NewsLink

Lockyer intervenes in prison lawsuit after fierce lobbying effort

By Rick Knee

Thanks to the tenacity of Peter Sussman, the generosity and support of First Amendment advocates, and the good sense of state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, we can all breathe a little easier.

In an 11th-hour action, Lockyer withdrew a subpoena for literally thousands of pages worth of material from Sussman, including notes, articles, e-mails, bulletin board postings on The Well and other Internet communications, transcripts of public testimony and a pending contract with Harper's Magazine.

Sussman, a former NorCal SPJ president, might have faced an indeterminate-length jail sentence if Lockyer hadn't stepped in just a few hours before a scheduled hearing April 29 to determine if the subpoena passed muster under the First Amendment and a state constitutional amendment permitting journalists to protect unpublished material such as notes and outtakes.

With the subpoena withdrawn, the hearing was canceled. Even so, the AG's office had already put Sussman through 14 hours of depositions after he had talked with the lawyer of an inmate suing the state for alleged unfair treatment in prison.

Sussman's activism on the issue of journalist-prisoner interviews gave rise to the entire episode and, according to counsel Terry Francke of the California First Amendment Coalition, is probably what turned the tide as well.

Sussman testified at a hearing on a measure (Assembly Bill 1440) that would overturn a state Department of Corrections ban on such interviews. Author of the bill is Carole Migden (D-San Francisco). (An update on AB 1440 and other freedom-of-information- and First Amendment-related bills appears in this month's FOI column.)

"I think the breakthrough (in the subpoena episode) came when Peter went public at the hearing ... and made the issue one that CFAC, SPJ and the press could start putting under Bill Lockyer's nose," Francke told NewsLink. Lockyer "was almost certainly not aware of the matter before that. He may have a list somewhere of the dozens of prisoner cases his people are defending, but really no detail down to the level of who's been supboenaed in discovery," Francke said.

"I owe thanks to ... Lockyer, who was known for his First Amendment advocacy when he was in the Legislature and who inherited this mess from his predecessor (Dan Lungren), for taking the initiative to break the logjam in his department and set the tone for a settlement," Sussman said in a statement to supporters after the episode ended.

He also expressed gratitude to SPJ, the Freedom Forum, writers of stories, editorials and columns on the matter, Francke and attorney David Durant of Crosby Heafey Roach and May, who took the case pro bono before Sussman's second deposition, which lasted 10 1/2 hours.

"They did hear you. Boy, did they hear you! And with Bill Lockyer's lead, they are doing what needs to be done," he said.

As to what the government got in the bargain, Sussman said he was not at liberty to provide details. "I would summarize that part of the agreement in the most general terms by saying that I have confirmed my already sworn deposition testimony and I hope allayed the conspiratorial fears of prosecutors," he said.

Details of AG's subpoena:

Here is what the state Attorney General's office ordered Peter Sussman to produce:

"For purposes of this attachment, the term 'document(s)' is defined to include all written, typed, printed, drawn, charted, recorded, graphic, photographic, or otherwide preserved communications including any letter, correspondence, note, book, pamphlet, article, bulletin, directive, review, publication, memorandum, diary, log, test, analysis, study, projection, check, invoice, receipt, bill, purchase order, shipping order, contract, lease, agreement, work paper, calendar, envelope, paper, telephone message, tape, computer tape, computer disc, computer card, recording, videotape, film, microfilm, microfiche, drawing, account, ledger, statement, financial data, electronically transmitted, received, or stored communications, and all other writings or communications including all non-identical copies, drafts, and preliminary sketches, no matter how produced or maintained in plaintiffs' actual or constructive possession, custody, or control or of which plaintiff has knowledge of the existence, and whether prepared, published, or distributed by plaintiff or by any other person or entity. Without limiting the foregoing, the term 'document' includes any copy that differs in any respect from the original or other versions of the document, including but not limited to copies containing notations, insertions, corrections, marginal notes, or any other variations."

Here's why the state Attorney General's office wanted to see the correspondence that Peter Sussman sent and received via The Well:

"The Well is an Internet site where Mr. Sussman and at least one other witness, and potentially more, posted and read messages, participated in topical 'conferences,' and sent and received e-mail relating to the subject matter of this (prisoner's) lawsuit.

"Since Mr. Sussman did not produce documents from The Well which he had posted, e-mailed, received or read relative to the topics specified in the subpoenas served on him and his custodian of records, defendants (the state) seek leave to issue a subpoena duces tecum to The Well's custodian of records. Subpoenaing these documents directly from The Well will help narrow the issues which the court must decide at the anticipated motion to compel production of documents from Mr. Sussman and his Custodian of Records. ...

"Discovery of documents from The Well is critical to the defense of this action as set forth in the declaration of (Deputy AG Jane Catherine) Malich. E-mail messages, message board postings, discussions and similar materials from The Well are either directly admissible evidence or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they discuss the subject matter of this litigation, discuss and describe facts and evidence, and may lead to the discovery of additional witnesses who have information bearing on the case."

By Tim Graham

Lessons from Sussman's fight against the long arm of the law

We won't need to pass out the "Free Peter" bumper stickers and campaign buttons. Reason has prevailed and Peter Sussman no longer faces the threat of jail.

It's now possible to smile about Sussman's, and SPJ's, battle against an over-zealous state prosecutor who could give Kenneth Starr lessons on how to harass innocent bystanders. But for several months, Sussman's Kafkaesque struggle was no laughing matter.

Even if the chances of Sussman actually being hauled off to jail seemed remote, in reality the state's legal action against him took over his life. The scope of the AG's subpoena was so incredibly and outrageously broad that he was effectively prevented from doing much else besides defend himself against it.

From the moment we first learned of the subpoena last December, it was hard to believe it was happening. Even if a judge failed to quash it, surely the incoming state attorney general, William Lockyer, long a perceived friend of the First Amendment, would make it go away.

Well, to make a long story short, neither happened. Sussman underwent 14 hours of interrogation, and the list of onerous demands from the state attorney general's office continued to grow. Lockyer, meanwhile, apparently afraid of touching off a palace revolt inside his own office, did absolutely nothing.

Ultimately, Lockyer did intervene. But he did so only after Sussman's story made national news. Still, Lockyer has failed apologize, or even to acknowledge that his office was wrong.

In the aftermath of this unfortunate episode, it's important to acknowledge some mistakes, or at least some miscalculations, that happened along the way.

Sussman went to his first deposition without an attorney at his side. To know Peter Sussman is to recognize that he never met a question he wouldn't at least try to answer. Having him deposed without the benefit of counsel was a huge mistake. We shall be forever indebted to David Durant of Crosby, Heafey, Roach & for joining the case pro bono. Durant's involvement and negotiating skills helped turn the tide in the end.

Another huge miscalculation was our initial decision to rely on a strategy of quiet diplomacy rather than beating the drums on Sussman's behalf in a very public way. It would be convenient to say we did this in deference to Sussman, but that's no excuse.

We should have recognized at the outset that the action being taken against Sussman was political, and tantamount to a vendetta for his long, courageous campaign on behalf of all Californians and their right to know what's going on inside prison walls. The state's action had no legitimate legal foundation. Sussman had not done anything wrong, nor was he standing behind the First Amendment to protect someone who had.

Once we disabused ourselves of the fantasy that quiet diplomacy could prevail, it was gratifying to witness the outpouring of support for Sussman, and for the principles of freedom we all enjoy and rely upon. Only after the glare of publicity made it politically impossible for Lockyer to continue to do nothing did he summon the political will to derail what had been a political effort undertaken by the underlings in his new office.

Finally, at risk of bringing up something that smacks of blaming the victim, there's an important lesson in Sussman's experience for all journalists who mix reporting with advocacy. Don't get me wrong; I do not believe Sussman did anything ethically improper. Even if you allow for the possibility that he might have crossed the line, the potential transgression fails to justify or excuse the actions the state took against him.

One of the things that made him vulnerable in this case was the fact that he had spoken with an inmate's attorney, who subsequently listed Sussman as a consultant in court filings. So the lesson for any journalist is to be careful when attorneys call you, start asking questions and want to share, even when they're working on the side of truth and justice.

Lawyers. You can't live with them. And, as we certainly learned in this case, you can't live without them.

You can reach Tim Graham at timg@techweek.com, or by calling 408-249-8300, ext. 186.

By Tracy Jan

The Society of Professional Journalists has launched the Rainbow Source Book project, a nationwide effort to create a tool for improved accuracy and fairness in the media.

"As reporters try to better reflect the communities they cover, the source book will help us diversify the people we use in news stories and lead to more comprehensive coverage," said SPJ President Wendy Myers. "It is the first source book of its kind."

The SPJ Rainbow Source Book is a collection of qualified experts on key news topics who are historically underrepresented in the media, such as people of color, women, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities and people with links to the disenfranchised. The sources are being organized into an on-line database and printed source book, gathered from the files of reporters, community and professional organizations and universities around the country. It will be available to journalists who want to broaden the perspectives and voices in their stories.

"This source book makes it easy for reporters to get beyond the usual names and faces and add more breath and depth to their coverage," said Sally Lehrman, national SPJ diversity chair and immediate past president of the Northern California chapter. "I can hardly wait to get my hands on it myself." At the core of SPJ's commitment to promote quality, integrity, fairness, accuracy and thoroughness in reporting is the need to encourage journalists to expand the range of voices and perspectives incorporated in the news, she said.

Society relies on the news media to provide it with a rich and textured understanding of the world around it, and so journalists have realized they must include the voices of underrepresented groups in the folds of the mainstream. Many reporters, however, may not know how to go about broadening their source lists. The SPJ Rainbow Source Book is designed to be a solution. It will serve as a valuable reference for journalists who want to improve the quality of their reporting by including members of ethnic and other minority communities as sources in all areas of the news.

The Source Book will also help link underrepresented communities and readers with the mainstream media.

Since the outbreak of racial unrest in the late 1960s, newsrooms across the country faced the task of improving coverage of racial and ethnic communities. Though the quality of coverage of minority groups has improved, recent studies show that negative stereotypes and images persist in newspapers and in the broadcast news. When it comes to mainstream reporting, people of color and other minority groups tend to be left out. It's easier for reporters to rely on the same well-known "experts" than to seek out new voices.

A 1991 study by San Francisco State Journalism Chair Erna Smith on San Francisco Bay Area news coverage showed that people of color were more likely than whites to be sources on crime and social issues; few were included in lifestyle features (with the exception of entertainment) or in business stories. A 1997 content analysis of San Francisco Bay Area newscasts and newspapers by the Northern California chapter of SPJ revealed that people of color were most likely to be subjects of news stories on civil rights and education. In Face the News, 1995 study on gender coverage in 20 newspapers across the country, women made up just 19 percent of sources for front-page stories while men made up 81 percent.

The SPJ Rainbow Source Book web site contains background information on the project along with a source form with targeted topic areas that reporters can fill out online. SPJ chapters and other media associations will be able to create their own Rainbow Source Book project locally by using the forms and other material available on the site in an easy-to-follow "Diversity in a Box" program. The names are being compiled into a database, which will make its debut at the UNITY convention in Seattle this summer. Reporters will be able to add more sources to the database during the convention. The final product will be a 600-page book and an on-line database searchable by topic area and geographical location, to be updated regularly as more sources in key news topics are gathered.

The project is headquartered in San Francisco at the Center for Investigative Reporting, which generously donated office space.

Tracy Jan, a graduating senior at Stanford University, is project manager for the Rainbow Rolodex.

By Rick Knee

A coalition of citizen activists and community groups, including NorCal SPJ, is collecting signatures to place an initiative strengthening San Francisco's laws on public access to city records and meetings on this November's municipal ballot.

The chapter is expected soon to take an official position on the measure, called the Access to Public Meetings and Records Initiative Ordinance. The chapter's Freedom of Information Committee has urged the board of directors to endorse the initiative, the text of which is posted on the Internet.

The measure has received endorsements from Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano, Supervisor Leland Yee, former Board of Supervisors President Angela Alioto, and several organizations, including Local 3 of the National Writers Union.

The current body of laws, called the Sunshine Ordinance, was enacted by the Board of Supervisors and then-Mayor Frank Jordan in 1993, at NorCal SPJ's behest.

But city officials have routinely ignored its provisions, giving rise to the effort by the coalition, called San Franciscans for Sunshine (SFS), to get the reform package on the ballot and approved by the voters.

Key provisions of the package would:

Members of NorCal SPJ have been active in the effort from the start, and SFS has told NorCal SPJ that it considers the chapter's endorsement of the initiative extremely important. The NorCal SPJ board early this year named this writer to represent the chapter in SFS.

Bruce B. Brugmann and this writer, both former chapter presidents, were active in an unsuccessful effort to place a Sunshine Ordinance reform package on last November's ballot. They, current chapter President Tim Graham and chapter Secretary Tricia Taborn have been active on SFS's steering and draft committees.

Also in SFS's core group are former Supervisor Angela Alioto; Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano; Doug Comstock of the Committee to Stop the Give-Away; Dan Dunnigan; Joan Girardot, president of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods; Emeric Kalman of the Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association; Carolyn Knee; Green Party activist Ross Mirkarimi;

David Pilpel (who is chairman of the SOTF); mayoral candidate Jim Reid; Jeff Sheehy of Equal Benefits; Julie Sims, who was a key staff aide to former state Sen. Quentin Kopp; and Howard Wallace of the Service Employees International Union.

Attorneys Stephen J. LeBlanc of Townsend, Townsend & Crew and Thomas Burke of Davis, Wright & Tremaine did the lion's share of work on the initiative's language. Burke is also active in the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC).

It was Brugmann, as FOI Committee chairman and then president, who shepherded the original ordinance through fine-tuning and the political machinations at City Hall. The initial language of the current ordinance was drafted by CFAC counsel Terry Francke, who has also provided assistance in shaping SFS's initiative.

Getting the measure on the ballot will require submitting at least 10,510 valid signatures by July 5 to the city Department of Elections, so SFS intends to collect at least 15,000 signatures.

***

San Franciscans for Sunshine will welcome your participation. To find out how you can join the effort, contact SFS at P.O. Box 2273, San Francisco 94126; phone (415) 386-4934; fax (415) 831-9427; or e-mail sun4sf@aol.com.

What does it take to be a business writer reporting from the epicenter of the so-called digital revolution?

Hear four of the nation's leading technology reporters and editors tell their tales from the trenches at a professional development seminar sponsored by the SPJ's NorCal chapter. Learn from them what it takes to become successful reporters on the technology beat.

Speakers at the Thursday, June 3 seminar, "Covering the Internet Boom: Careers in Technology Journalism," will include John Markoff, technology writer for the New York Times; Kara Swisher, staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal; Bruce Koon, managing editor of Mercury Center; and Alice Hill, vice president and editorial director of CNET.

The seminar at the will be moderated by Laurie Kretchmar, editor in chief and vice president of programming at Women.com Networks.

Mark your calendar:

By Rick Knee

The Freedom of Information Committee is getting new leaders: Rachel Boehm, an attorney with the San Francisco law firm Steinhart & Falconer, and Dan Day, San Francisco bureau chief of Associated Press.

They'll accept the gavel July 1 from Dan Borenstein, Contra Costa Times political editor, and First Amendment Project attorney Elizabeth Pritzker, who have decided that three years is long enough at the committee's helm.

The FOI Committee is one of the chapter's most highly active, and its record of success is a key reason that NorCal took SPJ's Chapter of the Year honors in 1995, 1996 and 1997.

***

Major developments have occurred in a pair of FOI/First Amendment-related issues.

In one, the state attorney general's office has dropped its demand that journalist/author Peter Sussman produce literally thousands of documents and other material because he was listed as a witness by a prisoner suing for allegedly unfair treatment by state prison authorities.

In the other, a coalition of community groups and citizen activists has launched a campaign to strengthen the open-meetings and public-records-access laws that NorCal SPJ got San Francisco City Hall to enact in 1993.

Details on both items appear elsewhere in this issue of NewsLink.

***

A number of FOI/FA-related bills have moved forward in the state Legislature.

One that FOI advocates are watching especially closely would authorize the state attorney general to review denials by government agencies of public-records requests and would be an important tool in enforcing the state Public Records Act.

Another would overturn state Department of Corrections restrictions on media access to prisoners.

The former measure -- Senate Bill 48 by Byron Sher (D-Stanford) -- was approved, 8-0, by the Senate Judiciary Committee and was before that chamber's Appropriations Committee as this issue of NewsLink went to press.

The latter -- Assembly Bill 1440 by Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) -- received 69-7 approval, with four members absent or abstaining, in the Assembly. Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) has withdrawn an identical bill he had brought in the Senate and is backing Migden's bill.

FOI Committee member Randall Lyman has provided a roundup of other measures that bear watching:

***

How the state Supreme Court will rule, in a suit by the UC Santa Barbara newspaper and one of its former editors seeking to overturn on freedom-of-information grounds the UC Board of Regents' decision to scrap affirmative action, is anyone's guess, according to Joshua Koltun, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the ex-student on NorCal SPJ's behalf.

The newspaper, Daily Nexus, and former editor Tim Molloy argued successfully in a Superior Court that the action was illegal because some of the regents conducted private polling on the affirmative-action issue before taking their vote. The private polling violated the Bagley-Keene Act mandating that state policy-making bodies conduct their proceedings openly.

The regents contend the suit should be thrown out because it was filed after a 30-day statute of limitations had expired.

Koltun said he found two state Supreme Court justices "leaning toward" the Daily Nexus and Molloy, and that "the remaining justices are more of a mystery.

The chapter has filed friend-of-the court briefs in some other cases:

***

If you want to join the fight for freedom of information and the First Amendment, the FOI Committee will welcome your participation. Contact one of the current co-chairs, Dan Borenstein or Elizabeth Pritzker about joining.

FOI Committee member Rick Knee is a freelance writer based in San Francisco and a former NorCal SPJ president. Reach him at raknee0408@aol.com.

by Al Weinrub

Despite new evidence of his innocence and an international outcry over his 1982 trial, African-American journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal remains incarcerated on Pennsylvania's death row. Last October the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Mumia's request for a new trial, placing him on the fast track for execution. The Effective Death Penalty Act, passed as part of the 1996 anti-terrorism bill, severely restricts Mumia's right to appeal at the federal level.

At the time of his arrest for the 1981 killing of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia was a well-respected journalist. Philadelphia Magazine named him one of the city's "people to watch," and he was the elected president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists. Juan Gonzales, a columnist for the New York Daily News, calls Mumia "one of the most brilliant and committed journalists I ever met."

In August 1995, the national Delegate Assembly of the National Writers Union passed a resolution stating that, "Abu-Jamal's original trial was riddled with glaring irregularities and represents a gross and racist injustice. We urge a new and fair trial..."

Appeals Denied

In his 1982 trial, Mumia was denied the right to defend himself. He was assigned a public defender who was unprepared to mount an effective defense. Mumia was banished from the courtroom for much of his trial, and African-Americans were systematically excluded from the jury. In his appeal of the 1982 conviction, Mumia's defense team, led by human rights lawyer Leonard Weinglass, presented evidence that:

But the same judge who issued Mumia's death sentence also heard the appeal-Albert Sabo, notorious for having sentenced 33 people to death (all but two of them people of color), more than twice as many as any other sitting judge in the United States. Not surprisingly, Judge Sabo rejected Mumia's bid for a new trial.

"Even those who advocate his execution," says Weinglass, "publicly acknowledge that if given a new trial, Mumia would most likely be found not guilty."

Why has it proven so hard for Mumia to get a new trial? Could it be that he's playing against a stacked deck?

In concurring with Judge Sabo's denial of a new trial, the Pennsylvania Supreme court showed its true colors. Five out of seven of the elected "justices" of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are politically beholden to, if not actually members of, the Fraternal Order of Police-the organization most vehemently pressing for Mumia's execution. One of the justices (Ronald Castille) was directly involved in Mumia's case, and all preside over a judicial system that has placed 121 prisoners from Philadelphia alone on death row, all but 13 of them non-white.

Mumia's Enemies

Mumia's journalistic work during the 1970s brought him into direct confrontation with Philadelphia's establishment, headed by Mayor Frank Rizzo, the former police chief.

Philadelphia under Rizzo was a national scandal. An unprecedented 1979 lawsuit, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Rizzo and other city officials for condoning flagrant police brutality, cited 290 persons as being shot by Philadelphia police between January 1, 1975 and December 10, 1978.*

At age fifteen, as Minister of Information for the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party, Mumia took up the struggle against police brutality, attracting the attention of Philadelphia's finest. Later, when working as a news journalist for National Public Radio, the Mutual Black Network, the National Black Network, WUHY, and a number of other local stations, Mumia was dubbed the "voice of the voiceless" for his exposure of police violence against the minority community.

But it was Mumia's coverage of the trial of the MOVE 9 that incurred the wrath of the Rizzo administration. In August 1978, over 600 police launched an all out assault on the headquarters of the MOVE organization-a close-knit black nationalist organization-opening fire,flooding out its 12 adult and 11 child inhabitants with fire hoses, and beating the adults.

In the wake of this attack, Ed Rendell, Rizzo's District Attorney, prosecuted nine MOVE members for the death of an officer during the police assault. Each was sentenced to 30 to 100 years in prison.** Mumia and other journalists sharply contested Rizzo's version of the MOVE siege. "Rizzo was at war with the press during that era," says Linn Washington, an award winning investigative reporter who worked in Philadelphia at the time. "He considered the press Public Enemy Number One because of its coverage of police brutality, the corruption and incompetence in his administration, and the racist practices of his administration. He regularly lashed out at reporters, particularly black reporters."

Mumia's political activism and journalism not only made him persona non grata to the Philadelphia police, but also inspired a 600 page FBI file. Because of his outspoken criticism of Rizzo, Mumia was fired from his broadcast job, leading him to take the cab-driver job that placed him at the scene of Faulkner's murder.

Ed Rendell, the district attorney who prosecuted the MOVE 9, also orchestrated the prosecution of Mumia in 1982. According to W. Clark Kissinger, a journalist familiar with Mumia's case, "Ed Rendell knew well of Mumia's radio journalism, his exposures of police brutality, his coverage of the MOVE 9 trial, and his background in the Black Panther Party."

In fact, Mumia's political views were explicitly used by the prosecution during the penalty phase of his trial to argue that he should be put to death (a prosecutorial argument subsequently declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court).

Efforts to Silence Mumia Continue

In the 17 years that Mumia has been on death row, he has written almost 400 columns and two books, Live From Death Row and Death Blossoms. Mumia's writings have put names and faces on the people victimized by racial and economic injustice.

Take, for example, the case of Mrs. Helen Anthony, a fifty-nine-year old domestic worker, who, on the way home from work, was stopped by the police and denied entry to her home of 23 years-it was to be torn down as a drug den. After two hours trying to get help, Mrs. Anthony returned to find her home completely demolished.

Mumia also gives voice to a prison population which now numbers 1.8 million, 4,000 on death row. Mumia's eloquent exposure of criminal injustice and his unflagging stand in defense of poor and working people have made him the target of an increasingly strident effort to hasten his execution.

In May 1994, caving in to pressure from the Fraternal Order of Police, National Public Radio (NPR) canceled a series of 12 Mumia commentaries produced for their news show All Things Considered. Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole, on the floor of the Senate, congratulated NPR on its decision to censor the work, but in a blunt warning said, "It is disturbing the NPR had apparently forgotten until the last minute the need to provide balance and objectivity required in its programming, and did not wake up until Abu-Jamal had recorded at least 10 commentaries..."

After publication of Live From Death Row, Mumia was put in punitive detention by prison authorities, again, at the urging of the Fraternal Order of Police (a punishment subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals). Mail from his attorneys was illegally opened and copies sent to the governor's office. And prison authorities have barred Mumia from contact with journalists.

Recognizing the importance of free political expression, writers' organizations such as PEN and the Society of Professional Journalists have opposed censorship of Mumia's commentaries.

Last May, KGO-TV, the ABC/Disney affiliate in the San Francisco Bay Area, and last December, ABC's prime-time show 20/20 presented segments on Mumia's case, rife with distortions and falsifications. In ABC's own words, 20/20 worked "in conjunction with Maureen Faulkner (Faulkner's widow) and the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police," in an attempt to discredit Mumia and his efforts to win a new trial.

ABC's segments are consistent with corporate media's efforts to portray Mumia as a "cop killer," and to deny both him and his supporters a public forum.

High Stakes

The effort to silence Mumia, ultimately by execution, is part of a broad attack on minorities, workers, and political dissidents in our country. This attack includes the dismembering of affirmative action, the criminalization of black and minority youth, the gutting of defendants' rights, the scapegoating of immigrants and minorities, the undermining of workers' wages and working conditions, and the upward redistribution of wealth in the face of growing impoverishment of the poor.

Mumia's case has become a momentous legal, moral, and political struggle that concentrates some of the most burning issues of the day. The next few months will be critical in determining Mumia's fate. Unfortunately, the truth alone will not set Mumia free. His execution will only be stopped by a massive outcry demanding a new trial. On April 24, a national mobilization-Millions for Mumia-will include demonstrations in San Francisco and Philadelphia.

Please add your voice to those calling for a new trial. For more information on Mumia, the mobilization, and what you can do to help win a new trial, check these web sites: http://www.mumia.org and  http://www.walrus.com/~resist/mumia/.

Notes:

* In 1995 the Philadelphia police department was again in the headlines: framing-up of innocent people, corruption, police brutality. In all, 300 convictions were thrown out and many innocent victims set free. This expos was followed by the Philadelphia District Attorney revealing that juries had routinely been rigged to exclude blacks.

** In 1984, still at war with the MOVE organization, the Philadelphia police dropped a firebomb on MOVE headquarters. Eleven people were incinerated, several of them babies, and 62 homes in the African-American neighborhood were burned down.

***

In Mumia's Words

"Conventional wisdom would have one believe that it is insane to resist this, the mightiest of all empires, the victor in the Cold War, the empire that devastated Iraq and all that. But what history really shows is that today's empire is tomorrow's ashes. That nothing lasts forever, and that to not resist is to acquiesce in your own oppression. The greatest form of sanity that anyone can exercise is to resist that force that is trying to repress, oppress, and fight down the human spirit." -- Mumia Abu-Jamal, 1994