-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pot law confusion blooms - Patients, police ask about enforcement
(The Anchorage Daily News discusses the uncertainties about how
Proposition 8, Alaska's medical marijuana law, will be implemented.)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 03:04:31 -0900
To: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: chuck@mosquitonet.com (Charles Rollins Jr)
Subject: CanPat - ADN on new cannabis law
Cc: cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@smtp.teleport.com
Anchorage Daily News
Sunday, November 29, 1998
Pot law confusion blooms Patients, police ask about enforcement
By ELIZABETH MANNING
Daily News reporter
Bright lights, a passing plane, even the sound of wind chimes can send
Connie Schill into spasms.
"Anything that startles me hurts," said Schill, 46. "My body goes into
fight or flight mode but never comes back down."
Schill, who once worked as a librarian at Fort Richardson, suffers from a
nerve disease. Just leaving her home near Sutton is a chore.
She knows marijuana would calm her stomach and soothe her nerves.
She wants to grow a few plants as soon as Alaska's new medical
marijuana law goes into effect in February. But like other patients who
want to use the law, Schill is worried about how it will work.
The absolute worst thing for her health, she said, would be to spend time
in jail.
James Keane, an Anchorage man with AIDS, agrees. "I want to make
sure it's perfectly OK," he said. "I'm not going to grow it in the basement."
Alaska joined a new frontier when voters approved Proposition 8 earlier
this month. The law allows qualified patients to legally possess up to an
ounce of marijuana or to grow as many as six plants. To qualify, patients
must have a medical condition the state deems eligible and obtain a written
recommendation from a doctor.
Six states now have medical marijuana laws. During the last election,
voters in Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona approved the law.
Californians voted in the measure in 1996.
The newness of the law brings uncertainty, said Dean Guaneli, Alaska's
chief assistant attorney general. For example, a loophole in the law allows
a patient or primary caregiver to grow pot, but buying the seeds could be
interpreted as illegal, state officials said.
Those are the kind of ambiguities that make patients such as Schill and
Keane nervous.
"I'm not sure how that's supposed to work," Schill said. "What do you do if
you're coming home and get stopped?"
There are other ambiguities. How are police who find someone with
marijuana supposed to sort out if they're allowed to have it?
Del Smith, deputy commissioner of public safety, said he is working on
procedures for troopers to follow in the field. "What does a cop do on the
street?" he asked. "It's easy to pontificate about this in the office, but
faced with this at 9 p.m. at someone's house, what do you do?"
People studying the law believe there might be other loopholes no one has
thought of. But one thing appears certain: State officials doubt "cannibis
clubs" or other illegal distribution centers will surface here as they did
in California. No known clubs exist in Alaska, and federal agents have shut
down most of the California clubs.
Still, law enforcement agents wonder if illegal pot farmers will try to
gain legitimacy under the new law or if some people will fake illnesses to
get marijuana.
State officials say the last thing they want is to harass people legally
entitled to use or grow marijuana. But at the same time, officials also
worry that the new law might invite abuse.
"We need to obey the intent of the law but we don't want to open the
floodgates," Smith said. "Yet nothing could be worse than to jack up some
dying cancer patient on a drug charge."
Possessing any amount of marijuana continues to be illegal under federal
law, Smith said. But federal agents typically aren't interested in chasing
after small users, he said.
The law does not require qualified users to sign up with the state -
something law enforcement officials see as one of the biggest problems with
it. The Department of Health and Social Services will establish a registry
of people who use medical marijuana, but no one has to sign up The only
document that is required is a doctor's recommendation.
The lack of registry was done to protect a patient's confidentiality, but
Dean Guaneli, chief assistant attorney general, said it will make it
difficult to assess how well the law is working.
Another problem, Guaneli said, is the definition of a primary caregiver.
In the text of the initiative, a primary caregiver is defined as someone
who "has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient
who has a debilitating medical condition." Primary caregivers are allowed to
grow the marijuana for their patients.
Smith worries the definition is too loose and wonders if the law might
allow marijuana growers to set themselves up as the primary caregivers to
more than one patient.
That wasn't the law's intent, said David Finkelstein, campaign manager for
Alaskans for Medical Rights, the group that brought the initiative to
Alaska. Finkelstein said a primary caregiver should be a person who spends
significant time with the patient. The law allows the exception, he said, to
help people who are too sick to grow plants themselves.
Another unanswered question is how many doctors will recommend
marijuana to their patients.
In December 1996, the Clinton administration announced that it planned to
repeal the federal prescription license of any doctor who recommended
marijuana. Finkelstein said that move was later struck down by a preliminary
court injunction. No doctors in Alaska should fear reprisal, Finkelstein said.
Still, some doctors are apparently wary. Keane said his doctor would not
give him a recommendation.
"These are the kinds of issues we're going to have to work through,"
Guaneli said. "We really don't know what were going to experience with this."
* Reporter Elizabeth Manning can be reached at emanning@adn.com.
Copyright (c) 1998 The Anchorage Daily News
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Raising ire - Area group supports legalization of drugs (The Fort Worth,
Texas, Star-Telegram says that at a time when school districts, law
enforcement agencies and parents are wringing their hands about how to halt
the escalating use of heroin and other illegal drugs among young people,
members of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas aren't afraid to stir things up
or share their unpopular viewpoint. Police call their opinions dangerous.)
From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 11:08:58 -0600 (CST)
Subject: ART: Star-Telegram LONG VERSION
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
-- Begin Included Message ---
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 11:49:04 EST
Reply-To: StaceyADay@AOL.COM
Sender: Drug Policy Forum of Texas (DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU)
From: Stacey Day (StaceyADay@AOL.COM)
Subject: ART: Star-Telegram LONG VERSION
To: DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU
Here is the unabbreviated version of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article. It
was on the FRONT PAGE of the Northeast Tarrant County and the Arlington
editions of the paper, and included two photos.
If you read the abbreviated version, the additional info is primarily (a)
additional quotes from DEA agent Lund--one of which on the black market is
ripe for a LTE, and (b) quotes from Suzy Wills, the Colonel, more from Rick
Day, and "the other side."
***
Raising ire: Area group supports legalization of drugs
By Susan Gill Vardon
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
When Barbara Corey became convinced that her husband's drug addiction
would insinuate itself into her daughter's life, she fled Indiana for
Texas.
Still worried, she took her 13-year-old daughter to a recent drug forum
at Arlington's Bowie High School.
Rick Day was at the forum, too, albeit on a different mission. The
director of the new North Texas chapter of the Drug Policy Forum of
Texas challenged a comment from a Drug Enforcement Administration agent
that marijuana is dangerous, asserting that "use is not abuse."
Outraged, Corey shouted at Day across the school auditorium.
"The message that you are trying to give goes against what we are trying
to do here," said Corey, 44.
At a time when school districts, law enforcement agencies and parents
are wringing their hands about how to halt the heroin epidemic and the
escalating use of other drugs among young people, Day and other members
of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas say they aren't afraid to stir things
up and say things that they know are unpopular -- and that police
officials say are dangerous.
Whatever it takes, Drug Policy Forum members want to get noticed. When
that happens, they say, they can share their beliefs: that the war on
drugs has been more dangerous than the illicit narcotics themselves and
that the U.S. government is wasting billions of dollars on a battle it
can't win. They want to see drug use decriminalized.
"For 20 years or more, parents have been subjected to half-truths and
propaganda about drugs," said Day, 43, of Dallas. "If we can get people
talking about this issue, then we can get people galvanized on it. It's
like abortion, Vietnam and civil rights."
The group, which has about 65 members, wants a place on the podium along
with law enforcement officials, drug rehabilitation specialists and
educators when drug policy issues are discussed, said Day, a barbecue
caterer.
To draw attention to their cause, members of the North Texas chapter
picketed in front of the DEA's Dallas office during the agency's 25th
anniversary commemoration.
As police officers at anti-drug forums display illegal narcotics and
tell parents how to spot signs of drug abuse in their children, group
members ask why marijuana is demonized while alcohol and tobacco are
legal. They also try to make a case for what they call responsible drug
use.
"We'd rather them [kids] not to take drugs, but I'd rather have them
smoking pot in their room than out in the car drinking or smoking
tobacco," Day said.
The group suggests treatment rather than punishment for users and
government control of drug distribution through medical regulation.
Prisons are jammed with small-time drug users and dealers, and long
prison terms can hurt families, the group says. The "forbidden fruit"
message of drug interdiction has succeeded only in luring more
teen-agers to drugs and in creating a booming black market, the group
contends.
"It's the last bastion of the old vs. the young," Day said. "It's the
old moldy men who insist on thumping the Bible and telling us how we
should live our lives, and the baby boomers, the Gen Xers and others are
coming up to take their place. And this is the last stand, right here."
Law enforcement officials say they worry that the group's message will
confuse children and will lead them to believe that drug use is
acceptable.
"I just don't see how people can debate anything that is potentially
harmful for our kids," said John Lunt, resident agent in charge of the
DEA's Fort Worth office. "To try to say that there is an acceptable level of
drug abuse by anybody is sending the wrong message."
Lunt, a speaker at the Bowie High forum, also had a heated exchange with
Day and other group members. "Is there responsible use of heroin?" he
countered.
Lunt said he disagrees with the group's contention that a tough law
enforcement stance on drugs has created a thriving black market.
"Alcohol is a legal drug with an age cutoff, and there's a black market for
that with young people," Lunt said. "If they legalize marijuana, at what age
should they legalize it? There will always be a black market."
Members of the North Texas group have various philosophies and missions.
They include a former Highland Park school administrator, a retired
certified public accountant, a software designer, an advertising firm
owner and a financial analyst.
Most say they do not use drugs, and many shy from the term drug
legalization, preferring harm reduction, medicalization or
decriminalization.
"If there is anything I have learned about it is that the drug reform
movement makes for very strange bedfellows," said Rod Pirtle, 64, of
Farmers Branch, a Rotarian who retired in 1990 after working as an
administrator and principal for Highland Park schools.
"My overriding theme is we've got to save our kids from this awful
scourge, and the war on drugs is not doing that," Pirtle said.
He said he believes that the string of heroin deaths in the Metroplex
could have been prevented if drug abuse had been treated as a medical,
not criminal, problem.
"In my humble opinion, none of those kids had to die," Pirtle said. "The
problem is, they don't call the medical people. First of all, everybody
runs because they are going to be arrested."
Sue Wills, 54, of White Rock said she believes it is time to acknowledge that
young people experiment with drugs.
She points to the decision by the Dutch government to legalize marijuana,
described in Mike Gray's book, Drug Crazy, as a model to keep young people
from using harder drugs.
"What he [Gray] was saying about the kids' being cut off from hard drugs when
the less addictive, less dangersous drugs are made available is borne out by
the policy in Holland," said Wills, a retired accountant.
Robert "Col." Mason, 54, of Lewisville said his goal is to get the "government
to stop lying to our children."
When we tell kids that drugs are bad, bad, bad, they know we are lying to them
because they turn on the television and see that drugs are good, good, good,"
said Mason, who owns a promotions firm and has a "Legalize Drugs" sign on his
car.
"You can take a drug to go to sleep," he said. "You can take a drug to wake
up. You can take a drug to be regular. You can take a drug to make your hair
better."
Day, an imposing figure at 6 fee 8 inches, is outspoken about marijuana
decriminilization. The father of two has a "victory garden" in a bedroom
closet, where he cultivates herbs and miniature roses but hopes to one day
grow marijuana--if and when it becomes legal.
When asked whether he takes drugs, Day answered: "Anything I've ever bought
didn't have a label or a bar code."
Day said he was arrested 20 years ago on a marijuana charge. The charge was
dropped because police officers did not have a search warrant, he said.
The Drug Policy Forum of Texas, formed five years ago in Houston, has a
monthly newsletter and a Web site, which is the way many of the
Metroplex members said they were introduced to the group. The group
hopes to add a Fort Worth chapter by spring, Day said.
Barbara Corey said she isn't buying any of the Drug Policy Forum's messages.
She said she has seen her husband and his friends abuse everything from
marijuana and alcohol to cocaine and heroin. Some of his friends have died
from overdoses or have been shot because of drug disputes," she said.
The mention of drug legalization sparks more outrage.
"Oh, God forbid," Corey said. "It's bad enough now that you're trying to get
it illegally. It will be twice as bad. If it's legalized, you're saying it's
OK. It's not OK."
Corey said she was disappointed that other parents at the Arlington drug forum
didn't challenge group members and that the forum organizers weren't better
prepared for the group's questions.
"They are definitely going to take you by surprises, that's their purpose--to
get legislation changed, to get people to their way of thinking," she said.
Day said he wishes that Corey had heard his whole message.
"If I'd had a chance to go up to that lady, I would have given her a hug and
said, 'Darling, we don't live in a utopia. There's always going to be drugs
and there are always going to be people who abuse things, whether it's eating,
working, alcohol, tobacco or heroin.'"
Corey wasn't the only one who was discouraged after the disruption at the
forum. Jennifer Aragon, 17, Bowie High School's Student Council president,
attended the forum with a friend and said afterward, "It really is almost like
a slap in the face to me."
"I felt a lot of parents came to fight something and to hear other parents'
suggestions," Aragon said. "I don't think they [the group members] came
because they cared about the students. They just wanted to be heard because
of their cause."
***
Two pictures, captions:
Rick Day of the North Texas chapter of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas holds
literature that offers contrasting points of view about marijuana use.
Rick Day grows herbs and miniature roses in a garden in a bedroom closet. He
said he hopes to one day legally grown marijuana there.
Susan Gill Vardon, (817) 685-3805
Send your comments to gillvardon@star-telegram.com
(c) 1998 Star-Telegram
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DA Stoutly Backs Grand Jury No-Bill In Pedro Oregon Navarro Shooting
(A Houston Chronicle update on the aftermath of the shooting death of Pedro
Oregon Navarro by Houston prohibition agents who broke into his home
without a warrant says Mayor Lee Brown has called for a federal investigation
and the police chief has fired the six officers involved, but District Attorney
John B. Holmes Jr. doesn't think the six should be prosecuted. In recent
interviews, Holmes denied allegations that he soft-pedaled the case because
it involved law enforcement.)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:44:09 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US TX: DA Stoutly Backs Grand Jury No-Bill
In Pedro Oregon Navarro Shooting
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: adbryan@onramp.net
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Website: http://www.chron.com/
Copyright: 1998 Houston Chronicle
Author: Bob Sablatura
DA STOUTLY BACKS GRAND JURY NO-BILL IN PEDRO OREGON NAVARRO SHOOTING
With the mayor calling for a federal investigation and the police chief
firing the officers involved, District Attorney John B. Holmes Jr. has
become the main target of many Hispanic leaders and activists angry over the
shooting death of Pedro Oregon Navarro.
They take issue with Holmes' longstanding policy of referring all
police-involved shootings to a grand jury without first charging the
officers, and his refusal to take the Oregon case to a new grand jury after
the first one cleared the six officers involved of serious charges.
In recent interviews, the district attorney vigorously denied allegations
that he soft-pedaled the case because it involved law enforcement. He noted
that these are not the only cases that go before a grand jury without
specific recommendations. For instance, parents accused of child abuse are
treated the same way.
Nonetheless, Antonio Balderas Jr., a member of the civil rights committee of
the Mexican-American Bar Association, said the policy on police shootings
amounts to preferential treatment for the officers.
If a citizen shoots a police officer, Balderas said, the person is arrested,
jailed and charged with murder. When the case goes before a grand jury, the
members are aware the person has been charged and that the district
attorney's office is seeking an indictment.
But when a police officer shoots a citizen, Balderas said, the officer is
not arrested and not charged with a crime. When that case is presented to a
grand jury, he said, grand jurors get a signal that the district attorney's
office does not want the officer indicted.
"The message the grand jury gets is that if the district attorney doesn't
think the evidence is sufficient, we shouldn't either," Balderas said. "My
experience has been that if the district attorney's office wants an
indictment, they get an indictment."
One example, he said, was the recent case in which a teen-ager shot and
killed a constable in north Harris County.
"He was indicted within (two weeks) for capital murder," Balderas said.
Members of his bar organization are calling for Holmes to take the Oregon
case to a new grand jury and seek murder or manslaughter charges against the
officers.
Holmes said the grand jury heard all the evidence, interviewed more than two
dozen witnesses and considered a wide variety of charges before clearing the
officers, and he sees no reason to launch another grand jury probe.
"I don't know of any evidence that was not available to these grand jurors,"
Holmes said. "And it is not the policy of this office to second-guess grand
juries."
Holmes said his policy stems from the fact that in every case involving a
police shooting there is some purported justification for the officers'
actions; if you believe it, there is not a case to be charged.
"And the decision as to whether you believe it or not is ultimately up to
the grand jury," he said.
The Oregon case and the incident where the constable was shot are hardly
similar, Holmes said. In the latter, he said, the constable chased the
teen-ager down and was in the process of handcuffing him when the suspect
pulled a pistol and shot the officer point-blank in the throat.
"Well of course he was charged," Holmes said. "There is no defensive issue
there for the grand jury to consider."
Members of the Justice for Pedro Oregon Coalition, a group composed mostly
of Hispanic activists, recently met with Holmes to try to convince him to
continue seeking charges against the police officers who shot and killed the
22-year-old Mexican national.
They came away disappointed.
Coalition member Aaron Ruby said it was obvious from the start of the
meeting that Holmes would not budge from his position.
"Mr. Holmes' office has always been very pro-police," Ruby said. "And
backing down on this issue just doesn't fit with his tough-guy image."
Oregon was shot and killed after members of the Houston Police Department's
gang task force stormed his Southwest Houston apartment in an unsuccessful
search for drugs. The officers did not have a search warrant and were acting
on a tip from an unregistered informant, a violation of Police Department
policy.
Police claim they opened fire after Oregon pointed a gun at them. Oregon's
body was struck 12 times, nine times in the back.
At least nine of the shots entered Oregon's body at a downward angle,
suggesting he was shot while face-down on the floor. Four bullets were
recovered from Oregon's body, and numerous bullet fragments were found under
the carpet beneath the body.
The six officers involved were cleared of murder and manslaughter charges
last month by a Harris County grand jury, but they all later were fired from
the Police Department.
Federal law-enforcement officials have announced they are investigating
whether Oregon's civil rights were violated.
Holmes said grand jurors are instructed from the very start of their service
that every case must stand on its own merits, and they should consider only
the evidence before them when deciding on whether to bring an indictment.
Holmes said his office would never tell a grand jury that because a
prosecutor believes there is sufficient evidence to charge a person, there
is no need to review any evidence.
"What a stupid position to take," Holmes said. "And it is just as stupid to
take the opposite position, that just because there is no charge, there is
nothing to it."
One of the primary factors in determining whether to charge a person prior
to presenting the case to the grand jury is whether the suspect may flee, he
said.
"And I have never seen an occasion where a cop has fled the jurisdiction
because he wasn't first under bond before the grand jury indicted him,"
Holmes said.
Cases involving police officers are not the only ones his office takes
directly to a grand jury, Holmes said. All cases in which homeowners have
shot someone also are presented without charges, as well as child abuse
cases and felonies involving worthless checks.
Holmes said he feels the heat on other cases where grand juries fail to
bring an indictment.
One such recent case involved Houston Rockets announcer Calvin Murphy Jr.,
who faced allegations of accepting money from the city of Houston for work
he did not perform. After hearing evidence in the case, a Harris County
grand jury cleared him of wrongdoing.
"There were a lot of people who felt he should have been indicted," Holmes
said. "And there were a lot of people who believed we should have taken that
case to a grand jury with charges."
But there are other times where grand juries surprise everybody and bring
indictments.
Some years ago, Holmes said, one of his former investigators was shot and
killed by his wife. Her position was that the shooting was an accident, and
there was some evidence to support her story, including a 911 tape on which
she was virtually hysterical calling for an ambulance.
Most everyone felt the grand jury would return a no-bill.
"They didn't, they indicted her for murder, and she was prosecuted for
murder and convicted and sent to the penitentiary," Holmes said. "I was
shocked that the grand jury indicted, quite frankly."
But just because grand juries act in ways that sometimes prove unpopular,
Holmes said, his office does not attempt to circumvent their decisions.
While Holmes concedes that he has the power under the law to take no-billed
cases to another grand jury, he has a policy against doing so.
The exception, Holmes said, is if the grand jury clearly did not follow the
law or if new evidence surfaces, and he has no reason to believe that either
apply in the Oregon case.
Not only did grand jurors hear all the evidence and interview the witnesses
involved, Holmes said, his prosecutors went ahead and typed up indictments
for murder and manslaughter against all the officers, as well as a host of
more minor offenses, so the grand jury would not have to wait for the
paperwork to be done.
"We had an obligation to instruct them on every possible offense that could
be committed, from murder all the way down to the class A's (misdemeanors)
of trespass and official oppression," he said.
Holmes said his office was prepared to prosecute anything the grand jury may
have returned.
"Obviously, we would not have drawn up the indictments if we did not believe
we could make a case," Holmes said.
After deliberations, the grand jury returned no-bills on all the felony
offenses, and voted to indict just one of the officers on a misdemeanor
charge of criminal trespass.
Prosecutors admit that took them by surprise. Although the grand jury was
instructed on the law as it related to criminal trespass, it was one of the
few charges they did not have prepared.
The indictment was typed up after the grand jury vote.
Holmes said he has no idea why the grand jury chose to indict one officer
and not the others. "The only way I would know that is if I asked them," he
said, "and I have not done that."
Holmes said he believes the grand jury properly applied the law to the facts
as they determined them, and believes it would be improper to take the case
to another grand jury.
Rick Dovalina, national president of the League of United Latin American
Citizens, said Holmes has shown that he applies his policies selectively to
suit his needs.
"How about Judge Lupe Salinas?" Dovalina asked. "Holmes took that case to a
grand jury again and again until he got an indictment."
Salinas, a Democratic state district judge, was indicted in 1994 on
misdemeanor charges of improperly spending campaign contributions. That
indictment came after evidence in the Salinas case was presented to four
grand juries.
The first grand jury indicted Salinas on some charges and no-billed others.
But those indictments were dropped after Salinas' attorneys found the grand
jury had been improperly appointed.
A second grand jury, convened to consider only whether Salinas had lied to
the first grand jury, declined to indict him for aggravated perjury. A third
panel failed to act before its term expired.
When prosecutors presented the charges to a fourth grand jury, they also
re-presented the original charges that had been no-billed.
Prosecutors in Holmes' office defend their actions, saying that since the
defense claimed the first grand jury's action were illegal in regard to the
true-billed charges, their action was illegal in regard to the no-billed
charges also.
Ruby, with the Justice for Pedro Oregon Coalition, said he is disappointed
the state judicial system failed to hold the police officers accountable for
the shooting, but believes there is little that can be done on a local level
without the cooperation of the district attorney's office.
While his organization considered asking the foremen of the five new Harris
County grand juries sworn in earlier this month to initiate an independent
investigation of the shooting, Ruby said the group ultimately decided
against it.
Without the district attorney's guidance, getting another grand jury to
investigate the shooting would be very difficult, Ruby said.
"Without Mr. Holmes' support, I don't believe another grand would return an
indictment," Ruby said. "I guess we will have to look to federal authorities
for justice."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prison Tour Doesn't Sway Lawmakers (The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
says four of the five Wisconsin legislators who toured a private prison
in Whiteville, Tennessee, where Wisconsin inmates had been abused,
said Saturday they saw no reason to stop sending inmates to prisons
run by the Corrections Corporation of America. When the assault occurred,
the prison had 556 Wisconsin inmates. On Friday, it held 1,024. Under
its contract with the company, Wisconsin will pay $18.4 million a year
to imprison 1,200 inmates in Whiteville, about $15,333 per inmate per year.)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 11:13:28 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US TN: Prison Tour Doesn't Sway Lawmakers
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Copyright: 1998, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Author: Richard P. Jones of the Journal Sentinel staff
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
PRISON TOUR DOESN'T SWAY LAWMAKERS
4 of 5 who visit private Tennessee site still favor shipping out inmates
Whiteville, Tenn. -- Four of the five Wisconsin legislators who toured a
private prison where Wisconsin inmates had been abused said Saturday they
saw no reason to stop sending inmates to Corrections Corp. of America
prisons here or in Oklahoma.
The four Republicans - and one Democrat, who disagreed with them - spoke
after a day of visiting the company's facilities and meeting with company
officials in the wake of complaints of multiple cases of abuse of Wisconsin
inmates. The abuse came in the days after a brutal attack by inmates on a
rookie prison guard.
On Wednesday, the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee is scheduled to act
on a Department of Corrections request to send more inmates out of state,
including 300 to the Corrections Corp. of America prison in Sayre, Okla.
Though the visit to Tennessee didn't change any minds, it did reveal new
details of the chain of events that led to the abuse complaints.
The Wisconsin lawmakers learned that an Aug. 5 incident in the prison
cafeteria - an officer laying a hand on an inmate's shoulder, and other
inmates taking offense - apparently triggered the attack on the officer
and subsequent abuse of inmates.
Tennessee authorities are investigating the assault on the guard and may
charge nine Wisconsin inmates with attempted murder. The FBI is looking
into violations of the inmates' civil rights.
When Wisconsin prison officials found evidence of abuse during an October
visit to the prison and complained of a coverup, the company fired eight
employees, including the prison's security chief.
After visiting the company's facilities Friday, Rep. Scott Walker
(R-Wauwatosa), corrections committee chairman, said he found no pattern of
abuse, only the usual inmate complaints, which he described as minor.
And Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), a finance committee member, said of the
company, "It's the best option for the state."
Wisconsin has an inmate population of 17,634 but has bunks for 13,400
convicts in its prison system.
But Rep. Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee), the lone Democrat on the trip, said
Wisconsin should stop sending inmates out of state at least until the state
and federal investigations at Whiteville are complete.
"I'm not convinced that we should continue transfers at this time," said
Coggs, who also is a finance committee member.
The delegation, which also included Rep. Robert Goetsch (R-Juneau),
criminal justice committee chairman, and Assembly Majority Leader Steven
Foti (R-Oconomowoc), toured the prison Friday and, among other things,
learned the following:
Thomas Locke, special agent in charge of the FBI's Memphis Division, said
the FBI should complete its investigation in December. Agent James Adams of
Jackson said the sole focus was inmate allegations of abuse and possible
criminal violations of their civil rights by company employees. Once the
FBI submits its report, Locke said, the U.S. Department of Justice must
decide on further action.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation has been investigating the near-fatal
assault on the guard. Warden Patrick Whalen told lawmakers that apparently
the Tennessee bureau was awaiting only lab results before deciding on
criminal charges.
Jerry Reeves, the guard who suffered severe head injuries in the Aug. 5
assault, was home recovering after a second stay in the hospital. Whalen
said Reeves recently underwent surgery to relieve swelling of the brain and
more surgery appeared necessary.
When the assault occurred, the prison had 556 Wisconsin inmates. On Friday,
it held 1,024 from Wisconsin. The state plans to send more until the prison
reaches its capacity of 1,200. Under its contract with the company,
Wisconsin will pay $18.4 million a year to imprison 1,200 inmates in
Whiteville.
Foti and other lawmakers had plans to visit Whiteville since the state
started doing business with the company in January. The August incidents
provided added reason for the trip.
Foti had planned a surprise visit, but company officials learned the
lawmakers were coming. When the delegation arrived, two guards were
lowering the Tennessee state flag and preparing to hoist Wisconsin's flag.
Although it was the day after Thanksgiving, corporate officials joined
Whalen and virtually his entire staff to welcome the legislators to the new
maximum security prison, a stark, two-story concrete fortress with narrow
windows, surrounded by two fences at least 20 feet high and topped with
razor wire.
While company officials were reluctant to discuss the investigations, it
apparently was an incident in the cafeteria that led to the Aug. 5 assault
on Reeves and events that followed.
Assistant Warden Mike Tweedy said an officer gave an inmate an order, and
when the order was ignored, the officer put his hand on the inmate's
shoulder. He said other prisoners apparently saw the guard's move as a sign
of disrespect.
"There was a number of inmates that jumped up," Tweedy said. "One of the
supervisors just yelled, 'Sit down!' And they all just slowly sat back
down."
Lawmakers were told later that the officer apparently was the security
chief, and that members of several gangs planned to attack him that day in
the recreation area, but turned on Reeves when they couldn't get the
security chief.
Reeves, who had been on the job only three weeks, was attacked with a bar
from a weight machine in an equipment room in the prison gym.
Three weight machines that inmates used in the rec yard are now gone. So is
the security chief, who was among workers the company dismissed when
Wisconsin officials found evidence of inmate abuse, complained of a coverup
and alerted the FBI.
Among the inmates alleging abuse at Whiteville was Bernell Selders Jr., who
recently was transferred to the segregation unit of another company prison,
known as the Hardeman prison, just down the road.
During a stop at the Hardeman prison, Coggs and Walker listened as Selders
explained what happened to him on Aug. 11. He said that twice that day, he
and cellmate Louis Boyd, while in handcuffs, were beaten, sprayed with mace
and shocked with a stun gun and stun shield by a members of a tactical
squad.
"They had the shield on me, stunning me, saying, 'You know who did it, and
you're going to tell us who did it,' " he said. "I'm crying; I'm in pain."
Selders said he had nothing to do with the assault, and he struggled in
describing what else he said happened to him.
Selders said that stripped to his shorts, he was forced to kneel on the
floor. He said that he was bent forward over his bunk and restrained in
handcuffs when a guard sexually assaulted him with a shampoo bottle,
shocked him with a stun gun and hit him in the head.
Coggs said he was moved by the inmate's account, which he said reflected
poorly on the new facility and all the programs that company officials
sought to promote.
"If you have inhumane practices going on, then it's like a medieval
dungeon," Coggs said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Changing His Story To Fit The Case - Win At All Costs series
(Part of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's 10-part series about the newspaper's
two-year investigation that found federal agents and prosecutors
have pursued justice by breaking the law routinely.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:08:37 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Changing His Story To Fit The Case - Win At All Costs series
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing.
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing.
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the fourth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of several stories
(being posted separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade,
Toledo, OH email: letters@theblade.com
CHANGING HIS STORY TO FIT THE CASE
At his sentencing in 1993, Ronald Whitley told a federal judge he'd
been a bit player in the major Kansas City cocaine ring that Anthony
Salem Rashid operated. Whitley argued that he didn't deserve the
minimum 20-year sentences other defendants faced.
He was illiterate and had done nothing more than help Rashid count
money a few times and maintain Rashid's many homes, Whitley and his
lawyer said.
The judge believed him. For pleading guilty, Whitley got a 10-year
sentence.
Two years later, the trials of four other defendants charged in the
same drug conspiracy got under way, and Whitley offered to testify in
exchange for another cut in his sentence. Prosecutors agreed.
Whitley took the stand and told jurors he'd been a top lieutenant in
the ring. He convincingly told a jury that he and others had
transported large caches of drugs from Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles
to Kansas City, Mo.
His testimony directly contradicted what he'd told a judge two years
before, but prosecutors didn't mention that to defense attorneys, who
wouldn't learn of Whitley's plea bargain statements until two years
after their defendants were convicted. Nor did prosecutors reveal
Whitley's extensive criminal record, which included an arrest for murder.
The other key witness in the trial was Rashid. When he was arrested in
Los Angeles, he had 76 kilograms of cocaine in his possession, but
prosecutors agreed to cut the 30-year sentence he faced to 10 years if
he'd testify against dealers who worked for him. Based largely on the
testimony of Whitley and Rashid, four men received sentences as long
as life in prison.
One of them was Harold Jones, who seemed an unlikely drug runner.
Jones worked two jobs, had few assets, was deeply in debt because of
credit cards and insisted he was being made the fall guy so that
Whitley and Rashid could win leniency.
For his "truthful" testimony and substantial help in the trial,
Whitley was set free. His 10-year sentence was reduced to time served.
Rashid did even better. His original charges would have put him in
prison for 30 years to life. For testifying against Jones, whom he
described as a man who purchased drugs from him over the years, the
government shortened his sentence to 10 years.
Then, as if by magic, it was reduced to five. While testifying against
Jones and the others, Rashid said he'd been promised a second
reduction in his now 10-year sentence. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark
Miller assured the court and jurors that the government's deal with
Rashid was fulfilled. He said if Rashid filed motions for a second
sentence reduction, the government would argue vehemently against it.
Despite his cooperation, Rashid still qualified as a kingpin of the
drug network, Miller said.
After the defendants were convicted, Rashid filed a motion asking the
judge to force the government to fulfill its promises of a second
sentence reduction. Despite Miller's earlier protests in court, he
didn't contest Rashid's motion. Rashid won and has since gone free.
Jones, on the other hand, is serving a 23-year prison sentence, based
largely on the testimony of Whitley, who perjured himself, and Rashid,
who bought 25 years off his sentence by telling prosecutors what they
wanted to hear.
Jones and the other defendants didn't find out about Whitley's
transformation from gopher to key lieutenant until defense lawyers
were successful in getting a judge to unseal Whitley's sentencing
hearing transcript.
In March, all of the defendants asked an appeals court to reverse
their convictions based on Whitley's perjured statements and the
government's failure to turn over evidence that would have allowed
defense lawyers to impeach Whitley as a witness. They also said the
government did not fulfill its obligation to correct false testimony
after it occurred.
The district court judge had agreed that "some preposterous things
have happened in this case" but turned down their appeals based on the
"harmless error" doctrine, which means the judge decided that if the
truth about Whitley were known, the verdict would not have been different.
The defendants' appeal to the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals argues the
government knowingly presented false testimony to a jury and failed to
disclose discovery materials to defendants prior to trial.
The court recently ruled against them on all substantive
matters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Damage Of Lies - Win At All Costs series
(Part of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's 10-part series
about the newspaper's two-year investigation that found federal agents
and prosecutors have pursued justice by breaking the law routinely. Lying
has become a significant problem in federal court cases because the rewards
to federal law enforcement officers can be so great and the consequences
so minimal. Perjurers are seldom punished; neither are the law enforcement
officers who ignore or accept their lies.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:08:37 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: The Damage Of Lies - Win At All Costs series
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing.
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the fourth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of several stories
(being posted separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade,
Toledo, OH email: letters@theblade.com
THE DAMAGE OF LIES
Zeal For Convictions Leads Government To Accept Tainted Tips, Testimony
The bullet that tore into Don Carlson's thigh sent him sprawling across the
hallway floor.
After he fired two shots at his front door in a vain attempt to stop the
intruders, he dropped the gun. Carlson made it to his bedroom, punching
9-1-1 into a portable telephone as the men stormed into his house. He fell
into a corner. Twice more he was shot -- in the back. One bullet splintered
and collapsed a lung.
"Don't move, or I'll shoot you again," a man yelled.
Carlson didn't know it, but the man who shouted at him was a federal agent.
The dozen or so other officers in his house represented the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Customs Service and the San Diego
police department and sheriff's office.
Carlson is still not sure when they realized their mistake. For 30 minutes
on that sultry August night in 1992, he lay bleeding, handcuffed and
shackled, on his bedroom floor, barely able to breathe. "Why would they do
this to me?" he recalled muttering.
Agents raided Carlson's home in the San Diego suburb of Poway in search of
2,500 pounds of cocaine. They based the search on information that an
informant named Ronnie Edmond provided. Edmond was an ex-drug dealer whom
the federal government paid $2,000 a month to inform on others in the drug
trade.
This informant frequently lied, a fact the agents knew, but they
nonetheless used his story to get a search warrant for Carlson's house.
Carlson was no drug dealer. There were no drugs in his house. He'd never
been in trouble with the law.
The informant picked Carlson's home because he thought it was vacant and
figured he could cook up another lie when the agents found no drugs.
Carlson had recently divorced, and his wife got the furniture. That's why
the house looked empty. If the consequences of Edmond's lie weren't so
serious, the episode might have been comical. Instead, it illustrates a
problem in the federal justice system that receives little attention but
has profound impact, a two-year Pittsburgh Post-Gazette investigation found.
Perjury has become the coin of the realm in federal law enforcement.
People's homes are invaded because of lies. People are arrested because of
lies. People go to prison because of lies. People stay in prison because of
lies, and sometimes, bad guys go free because of lies.
Lying has become a significant problem in federal court cases because the
rewards to federal law enforcement officers can be so great and the
consequences so minimal. Perjurers are seldom punished; neither are the law
enforcement officers who ignore or accept their lies.
Carlson believes some of the agents who stormed his house wanted to kill
him to cover up the informant's lies but couldn't risk it because so many
agents from different jurisdictions were there. "The only thing that saved
me was that there were too many agencies involved."
Federal officials would not respond to requests for comment on the case.
Tolerated Lies
The Post-Gazette found hundreds of cases over the past 10 years in which
federal officers and prosecutors tolerated or encouraged perjury.
Experts in federal law enforcement aren't surprised. Bennett L. Gershman, a
law professor at Pace University of New York, continually reviews cases
involving perjured testimony to update his law book, "Prosecutorial
Misconduct," published in 1997. "I see a handful of cases where the court
is reversing cases because of perjured testimony . . . and coming down hard
on the [federal] prosecutor," he said.
His reviews also make it clear that these rulings are the exception, not
the rule. "In most cases where this is happening, the lies never see the
light of day. Nobody knows this is happening."
Ironically, the system encourages a toleration of perjury, because appeals
courts and the Justice Department seldom punish agents or prosecutors who
condone it. When defense lawyers discover perjured testimony, prosecutors
usually argue in appeals that it was "harmless error," which means that no
matter what the witness said, it wouldn't have changed the jury's verdict.
"It happens with a frequency that makes me troubled, and once you see this
in a number of cases where the courts are not reversing convictions, it
seems to me a prosecutor can make a considered judgment on whether or not
he can get away with this," Gershman said.
Perjury has always elicited intense debate. Plato and Aristotle discussed
it in their writings in the fifth century B.C. This century, the Supreme
Court has elaborated on the perils of perjury in dozens of rulings, usually
underscoring the dangers it poses to the integrity of a trial. "The knowing
use of perjured testimony involves prosecutorial misconduct and, more
importantly, involves a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the
trial pro-cess," the Supreme Court stated in the 1976 ruling United States
vs. Agurs.
But perjury has become a pervasive problem in federal law enforcement, in
part because prosecutors often must rely on witnesses who are given very
good reasons to lie. These witnesses are criminals, and in exchange for
their testimony, they receive leniency and sometimes even hefty payments as
government informants.
Defense attorneys say and prosecutors disagree that such rewards encourage
witnesses to tailor their statements to say exactly what their benefactors
want to hear. "For it to get to the point where prosecutors honestly
believe that purchasing witness testimony at any cost is OK is bizarre,"
said Thomas Dillard, who spent 14 years as an Assistant United States
Attorney in Knoxville, Tenn., then four as United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Florida. He is now a criminal defense lawyer in
Knoxville.
In July, in a ruling that surprised attorneys on both sides of the issue,
the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver agreed. The court's 3-0
decision, which applies to six western states, said that promising leniency
to witnesses in exchange for testimony amounted to buying testimony, a
violation of federal law. Judges in several other jurisdictions have
already signed on to that premise.
The government has appealed, and most court observers don't expect the
ruling to stand. In addition, Congress might consider a bill that would
exempt federal courts from the federal bribery statute on which the ruling
is based.
But the court's decision has served to legitimize an argument that
prosecutors have long dismissed as defense attorney whining. There are
supposed to be safeguards to help ensure that the testimony of witnesses
who are promised leniency or other inducements is truthful. The Justice
Department requires these witnesses to undergo polygraph tests and pledge
to acknowledge to prosecutors information about any crime they might know
about.
But the newspaper investigation found prosecutors often abandon polygraph
tests or hide the results from defense lawyers so they won't risk losing
key witnesses whose stories are suspect.
No one gave Carol Smith a polygraph after she told federal drug agents that
her one-time boyfriend in New York City had turned her from a fun-loving
flight attendant for TWA into a depraved heroin addict who got caught
smuggling drugs for him on airplanes.
Prosecutors promised her leniency in exchange for her testimony, which
helped ensure that Frank DeFeo would serve 30 years in prison. But after
the 1992 trial, DeFeo's attorneys learned that Smith had lied on the stand.
She had been an international drug courier for Israeli crime figures long
before she met DeFeo.
She didn't serve even a day in prison for her drug trafficking or her
perjury, and prosecutors successfully fought DeFeo's efforts for a new trial.
To ensure consistent testimony, prosecutors sometimes allow prisoners
scheduled to testify at a trial to be housed together so they can rehearse
their testimony and avoid contradictions on the stand. Their reward for
this carefully crafted testimony is reduced prison time or even freedom.
James Carr said a federal prosecutor promised him a sentence reduction on
drug charges in 1994 if he would testify in the Portsmouth, Va., drug trial
of Rohan Keating. Carr said prosecutors told him to keep the deal to
himself. To ensure consistent testimony, he was housed in the same
cellblock as the two other key witnesses against Keating: Bernard Vick and
Eddie Thurman.
Carr says prosecutors reneged on their deal with him, so he decided to tell
the truth. He said Vick and Thurman lied about Keating's involvement in a
drug ring to protect their leniency deals.
Carr's change of heart didn't help Keating; a judge last year discounted
Carr's recanted testimony in turning down Keating's appeal. Keating, who
had never previously been arrested on drug charges, is serving 30 years in
prison.
By its handling of the witnesses, the government ensured one thing: No one
can be sure of Keating's guilt or innocence.
Odd lessons
In a peculiar way, perjury demeans the justice system in the eyes of the
people whom it punishes. David Hairabedian learned that lesson. In 1991,
Hairabedian, then 24, was sentenced to prison for his role in attempting to
steal airplanes in the United States at the behest of Colombian drug dealers.
There was no question that the Independence, Mo., man was involved. He
pleaded guilty to that and other charges relating to the sale of cocaine.
But the leader of the airplane theft ring, Christopher Bailey, told the
court that Hairabedian had directed the operation and had pocketed most of
the money and drugs the thieves received in payment.
Bailey's testimony meant Hairabedian received 22 years in prison, about
twice the sentence an underling in the operation would have received. For
cooperating with prosecutors, Bailey went free.
=46rom the start, Hairabedian had told federal agents that Bailey was the
operation's ringleader. He told them the Colombians paid Bailey $200,000 in
cash and cocaine, not the $5,000 he testified to in court.
Hairabedian said Bailey lied to federal prosecutors simply to save his
skin. Federal prosecutors said Hairabedian's comments were the self-serving
lies of a desperate man.
Almost nine years later, everything Hairabedian said turned out to be true.
An FBI agent and an assistant U.S. attorney, who had known of the deception
for years, corroborated Bailey's role as head of the theft ring and his
perjury in Hairabedian's trial.
Federal prosecutors continue to fight Hairabedian's effort to get a new
hearing on his sentence. Bailey finally went to prison, but it wasn't for
being the ringleader of the theft ring. He served less than a year for his
perjury. Not a bad trade-off, Hairabedian said.
Hairabedian is serving a 22-year sentence. He manages a Christian ministry
in prison and says he isn't interested in special treatment, just fair
treatment.
That can sometimes be difficult to find in federal court.
Lying Victories
The result of the tolerance for perjury is that the liar almost always wins.
In a Nebraska case earlier this year, a paid federal informant set up
cocaine deals among workers in meat-packing plants near Lincoln then lied
about his past in court. Federal Prosecutors didn't tell defense attorneys
he had a criminal record, that he was an illegal alien or that the
government was paying him.
The defendants didn't learn of the government's deceit until after they
were sentenced to prison. The witness admitted his past at another trial
before a different prosecutor.
The result: The illegal alien was given permanent status in the United
States even as the individuals he testified against were convicted. They
have filed appeals based on his perjured testimony, stating the government
knew about the witness's lies but allowed him to testify anyway, with no
fear of repercussions.
More Promises
It's not always federal law enforcement officers whose promises might
result in fabricated testimony.
Ricardo Bilonick had more than a million reasons to tell jurors exactly
what prosecutors wanted to hear. He was the former head of the Panamanian
air carrier called INAIR. In 1995, he faced charges of being a key player
in the Medellin drug cartel with former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega,
but Bilonick worked out a plea agreement with prosecutors whereby he'd
testify against Noriega in exchange for a light prison sentence and a
ticket out of the country.
Noriega's attorneys knew that. What they didn't know was that the Cali
cartel, the deadly rivals of the Medellin drug cartel, paid Bilonick $1.25
million for testifying against Noriega.
Prosecutors insisted they knew nothing of the deal during the trial, a
notion defense attorneys found laughable. In an appeal, defense attorneys
maintained that the government violated Noriega's due process rights when
it failed to correct this false and highly misleading testimony.
"The conduct of the prosecutors in this case is so reprehensible, so
lacking in moral compass, that it nearly defies rational analysis," defense
attorneys Frank Rubino, Jon May and Olga Ruiz argued in one motion filed in
1995.
The 11th U.S. Court of Appeals sided with prosecutors, barely. "Although
the government appears to have treaded close to the line of willful
blindness, the crossing of which might establish constructive knowledge, we
decline to charge the government with prior cognizance of the alleged
payment."
In denying Noriega's appeal, the court also ruled that the disclosure about
Bilonick would not have changed the result of Noriega's trial. Noriega has
14 years remaining in his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution
in Miami.
The lies just meant Noriega got what he deserved, some could argue.
But no one could say that about Don Carlson, who almost died in his
Southern California home because federal agents shot him based on an
informant's lie.
Rocky Recovery
Carlson has recovered from his gunshot wounds, at least physically.
He spent a year in rehabilitation before moving from California to a gated
community north of Dallas. He is still single. He doesn't have to worry
about money; he sued the government for $20 million because of the botched
drug bust and shooting spree at his home then settled for $2.7 million.
Carlson doesn't believe the amount of money he got was excessive. His life
in California was destroyed, as was his faith in federal law enforcement.
He will never understand how federal agents could rely on a known liar and
criminal as the basis for a search warrant, enforced with blazing guns, of
his home. "[Edmond, the government informant,] was a low-level street
dealer, part-time criminal who created this thing to get money from them,"
said Carlson. "He was basically extorting the government."
Nor can Carlson believe the federal government's arrogance. Even after
agents admitted he wasn't a drug dealer, they threatened to charge him with
the attempted murder of a federal agent, a crime punishable by 10 years in
prison, despite the fact the bullets he fired didn't even pierce his front
door.
Federal officials made it almost impossible to find out what actually
happened that night. A federal judge sealed the search warrant for his home
"because of an on-going investigation," Carlson said.
Carlson's lawyer finally filed suit in December 1992, while Carlson, a
computer company executive, was still struggling through the intensive
rehabilitation that began after his lungs started functioning on their own
again. For about eight weeks, he had needed a machine to keep him alive.
The government promptly went into its "hibernation mode," failing to
respond to any court papers until a judge ordered it to do so, Carlson said.
After two more years of contentious negotiations, Carlson agreed to a
settlement in 1995. It did not include an apology. "They would not admit
they made a mistake," he said. "All they said was that they were a victim
of circumstances."
Carlson said he finally agreed to take money -- about $1 million for each
gunshot wound -- because "that was the only way I could make a statement to
them. The government wears you down. It was never about money; it was
always about making them accountable, but that was never going to happen."
Edmond, the informant who lied about the drug stash in Carlson's house, was
charged with a variety of false swearing and perjury charges and sentenced
to a prison term, which he is still serving.
No one else was disciplined.
Carlson, now 46, retired from his company. After six years, he again can
sleep soundly. The only remnants of his injuries are a damaged diaphragm
and a problem with his leg due to the gunshot wound. He said doctors have
told him the injuries almost certainly will shorten his life.
Carlson said he doesn't like to talk about the incident but does so because
he fears the same thing might happen again. "I have continued to do this
and will continue to do it because I have this hope that someday, somebody
will do something to make something change," he said.
He shakes his head as he speaks and admits that he doubts his words.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Tale Was One Of Many Stretches - Win At All Costs series
(Part of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's 10-part series about the newspaper's
two-year investigation that found federal agents and prosecutors
have pursued justice by breaking the law routinely.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:35:09 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Fish Tale Was One Of Many Stretches - Win At All Costs series
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the fourth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of several stories
(being posted separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade,
Toledo, OH email: letters@theblade.com
FISH TALE WAS ONE OF MANY STRETCHES
Drug-sniffing dogs had scoured the boat and found not a whiff of cocaine.
Coast Guard helicopters, airplanes and balloons had tracked the 37-foot
"Nevada" after it left Colombia, but their surveillance tapes turned up no
sighting of drugs, either, nor was there evidence any had been thrown
overboard.
In court, Orlando Perez explained why. Dolphins got it, he said.
Dolphins?
"After the cocaine was thrown overboard into the water, dolphins showed up
and they started playing with it, and they would sink it," Perez said.
"Dolphins like Flipper?" asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Pearson.
"Yes, just like Flipper. . . . Then there was a larger package or bag with
several packages of cocaine inside. It was wrapped in a blanket, and,
incredibly, a much larger dolphin came out, and it flipped and fell on top
of that bag, and he also sank it in such a way that when the Navy
helicopter began hovering around, they couldn't find the cocaine," Perez said.
Everyone in the Miami courtroom erupted in laughter, except for Ramon Roque
Osorio, who was on trial for smuggling the cocaine.
Osorio had told federal agents that he'd signed on as a seaman and mechanic
with Perez in August 1990 to help deliver the 37-foot vessel from Miami to
its new owner in Puerto Rico.
Mechanical problems forced it off course several times. It was finally
towed to a Colombian port after drifting without power for eight days in
the Caribbean, Osorio said. That's when the Coast Guard started watching it.
Osorio had invoices and receipts to confirm the mechanical problems and the
repairs, and when the Coast Guard first questioned Perez on Jan. 11, 1990,
he confirmed everything that Osorio had said. He insisted no drugs had been
on board and no drugs had been thrown overboard.
When he changed his story, he first said there were 500 kilograms of
cocaine on board, then 300, finally 94.
There was one very good reason why Perez changed his story and lied.
Federal agents had implicated him in another cocaine trafficking case with
a man named Julio Nunez, who had become a government witness. Agents told
Perez he could earn a lenient sentence if he would finger other drug dealers.
Offering up Osorio reduced his sentence to six months. Nunez, who'd also
been implicated in two murders, got the same.
Osorio's attorneys didn't learn of the deal until after Osorio was
convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison.
Perez was the only witness to implicate Osorio.
This is a clear case of the government fabricating testimony, coercing
witnesses to cooperate against an innocent man and using confidential
informants to set up a drug conspiracy, Osorio said.
"I don't mind doing time if I did something, but you're letting major drug
dealers, people who have committed murders, go in exchange for me," he said.
"What kind of baloney is that?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thwarting Attempts To Check On Witness - Win At All Costs series
(Part of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's 10-part series about the newspaper's
two-year investigation that found federal agents and prosecutors
have pursued justice by breaking the law routinely.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:40:20 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Thwarting Attempts To Check On Witness - Win At All Costs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the fourth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of several stories
(being posted separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade,
Toledo, OH email: letters@theblade.com
Some of our readers may believe that not every article in this series
relates directly to drug policy. Yes, some of the cases, as below, do not.
But it can be argued that the impact of drug policy on our justice system
is pervasive, resulting in a deterioration of ethics that may not have
happened if the policies had been different. Also, many readers would like
to receive the entire series of articles. - Richard Lake, Sr. Editor
THWARTING ATTEMPTS TO CHECK ON WITNESS
James R. Sterba vehemently denied the charges against him: soliciting a
minor over the Internet for an unlawful sexual encounter.
He admitted exchanging messages with a woman in an adult Internet chat room
and arranging for a meeting at his motel, but he said he'd never intended
to meet with a minor, and he never did.
The government's key witness at the trial in May 1998 in Tampa said
otherwise. Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Cox for the Middle District of
Florida questioned her:
"Are you Gracie Greggs?"
"Yes," the witness answered.
Greggs then testified that federal agents paid her more than $2,000 to go
into chat rooms, lure unsuspecting individuals who might be willing to meet
with a minor, then set up a hotel meeting where federal agents would swoop
down and make the arrest.
Prosecutors had kept this witness under wraps before the trial, despite
discovery requests by Sterba's lawyer.
As the trial was about to end, U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday asked
Cox again about Greggs and issues related to his charge to the jury. Did
Greggs have "some sort of history in law enforcement?" Cox responded, "Not
that I'm aware of."
Meanwhile, Sterba's defense attorneys were puzzling over the fact they
could find no mention of Greggs in a computer background check.
As the two-day trial was about to close, Sterba's lawyer again asked Cox
about Greggs, and this time Cox told the judge, "Oh, that's not her real
name; that's her confidential informant Customs name."
Sterba's lawyers asked a judge to delay the charging of his jury and soon
learned that "Gracie Greggs" of Tampa was actually Adria Jackson of
Decatur, Ga. Jackson had a long criminal record. In exchange for her
cooperation in the chat room operation, federal agents had dropped an
investigation into her connection with an international pornography ring
involving minors.
She had pleaded guilty to making a false statement and filing false police
reports that led to the arrest of an innocent man, her former boyfriend,
for armed robbery. Jackson also admitted she was on anti-depressants and
had been found in contempt of court in a family court dispute.
Jackson had revealed none of this when defense attorneys asked about her
background.
On Aug. 13, Merryday dismissed the indictment against Sterba and barred the
government from retrying him. "Cox either manufactured or accepted a plan
to employ a fictitious name for Jackson and deploy that name in the service
of the prosecution both before and during trial to further the
prosecutorial goal of a conviction," the judge said. "The expectation was
to proceed with the plan without the knowledge of the defense and without
the knowledge or consent of the court. Cox abrogated to herself the legal
and moral authority to decide what truth became public and, thereby, what
fate awaited Sterba."
The judge referred to a 1978 book titled, "Lying: Moral Choice in Public
and Private Life" by Sissela Bok, who wrote extensively about the dynamics
of personal dishonesty undertaken for the presumed benefit of the public good.
The judge said "the court is entitled to the simple truth on all occasions
. . [and] a duty of truthfulness is owed to the court by all citizens,
especially by its officers."
Cox was removed from the case and the Justice Department's Office of
Professional Responsibility is conducting an inquiry.
Sterba, imprisoned for nine months awaiting trial, finally went free.
During his confinement, he lost his job as a bus driver. He has considered
trying to sue the government for ruining his life but has learned he has
little chance of success.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Voters Speak Out On Medical Marijuana (Syndicated San Jose Mercury News
columnist Joanne Jacobs writes in The York Daily Record, in Pennsylvania,
that politicians are having a hard time getting the message behind November's
election victories for medical marijuana. Our nation's capital is the site of
the most outrageous attempt to keep the people from being heard. If the
District of Columbia votes are recorded, Congress can veto the law. So the
only point of blocking the vote-counting is to make sure the sense of the
people isn't expressed.)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:33:30 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US PA: OPED: Voters Speak Out On Medical Marijuana
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Mike Gogulski (mike-map@cat.net)
Pubdate: 29 Nov. 1998
Source: York Daily Record (PA)
Contact: letters.ydr.com
Website: http://www.ydr.com/
Copyright: {1998} The York Daily Record
Author: Joanne Jacobs, San Jose Mercury News editorial board
VOTERS SPEAK OUT ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA
"Democracy is the re current suspicion that more than half of the
people are right more than half of the time." - E.B. White
This month, voters in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington approved initiatives letting patients use marijuana with a
doctor's recommendation.
In the District of Columbia, voters also approved a medicinal
marijuana measure, according to exit polls, but Congress blocked the
ballots from being counted.
No medicinal marijuana initiative failed to win a solid
majority.
The new laws are clearer than California's law, passed in 1996.
Several list illnesses, such as cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, chronic pain,
seizures and muscle spasms, for which doctors may recommend marijuana.
Alaska, Oregon and Nevada will set up registries of patients entitled
to use marijuana; Alaska and Oregon patients will get a
get-out-of-going-to-jail identification card.
It was a vote for "pragmatism and common sense in dealing with drugs,"
said Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith Center, which
supports drug policy reform. "There was one other message to the
politicians: Stop mucking about with the will of the people."
Politicians are having a hard time getting the message.
The Arizona Legislature put a measure on the ballot to nullify a 1996
initiative authorizing doctors to prescribe marijuana and other
banned drugs. The voters had decided doctors should use their
professional judgment. The legislators added: only if federal
lawmakers and regulators say it's OK.
The legislators' measure explained: "A 'no' vote shall have the effect
of retaining the provisions of state law allowing doctors to prescribe
Schedule I drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and analogs of PCP,
to seriously and terminally ill patients without the authorization
of the Federal Food and Drug Administration or the United States
Congress."
The "no" vote was a resounding 58 percent, reaffirming the 1996
law.
In Colorado, the secretary of state, a conservative Republican,
belatedly disqualified the petition and said the vote doesn't count.
There will be an appeal.
Our nation's capital is the site of the most outrageous attempt to
keep the people from being heard. A right-wing congressman pushed
through an add-on to the District of Columbia's appropriations bill
ordering that not a penny be spent to count the votes on the marijuana
initiative, which already was on the ballot.
Civil liberties groups and the city have filed suit, arguing that
voters have a First Amendment right to be heard.
Counting ballots cast by machine isn't time-consuming or costly, the
city's counsel said last week in a court hearing. A clerk pushes a
button. Estimated cost: $1.64.
In exit polls, nearly 70 percent of D.C. voters said they'd voted
"yes." No doubt donors could come up with $1.64 to find out the
results. But the D.C. government, completely dependent on Congress
for funding, is afraid to push the button.
Before the election, the House of Representatives approved a
resolution "expressing the sense of Congress that marijuana is a
dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized for
medicinal use."
If the D.C. votes are recorded, Congress can veto the law. So the only
point of blocking the vote-counting is to make sure the sense of the
people isn't expressed.
As Californians know, a medicinal marijuana law has little effect as
long as state and federal law enforcement officials make it
impossible for sick people to get marijuana. In the Bay Area, local
authorities have tried to keep cannabis dispensaries open, but
without success. Attorney General Dan Lungren is leaving office, but
even if the state finds higher priorities than busting cannabis
clubs, the feds remain eager to force patients to buy from street
dealers or do without.
The new state laws "in no way alter the status of marijuana under
federal law," Barry McCaffrey's drug policy office announced.
But something else was altered. Two days after the election, the Drug
Enforcement Administration announced it will make it easier for
patients to get Marinol, which contains the primary active ingredient
in marijuana. Marinol will move from Schedule II, which includes
useful medications with a high risk of abuse, such as cocaine, to
Schedule III, which includes drugs with little risk of abuse, such as
codeine with aspirin.
It looks like the grass-roots support for medicinal marijuana is
making the DEA nervous.
But while a synthetic drug based on marijuana is labeled low risk and
effective, marijuana remains on Schedule I as a high-risk drug with no
medical use, regulated more stringently than cocaine.
Joanne Jacobs is a member of the San Jose Mercury News editorial
board. Readers may write to her at: 750 Ridder Park Dr., San Jose,
Calif. 95190, or by e-mail to JJacobs@sjmercury.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crime Drop Mirrors Falling Popularity of Crack Cocaine
(St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Lance Williams theorizes
that what's responsible for the nation's recent drop in juvenile crime
is the decline in the use of crack cocaine. It's not the drug itself
that sparks violence, he suggests, but the frequency of purchases
from an illicit market.)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:28:39 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Crime Drop Mirrors Falling Popularity of Crack Cocaine
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: MMcNamara@bridge.com (McNamara, Mark P.)
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)
Contact: letters@pd.stlnet.com
Website: http://www.stlnet.com/
Copyright: 1998 Post Dispatch
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 98
Author: Lance Williams (lwilliams@postnet.com)
Section: NEWS
CRIME DROP MIRRORS FALLING POPULARITY OF CRACK COCAINE
Use of drug sparked violent turf wars
Ask researchers what's responsible for the nation's recent drop in juvenile
crime, and they'll mention the decline in the use of crack cocaine.
When this potent form of cocaine began hitting city streets on both coasts
in the early 1980s, intense turf wars between rival sellers began erupting
into deadly gunfights that sent the U.S. crime rate among juveniles
soaring.
More than a decade later, research is showing that the demand for the drug
began to subside in coastal cities in the early 1990s and so has the
competition among dealers.
"Crack is going away and probably isn't coming back," said Richard
Rosenfeld, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri at St.
Louis.
In a 1996 study, researchers studied crack use among those recently
arrested in major cities around the country to track the crack epidemic. In
the early 1990s, cities like New York and Los Angeles - which were the
first to witness the growth of the crack cocaine - began to see significant
decrease in drug use among those arrested.
By the mid-'90s, cities in the nation's heartland began to see demand for
the drug decrease as well.
According to a 1997 study on crack abuse in 24 cities, crack abuse in St.
Louis began to drop about 1996. According to the study, 44 percent of
arrested juveniles who were tested for the study had crack cocaine in their
systems in 1989; that dropped to 30 percent by 1996.
Crack helped fuel the increase in violent crime because it was a drug that
created plenty of opportunities for sales. A crack high sometimes lasts
only between eight and 15 minutes, and that meant users have to make
numerous buys from dealers.
The high frequency of drug buys and the intense competition between an
ever-growing number of dealers often ended in violent confrontations,
almost always involving guns.
Researchers give several reasons for the decline in the crack trade.
Many users either died or are now in prison, and that lessened the numbers
of potential buyers.
Also, the dealers who survived the bloody years learned how to avoid the
dangers and built a steady base of regular customers. In addition, many
youngsters began to reject the crack trade after watching older siblings
die or go to prison for their involvement.
Rosenfeld, of UMSL, said it doesn't appear that many drugs gaining in
popularity could spark a similar increase in violent crimes. Marijuana,
heroin and methamphetamine abuse is growing is Missouri and nationally, but
none of those involves the intense sales sparked by crack, he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Black passengers targeted in Pearson searches? (Toronto Star columnist
Royson James says a survey of Air Canada flights from Jamaica to Toronto
reveals that black passengers are far more likely than white travellers
to be searched by Canada Customs - 56 percent compared to 10 percent.
The survey results are expected to be introduced in a Brampton court
Monday by lawyers defending an Ottawa man who was charged with importing
710 grams of marijuana from Jamaica. McLeod says his law firm,
Hinkson & Sachak, will argue that the Charter rights of blacks are being
systematically violated by the practice of "racial profiling" by customs
officials.)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 10:59:35 -0500
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Dave Haans (haans@chass.utoronto.ca)
Subject: TorStar: Black passengers targeted in Pearson searches?
Newshawk: Dave Haans
Source: The Toronto Star (Canada)
Pubdate: Sunday, November 29, 1998
Pages: A1, A9
Website: http://www.thestar.com
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com
Author: Royson James, Toronto Star City Columnist
Black passengers targeted in Pearson searches?
Lawyers plan court fight over `racial profiling' by customs officials at
airport
A survey of Air Canada flights from Jamaica to Toronto reveals that black
passengers are far more likely than white travellers to be searched by
Canada Customs.
More than half - 56 per cent - the blacks on the eight flights surveyed
were searched by customs officials, while only 10 per cent of the whites
were searched. In fact, more than two in three whites were simply waved
through, without even being questioned, the survey found.
``You stand there at the airport and watch it and it's heart-rending,''
said lawyer Donald McLeod, whose firm spearheaded the project that saw 408
passengers interviewed as they emerged from customs.
``It's incredible. We are not in an apartheid state. We are not in a
segregated society. You see this and it's so blatant,'' said McLeod, who
saw passengers fill out questionnaires supplied by the African Canadian
Legal Clinic.
As flights come in from Jamaica, white passengers are the first to clear
customs and within 40 minutes they are usually all gone. But it is often
two hours before the last black passengers are allowed to go through,
``like they are second-class citizens,'' McLeod said.
The survey results are expected to be introduced in a Brampton court
tomorrow Monday by lawyers defending an Ottawa man who was charged with
importing 710 grams of marijuana from Jamaica.
McLeod says his law firm, Hinkson & Sachak, will argue that the Charter
rights of blacks are being systematically violated by the practice of
``racial profiling'' by customs officials.
Michel Cleroux, spokesperson for Canada Customs, categorically denied any
race-based profiling at the airport.
Passengers ``may be referred to more intense examination based on responses
they give to initial questions and intelligence given by other law
enforcement officials.
But they are never subjected to inspection on basis of race, colour, sex or
creed,'' he said.
The findings, which he called ``horrible and odious,'' might have been
based on a statistically invalid survey, he said. He estimated that 2,400
people could have been on the eight flights, if they were full, and the
questionnaires were completed by only 408 passengers.
``Until we know whether or not the survey is valid, we ask that the customs
officers be given the presumption of innocence,'' Cleroux said.
Scott Wortley, a criminologist at the University of Toronto, says the
airport findings reflect what other studies have shown in other areas of
society.
``There's an over-surveillance of the black community,'' said Wortley, who
has analyzed the results of the survey. ``We've found that if you are black
and you do something wrong, you are more likely to get caught than people
in the white community.
``This has a wide impact, especially for discretionary crimes, like drug
use, where police have to go looking for the stuff.''
Some 205 blacks, 189 whites, and seven Asians flying out of Montego Bay and
Kingston, Jamaica, filled out questionnaires during June, October and
November. The eight flights were on Tuesday, Saturday and Sunday. Seven
respondents did not indicate their race.
Assuming the sample was random, there is less than a 5 per cent chance that
the differences observed between the way blacks and white were treated was
due to a sampling error, Wortley said.
Even when the findings are adjusted for age, employment, gender and other
factors such as whether the passenger was a tourist or a Jamaican native,
blacks were still eight times more likely to have their luggage searched,
an analysis of the findings shows.
McLeod said Hinkson & Sachak had the survey done to see if they could prove
what black clients have been telling them for years. He added the firm
plans to take the issue to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to put it on
the national agenda.
``Now we are able to quantify what blacks have been saying for years. . . .
There is some kind of systemic bias here. And if this systemic bias is
being talked about when they are training (immigration) officials in
school, then it's systemic; it comes from the top down.
``The numbers are incredible. This sort of bias, we can't tolerate,''
McLeod said.
Officials at the African Canadian Legal Clinic, who helped plan and conduct
the survey, said the results show that race is the most important factor
determining why a traveller is stopped.
``There is pervasive and prevalent race profiling at the airport,'' said
Margaret Parsons, executive director of the clinic. ``People of African
descent are targeted more closely, they are looked at more closely. The
study shows that race is the one constant, the biggest factor.''
She said if the Brampton case gets appealed to a higher court, the clinic
``may consider intervening'' so it can have standing and present arguments
to the court.
Wortley has been involved in a number of studies measuring how Toronto's
various communities are monitored and policed - the last one as a
researcher for the 1996 Commission on Systemic Racism in Ontario's Criminal
Justice System.
That commission found that although there is no evidence that black people
are more likely to use drugs than others, or that they are over-represented
among those who profit most from drug use, blacks are the most likely to
wind up in jail.
``Intensive policing of low-income areas in which black people live
produces arrests of a large and disproportionate number of black male
street dealers,'' the report said. ``Once the police have done this work,
the practices and decisions of crown prosecutors, justices of the peace and
judges operate as a conveyor belt to prison.''
Of those convicted of similar drug charges, for example, 55 per cent of
blacks and 36 per cent of whites go to jail, the report said.
About 66 per cent of the blacks convicted of drug trafficking were
imprisoned, compared with 36 per cent of whites. Simple possession of drugs
reflected the same statistics: 49 per cent of the black offenders were sent
to prison compared to 18 per cent of white offenders.
If police or custom officials create a profile that black people need to be
watched more closely or searched more often, they'll find what they are
looking for, Wortley said.
For example, if an airplane has an equal number of black and white
passengers and an equal number of blacks and whites carry narcotics in
their luggage, but immigration officials believe it is black passengers who
are carrying drugs, it is blacks who will get searched.
The search will naturally turn up more drugs among blacks than whites. Then
the officials will look at the results and say they are justified in
conducting those selective searches.
``It's the same on the streets where police target a particular
neighbourhood or community,'' Wortley said. ``This kind of cycle has a
profound impact on who's in our jails. If you are black and sell drugs,
your chances of getting caught and being jailed are higher.''
McLeod said such bias becomes a Charter issue, not because some people are
getting away with crimes while others are caught, but because one group is
targeted unjustly.
McLeod said he will argue there is ingrained, long-standing systemic racism
that violates the Charter rights of blacks travelling into Toronto.
The problem is so pervasive that black travellers have come to accept it as
the norm, he said.
``The white travellers who were searched were often angry and irate,''
McLeod said. But most blacks just shrugged. ``We have rights and these
rights don't all of a sudden vanish just the time you say you're a black
person coming in from Montego Bay.''
Officials have a right to search air travellers. They can target a
particular flight, bring in sniffing dogs and search bags on the tarmac,
but they must be fair to everybody, he said.
Immigration officials must have a ``reasonable suspicion'' to suppose a
person is carrying drugs. But the airport survey raises an important
question concerning black passengers from Jamaica: ``Is it a reasonable
suspicion or is a racial suspicion?''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dutch town goes to pot for festival - Marijuana lovers converge yearly
(An Associated Press article in The Houston Chronicle previews
the 11th annual Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam sponsored by High Times
magazine, and follows a group of aficionados who travel to the Cannabis
Castle in Oosterhout, Holland, a museum, restaurant and nursery where
the Sensei Seed Company hybridizes the world's most prized varieties
of marijuana.)
From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 11:00:23 -0600 (CST)
Subject: ART: Dutch town goes to pot for festival
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
11-29-98
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com
viewpoints@chron.com
Dutch town goes to pot for festival
Marijuana lovers converge yearly
By KATHRYN MASTERSON
Associated Press
OOSTERHOUT, Netherlands -- Welcome to the "Cannabis Castle" -- a museum
where visitors can take photos and touch any of the 2,000 marijuana
plants exhibited.
And smoking, at least of a certain substance, is most definitely
allowed.
"It's like walking into a wonderland," said Patty Collins, wearing a
shirt that read, "Stoner Chicks Rule." She marveled last week at the
size of one variety of cannabis that was growing toward a ceiling of
ultraviolet lights on an estate in central Holland.
Collins, who owns a pipe store in Portland, Ore., was in the Netherlands
for the 11th annual Cannabis Cup, the weeklong potfest that draws
several thousand people -- mostly Americans -- to the drug-tolerant
nation every year. The so-called harvest festival is sponsored by the
American magazine High Times.
Participants in the Cannabis Cup pay $200 for the right to judge the
best cannabis of the year. The winner is crowned on Friday from among
the "coffee shops" of Amsterdam, where hashish and marijuana can be
purchased in small amounts.
Though technically illegal in the Netherlands, those soft drugs are
decriminalized and Dutch authorities don't prosecute people who sell or
use small amounts.
An added attraction to this year's festivities was Tuesday's bus tour to
the Cannabis Castle. A marijuana user's mecca, the castle -- owned by
the Sensi Seed Co. -- produces potent strains of marijuana with names
such as "Northern Lights" and "Skunk."
Actually a stately 18th-century home, the castle is tucked in peaceful
countryside, 40 miles from the bustle of the capital, Amsterdam.
Catacombs beneath the house protect the "mother plants," which generate
the castle's crop. Some of the original plants are more than 20 years
old.
"Amazing," gushed Doug Biggs, an American who traveled from Indiana to
smoke the drug he says eases his frequent migraine headaches.
Don Wirtshafter, an attorney from Athens, Ohio, was less impressed by
the castle's treasures. "I made pot my issue," he says of his 25-year
legal career. "Everyone's so impressed -- I see this all the time in my
travels."
Still, he enjoyed the castle's gourmet lunch buffet of tangerines,
smoked salmon sandwiches, Belgian chocolates, and, of course, marijuana.
And what would a castle be without its king? A man dressed as the "king
of cannabis" in a red robe and makeshift crown of marijuana stalks
offered visitors snippets from branches of the castle's newest
offerings.
Most lit up their sweet-smelling samples after the communal grace.
Linda Dronkers, co-owner of the castle and seed company with her husband
and son, gave tours of her family home as part of the event.
The castle's decor illustrates her affection for the plant. Cushions on
wicker chairs are stenciled with the five-fingered marijuana leaf and
prints on the wall show artists' renderings of joint smoking.
"It's the most beautiful plant in the world," Dronkers said, setting
down a fresh-baked plate of hemp cookies.
"It's very spiritual," she added. "You have to give yourself completely
to the plant."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden Increasingly Alone In The Fight Against Drugs (Svenska Dagbladet,
in Sweden, suggests Sweden's promotion of its rabidly harsh drug policies
is "tempering" an EU commission currently attempting to formulate
a less punitive European Community drug policy.)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:01:09 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Sweden: Sweden Increasingly Alone In The Fight Against Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Mike Gray http://www.drugcrazy.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
Source: Svenska Dagbladet (Sweden)
Contact: brevred@svd.se
Website: http://www.svd.se/svd/ettan/dagens/index.html
Copyright: 1998 SvD
SWEDEN INCREASINGLY ALONE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST DRUGS
The increasingly solitary Swedish resistance is tempering the EU's
liberalization moves to some degree. But several of the EU countries are
now on a path to decrease or modify punishments for illegal drugs.
As recently as this spring the Attorney General of Belgium ordered police
and prosecutors to cease prosecutions of cannabis use, posession or
cultivation. The idea is that the lawenforcement resources instead shall be
used to prosecute traffic in "heavy narcotics". At this moment, authorities
in Liege - the third largest city in Belgium - are debating a plan to
legally prescribe established heroin to users.
Great Britain has since several years a similar program in place in the
city of Liverpool. Since last year a very public campaign to legalize
haschish and marijuana has been mounted in that country. The newspaper
"INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY" has received numeous signatures on its petitions,
many from celebrities, as well as two prizes for "public courage" for
efforts here.
The Blair Government appears to have taken little notice of this campaign
with one notable exception: Dr. Geoffrey Guy has received official permit
to cultivate cannabis for medical research.
In the past six months several reports about the beneficial use of
marijuana and cannabis in the treatment of various medical conditions have
been published in Great Britain. Dr. Guy's research will further
investigate US reports on the use of cannabis to ease the spasms of MS and
epileptic patients. The Scientific Committee of the House of Lords
recommends now that marijuana and cannabis be legalized for medical use.
In France a celebrity campaign launched this spring is working to legalize
"soft drugs". Among the signatories to a campaign called: "I have also
smoked haschish" is, among others, Doninique Voynet, Minister of the
Environment. The campaign has has several mass meetings in French cities.
This June, a scientific study, ordered by the French Govenment, said that
hashish is the least damaging of the commonly used drugs and mush less so
than for example alcohol. The report was authored by the French State
Institute INSERM.
However, as of now the French Govenment shows no signs of relenting and
when recently one of the leaders of the campaign sent marijuana cigarettes
to members of the Parlament he was heavily fined.
The European debate of possible roads to attacks on the problem of
narcotics is primarily played out in the EU Parlament. There is a clearly
defined front between on one side the Swedish parlamentarians of all
political color and, on the other side, the mostly leftist "narco-liberals."
This debate is terribly important, says Charlotte Cededschiold, even though
EU cannot decide on national narcotic policies. The parlamentary group
headed by Ms. Cederschiold is unifying the entire conservative side against
any liberalization. Ms Cederschiold says that: "If we permit a picture of
public support for a liberalization to emerge this will become a reality by
default."
The Swedish resistance, she says, it highly important since a EU commission
is now attempting to formulate a new drug policy. The basis for this policy
and debate contains written conclusions with which the Swedish group
strongly disagreed . It said, in part, that: "... legal prohibition... is
not satifying nor in the least adequate."
"The Swedish EU Parlamentarian group, in spite of being small, has made a
difference in the discussions since it presents a well formulated and
homogenous front" says Arthur Gould, a british researcher, who has studied
the Swedish narcotic policies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crime Is Key as Swiss Vote on Legalizing Hard Drugs (The New York Times
previews today's "Droleg" referendum in Switzerland.)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 07:32:24 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Switzerland: NYT: DROLEG: Crime Is Key as Swiss Vote on
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: ttrippet@sorosny.org http://www.lindesmith.org
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Copyright: 1998 The New York Times Company
Author: Elizabeth Olson
Note: As we post this NYT article, the vote is close to final, with only
about 1/4th of the voters voting yes. Results are being updated at:
http://195.186.2.234/sda/upload/votations_index.html
CRIME IS KEY AS SWISS VOTE ON LEGALIZING HARD DRUGS
GENEVA -- The Swiss are voting Sunday on whether to legalize everything
from marijuana to heroin and cocaine, a measure that -- if passed -- would
give Switzerland the most sweeping decriminalization of drug use,
possession and production in Europe.
Government officials are warning that a yes vote could turn this tranquil
Alpine nation into a "paradise for the Mafia," and a magnet for "drug
tourists," attracted by readily available hard and soft drugs.
Proponents of the drug legalization initiative, led by a group of
Socialists and medical doctors, argue that it could break up Switzerland's
flourishing black market in drugs and save the country hundreds of millions
of dollars in law enforcement.
They propose to give every Swiss resident over 18 an electronic credit card
to withdraw a specified amount of drugs. The dosage would be set in
consultation with a doctor or other medical professional, but no
psychological or medical treatment would be mandated. Only those younger
than 18 would be required to see a drug counselor before receiving an
access card.
The card, explained a Zurich physician, David Winizki, an originator of the
concept, "would be like making a withdrawal from a bank cash terminal."
"The dose would be programmed in," he continued. "The consumer would run
the card with its magnetic strip through the machine and the drug store
would supply, for example, a gram of heroin for 12 Swiss francs." A gram of
heroin or cocaine now costs about $36 on the street and 12 Swiss francs
equals about $8.70.
Under the plan, a user could withdraw drugs daily, or up to one week's
supply, for an amount lower than current street rates. Winizki, who lives
near the area of Zurich once known as "Needle Park" for its gathering of
heroin addicts, said he began working on the idea in 1992 when he saw
"people dying every day from overdoses and hepatitis and that made me very
angry."
Opinion polls indicate that only about 40 percent of Swiss support the
liberalization idea. That would suggest passage is unlikely. But the drug
issue pervades Switzerland, where federal statistics count between 30,000
and 36,000 narcotics addicts, most of them using heroin.
Estimates indicate that 500,000 Swiss -- of a total population of 7 million
-- routinely use cannabis, and initiative supporters believe that even if
their measure is defeated on Sunday, the widespread debate over it will
clear the way for legalization of cannabis.
A leading Swiss magazine, L'Illustre, found in a recent poll that even
among those polled who oppose Sunday's legalization initiative, 40 percent
would back the legal sale of cannabis for people over 18, and 51 percent
its sale for medical purposes.
Unlike other European countries that tolerate cannabis consumption,
Switzerland pursues and punishes it. Last year, four out of five arrests
were for marijuana and hashish use. Penalties range from one day to three
months in jail for second-time users, and up to three years for heavy
users, according to federal police.
Government officials say they fear that drug liberalization will eviscerate
their efforts to address Switzerland's serious drug problem. Figures from
the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon
suggest that drug use in Switzerland is among the highest in Europe,
eclipsed only by Italy, Spain and tiny Luxembourg in drug use per 1,000
adults.
Switzerland's drug problems were exposed when authorities experimented with
open access to drugs in Zurich beginning in 1989. When drug dealing and
violence escalated, Swiss officials abandoned the free needles and syringes
and began an experimental program to dispense heroin to a controlled group
of hard-core addicts. This controversial effort survived a ballot challenge
last year, when an unexpectedly high 71 percent endorsed it.
Federal officials say they fear, though, that legalization will make it
harder to curb hard drug use.
"Switzerland would become a paradise for the Mafia," said Thomas Zeltner,
who heads the federal health department.
The country would end up isolated from international crime-fighting
efforts, and money laundering would increase, said Valentin Roschacher, the
federal anti-drug chief. "You can't fight organized crime without
partners," he said in a telephone interview from the capital, Bern.
Zeltner noted that the number of new drug users was down, treatment was up
and overdose deaths, addict-related crime and new HIV cases also had
decreased markedly, and urged voters not to jeopardize such gains. The poll
by L'Illustre suggested support for Sunday's measure rested largely on the
belief that it would curb crime.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss Reject Proposal To Legalize Drugs (The CNN version)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 05:05:30 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Switzerland: CNN: (Quick Poll) Swiss Reject Proposal To
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: DrugSense
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
Source: CNN
Copyright: 1998 Cable News Network, Inc.
Website: http://www.cnn.com/
Note: There is a quick poll which may still be counting for those who may
wish to vote at the above website. As we post this the DROLEG is loosing in
the CNN quick poll, too.
SWISS REJECT PROPOSAL TO LEGALIZE DRUGS
ZURICH, Switzerland (CNN) -- Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a sweeping
proposal to legalize narcotics, including everything from marijuana to
heroin.
Backers of the controversial proposal said it would eliminate the drug
mafia, while critics declared it would isolate Switzerland as a drug haven.
The bold initiative fell short when it failed to carry a majority of Swiss
states, the Swiss SDA news agency reported.
An exit poll by Swiss state broadcaster DRS found voters were against the
ambitious plan by 3-1.
The plan would have made Switzerland the only country where anyone age 18
or older could buy narcotics of their choice, including heroin, from
state-run outlets or pharmacies after consultation with a physician.
The proposal had been widely expected to fail, as do most policy ideas put
up by citizens for a national referendum under the Swiss system of direct
democracy.
Judge: Current Law 'Counterproductive'
But supporters hoped that a sizable minority in favor of the plan could
push Swiss legislators to further relax a drug policy that is already among
the most liberal in Europe.
They say drug prohibition has failed to stop the supply, instead creating a
black market with no health standards and high prices that force addicts
into stealing or prostitution to buy drugs.
Launched by a committee of drug experts, doctors and lawyers, the
referendum proposal was backed by leftist politicians and youth chapters of
conservative parties in the Swiss government center-right coalition.
"Based on my long-suffering experience as a judge, I must acknowledge that
the treatment of narcotics delinquency by the criminal justice system has
obviously been a gigantic and very expensive waste of effort," Peter
Albrecht, a Basle judge and professor, wrote in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung.
"The existing law is really counterproductive because it hinders the
protection of public health and creates an enormous amount of procurement
crime (for buying drugs)," he said.
Critics of the initiative said Switzerland is already doing well with its
policy of providing heroin for severe addicts and expanding addiction
treatment programs.
Critics Feared Becoming Drug Hub
"Switzerland would become a storage and transit country for drug dealers,"
Valentin Roschacher, chief investigator at the Federal Office of Police
Affairs, said last week.
"The backers of this initiative say let's liberalize drug consumption, then
the drug mafia will disappear as there would be no more market," said Jean
Ziegler, a member of the Swiss Parliament. "Secondly, they say that it will
be easier to control the quality of heroin and cocaine. I think these are
illusions."
Initial results from another referendum on Sunday's ballot showed voters
seemed set to approve spending nearly $22 billion to build a network of
tunnels through the Alps.
The project, to be completed over 20 years, would ease rail traffic and
help clinch passage of bilateral economic accords with the European Union.
to the 1998 Daily News index for Nov. 26-Dec. 2