.)
"Fixes For the Port Authority," (Editorial) The New York Times, September 19, 2014, p. A28. (Developments in PA matters are likely to appear very soon. "David Samson, Esq. Resigns!")
Abby Ohlheiser, "Pennsylvania Governor Signs Victim's [sic.] Rights Law Following Mumia Abu-Jamal's Commencement Address," Baltimore Sun, October 21, 2014, online.
"Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett signed a new law Tuesday which will allow prosecutors and victims of a violent crime to sue the offender for 'conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.' ..."
To understand the sources and motivations for this law is crucial:
"The law was fast-tracked through the state legislature after Mumia Abu-Jamal gave a commencement address to a small college in Vermont. Abu-Jamal was convicted [in proceedings tainted by racism] of first-degree murder [all murders are first-degree crimes] in the 1981 shooting death of a police officer."
This legislation, despite the denials by Mr. Corbett and others, is clearly a "bill of attainder" prohibited under the American Constitution.
Laws cannot target a specific person "disliked" and therefore made exceptional under due process constraints because laws must apply, equally, to every citizen.
It is a well-known legal maxim that "hard cases make bad laws." Mumia Abu-Jamal's speech to graduates places severe strains on First Amendment values for many Pennsylvanians.
The new law, ostensibly applying to all citizens of the state, is actually aimed at hurting a single disfavored individual -- or, more accurately, a detested and tortured political dissident -- whose advocacy for unpopular views is found "irritating" by hateful or incompetent persons criticized in his writings, usually quite properly. ("John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")
To read Abu-Jamal's book Live From Death Row is to come away with a depressing sense of the human capacity to inflict suffering on fellow human beings in prison settings, seemingly for no rational reason, where all conditions for maximum sadism and ensuing hatreds as well as opportunities for revenge are bound to come up. The result is a vicious cycle of cruelty and violence all around that should concern us because most inmates, eventually, will be returned to society. ("Foucault, Rose, Davis, and the Meaning(s) of Prison.")
Mumia Abu-Jamal's true subject is not any particular individual political or judicial figure, but a system generating injustices and human rights violations, routinely, as a result of structural failures or features of that system. ("So Black and So Blue in Prison.")
Abu-Jamal's writings are considered "dangerous" by defenders of the flawed system under attack in his writings and speaking opportunities. Some of us are both defenders and critics of that legal system. ("Justice For Mumia Abu-Jamal.")
It is also asserted that "crime victims are victimized again" by allowing convicted felons to disseminate their writings or other forms of speech from behind prison walls.
Persons convicted of crimes in civilized societies do not lose all human rights in their prison cells.
Inmates continue to have free speech and other fundamental rights because they remain persons. Fundamental rights cannot be lost by anyone under our Constitution. Mumia Abu-Jamal cannot be forced to work as a slave, nor can he be denied food, or air to breathe. He cannot be tortured, stolen from, assaulted or raped with impunity. ("An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli.")
At issue in this situation is the rights not only of Mr. Abu-Jamal, as speaker, but also the right of "access to speech" belonging to students at this college and/or others, like me, who may wish to read and listen to Abu-Jamal's words.
Those of us who have committed no crimes and are curious about Abu-Jamal's ideas and information will be denied our fundamental Constitutional rights if this law stands.
This legislation is a great compliment to Mr. Abu-Jamal's fiery intellectualism and passionate advocacy, not only for himself, but also for all prisoners' rights. Abu-Jamal is only one of the many intellectuals arguing against the "prison-industrial-complex." (This entity or phenomenon has become one word in America -- "the prison-industrial-complex.")
The new law would allow crime victims and their relatives to sue felons in prison, or after they have served their time (cruel and unusual punishment?), for lingering effects of crime, including "offense" produced by the speech of inmates who are, possibly falsely, convicted of violent criminal charges. ("Louis C. Taylor Serves 42 Years As An Innocent Man.")
The vague and overbroad language of the proposed and now enacted statute alone may be a sufficient Constitutional "infirmity" for the United States Supreme Court to strike down the law.
"Offense," as John Stuart-Mill explained in "On Liberty," is not the same as "harm."
Speech that is concerned with political ideas cannot be harmful even if it is sometimes offensive to some of the recipients of that speech.
Protecting political speech and ideas is at the core of the First Amendment. This is true not only for Mumia Abu-Jamal, as speaker or writer, but for any of us who are his readers and listeners who are now also injured by Abu-Jamal's silencing.
Proposals to challenge this law on the part of the local chapter of the ACLU are likely to succeed before the Supreme Court:
"Earlier this month, Abu-Jamal spoke via a pre-recorded video message to a group of 20 students at Goddard College as part of a commencement ceremony. The Vermont college's announcement of Abu-Jamal as speaker prompted outrage in Pennsylvania, where the inmate is serving his sentence."
No member of the family of the alleged victim of Abu-Jamal was invited (or required) to attend this private ceremony in a college located in a different state from the one in which the underlying incident occurred.
This raises issues of comity and extra-jurisdictional action by Pennsylvania infringing on the rights of Vermont's citizens. Federalism principles may also result in striking down this Pennsylvania law that does not seem very well drafted. The law is vague and overbroad, over- and underinclusive raising due process issues.
"Samantha Kolber," alleged spokesperson for Goddard College, was "surprised" by the new law:
" ... in essence this law is suggesting that people are not capable of making choices about what speech they will listen to and how they will react to that speech. We wonder how libertarians and free speech conservatives feel about this action, and we also speculate about how far this diminishment of free speech rights will go."
The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that "offensiveness" is not grounds for censorship. For example, flag burning is protected First Amendment activity because it is expressive of political opinions even when it takes place in the proximity of a veteran's funeral where persons are likely to find the act especially offensive.
Justice Harlan recognized in the classic case of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971) that freedom of expression includes not only "ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well."
The "offense" felt by persons in a courthouse greeted by a young man wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft!" was held not to preclude this form of expression in Cohen v. California.
Mr. Abu-Jamal's highly articulate protest at grave and indisputable injustices must be protected political speech, but so are his critics' complaints and statements of offense.
Perhaps the best rationale for protecting speech of a controversial or "offensive" nature is offered by Justice Brandeis:
"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men [and women] free to develop their faculties. ... They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. ... [including] freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think [as a] means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth [because it is] essential both to state government [and to] political change."
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J. & Holmes, J. dissenting and expressing what would become the majority view a generation later and still today -- "freedom for the speech we hate.")
