Law and Disorder August 12, 2019

Trump in the White House: Tragedy and Farce

The great issues of our times are the return of fascism to the United States and Europe, climate change, and the stagnation of the world capitalist economy. These great issues are pressing and interconnected.

We used to think that the experience of World War II guaranteed that no politician would ever advocate the ideas of fascism.

But the election of Donald Trump a year ago has caused a serious reconsideration of fascism and it’s relationship to capitalism and to democracy.

The neoliberals paved the way for Trump. Now he and the forces aligned with him have put our democratic institutions under attack in order to protect the rule of the wealthy. The attacks include the right to vote, labor unions, public education, an independent news media, independent public universities, the privatization of much of traditional governmental functions and making it almost impossible to launch a new political party.

The election of Trump is a political development that for concrete sociological reasons allows us to see it for what it is, as a type of neo-fascism. Only by identifying the phenomena correctly can we effectively fight it.

Jack London wrote a century ago in his famous book The Iron Heel that “There is a shadow of something colossal and menacing that even now is beginning to fall across the land. Call it the shadow of an oligarchy, if you will; it is the nearest I dare approximate it. What is nature may be I refuse to imagine. But what I want to say was this: You are in a perilous position.”

Guest – John Bellamy Foster is editor of Monthly Review and professor of sociology at the University of Oregon. He has written widely on political economy and has established a reputation as a major environmental sociologist. He is the author of Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature (2000), The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences (with Fred Magdoff, 2009), The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth (with Brett Clark and Richard York, 2010), and The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism: An Elaboration of Marxian Political Economy (New Edition, 2014), among many others.

—-

 

Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America

The spectacle of President Donald Trump and the palace intrigue in the White House has served daily to distract people from the political strategy and accomplishments of the radical right, which is taking over the Republican Party.

Over time, the GOP has been transformed into operation conducting a concerted effort to curb democratic rule in favor of capitalist interests in every branch of government, whatever the consequences. It is marching ever closer to the ultimate goal of reshaping the Constitution to protect monied interests. This gradual take over of a major political party happened steadily, over several decades, and often in plain sight.

Duke University Professor Nancy MacLean exposes the architecture of this change and it’s ultimate aim. She has written that “both my research and my observations as a citizen lead me to believe American democracy is in peril”.

Guest – Professor Nancy MacLean, whose new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, has been described by Publishers Weekly as “a thoroughly researched and gripping narrative… [and] a feat of American intellectual and political history.” Booklist called it “perhaps the best explanation to date of the roots of the political divide that threatens to irrevocably alter American government.” The author of four other books, including Freedom is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Workplace (2006) called by the Chicago Tribune “contemporary history at its best,” and Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan,named a New York Times “noteworthy” book of 1994, MacLean is the William H. Chafe Professor of History and Public Policy.

————————-

————————-

Law and Disorder August 5, 2019

 

The Silk Road and Ross Ulbricht

It’s been four years since a jury found that then 29-year-old Ross Ulbricht guilty on charges related to operating a Dark Website called the Silk Road that sold, among other things, illicit drugs.

The case was a high profile one, and Rosshad come to be known by some as the face of the Dark Web. He was convicted on seven charges—including a “kingpin” charge—and now-retired Judge Katherine Forrest imposed two life sentences and 40 years… Ross is a young, non-violent, first-time offender serving two life sentences, plus forty years, without parole. He was not convicted of selling drugs or illegal items himself, but rather of creating an e-commerce website that others chose to use for that purpose. No victim was named at trial, and prosecutors had not even sought such a long sentence.

Corruption, abuse, evidence tampering and multiple violations of Ross’s rights cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of Ross’s conviction and sentence within the legal community and with the public.

In a 2016 appeal, defense attorneys outlined a litany of improprieties and abuses in the investigation and trial. Perhaps most serious was that the court precluded information about two corrupt federal agents investigating Silk Road who are now both serving prison sentences for corruption. Last year the Supreme Court denied to consider the case.

Guest – Ross’s mother, Lyn Ulbricht joins us to talk about a petition for clemency to President Donald Trump. Free Ross Ulbricht.

—-

 

Attorney Client Privilege

What is the attorney-client privilege? And to whom does it apply? Generally speaking, the privilege is owned by the client and unless the client waived her rights her lawyer is barred not only from revealing any information about the client but even revealing who the client is.

An exception in the case of the FBI raid and Donald Trumps attorneys Office, Home, and hotel room was made on the grounds that there is a fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Defenders of the attorney-client privilege, even if it has to do with protecting Donald Trump, have argued that it is illegal and unprincipled for the Justice Department to get a search warrant from a federal magistrate and violate the principle.

Guest – Minneapolis Attorney Carla Kjellberg, has worked with victims of child sexual assault who have sued priests, litigated sensitive family law matters, and worked with unions and political activists.

——————————–

——————————–

Law and Disorder July 1, 2019

Lawyers You’ll Like: Attorney Nancy Hollander

Occasionally Law And Disorder has featured interviews with significant attorneys. We call this segment of the show Lawyers You’ll Like. One such attorney is today’s guest, Nancy Hollander. She has been practicing criminal defense lawyer in Albuquerque, New Mexico and has been a partner since 1980 in the law firm of Freedman, Boyd, Hollander, Goldman, Urias, and Ward.

Nancy Hollander‘s practice has largely been devoted to representing individuals and organizations accused of crimes, including those involving national security issues.

She was one of the attorneys in the landmark Holy Land Five case. She won whistle blower Chelsea Manning’s release in 2017 when President Obama commuted her sentence from 35 years to seven years. Although not currently representing Manning she has met with her recently. Manning has been jailed for two months for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury in Virginia which is investigating Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Manning released the famous Iraqi war log video showing American war crimes in Iraq to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. He is in prison in London awaiting extradition and trial in Virginia where he faces 175 years in prison if convicted of Espionage Act violations. She represented Mohamedou Ould Slahi, whose release she obtained after he served 15 years in Guantanamo without ever being charged.

Write to Chelsea Manning:

Chelsea Manning – AO181426

William D. Truesdale Adult Detention Center

2001 Mill Road

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

 

Guest – Attorney Nancy Hollander has been a member of the firm Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan, P.A. since 1980 and a partner since 1983. Her practice is largely devoted to criminal cases, including those involving national security issues. She has also been counsel in numerous civil cases, forfeitures and administrative hearings, and has argued and won a case involving religious freedom in the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Hollander also served as a consultant to the defense in a high profile terrorism case in Ireland, has assisted counsel in other international cases and represents two prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Nancy is co-author of WestGroup’s Everytrial Criminal Defense Resource Book, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 15th Edition, and Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, 14th Edition. She has appeared on national television programs as PBS Now, Burden of Proof, the Today Show, Oprah Winfrey, CourtTV, and the MacNeill/Lehrer News Hour.

—-

Supreme Court: Cable Companies Can Limit Public Access

Last month United States Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision written by Brett Kavanaugh decided that TV cable companies can, in the words of our guest, losing plaintive DeeDee Halleck, “censor whatever, whoever, and whenever they want.”

Cable companies like Manhattan Neighborhood Network can now limit public access that carry TV shows to be available in hundreds of cities and towns.

The Supreme Court held that Manhattan Neighborhood Network is not subject to First Amendment constraints, that the free-speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private abridgment of speech and that MNN is a private company.

Judges Cavanagh, Robert, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch is found against the free-speech argument of Halleck and her co-plaintiff Jesus Melendez. Judge Sotomayor wrote the dissent which was joined in on by Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan.

Guest – Deedee Halleck one of the plaintiffs in this case and  among the top media activists. She’s co-founder of Paper Tiger Television and also the Deep Dish Satellite Network, the first grass roots community television network. She is Professor Emerita in the Department of Communication at the University of California at San Diego.

—————————–

—————————–

Law and Disorder June 3, 2019

Updates:

  • Two MOVE9 Members Released From Prison
  • Julian Assange Update
  • Never Get Rid Of Newspapers…The Headlines Alone Make Them Worth Keeping

Suicide Increase In The United States

Suicide ranks among the top ten leading causes of death in the United States. As rates have generally fallen in other developed nations, the number of suicides per 100,000 rose over 30 percent between 1999 and 2015.

Those in midlife had the largest uptick in suicide. Researchers find that two social factors have contributed to this trend: the weakening of the social safety net and increasing income inequality.

One study of suicide in the U.S. found that the rising rates were closely linked with reductions in social welfare spending between 1960 and 1995. Such expenditures include Medicaid, a medical assistance program for low income persons; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children; the Supplemental Security Income program for the blind, disabled and elderly; children’s services including adoption, foster care and day care; shelters; and funding of public hospitals for medical assistance other than Medicaid.

While their suicide rates are on the decline, three European nations still have rates higher than the U.S. They are Belgium, Finland and France.

Guest – Stephen Platt, Emeritus Professor of Health Policy Research at the University of Edinburgh, UK. His research focuses on the social, epidemiological and cultural aspects of suicide, self-harm and mental health. He is an adviser on suicide prevention research and policy to NHS Health Scotland and the Scottish Government, the Irish National Office for Suicide Prevention and Samaritans.

——————–

——————–

Law and Disorder May 20, 2019

Venezuelan Embassy Protected Against Staged Attacks In DC

Democracy and the rule of law are being rapidly unraveled in our country by President Trump, his advisers, especially convicted war criminal Elliot Abrams, who was put in charge of policy in Venezuela, and John Bolton, who said that if the top 10 floors of United Nations building were lopped off it wouldn’t make any difference, and with the support of the rightist insurgent Republican Party.

The latest example is the American government’s failed attempt military coup in Venezuela and its support of the ongoing attack on the Venezuelan embassy here in Washington DC.

On April 30th, the United States tried and failed to overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan president Nikolai Maduro. They fail to supplant him with Juan Guaidó, the self-proclaimed a president who’s only real power is outside of Venezuela and comes mostly from the Trump administration.

Back home in Washington DC right wing counterrevolutionaries in support of Juan Guaidó have so far failed in their attempt to take over the Venezuelan embassy. Under centuries of international law the embassy is considered the property of Venezuela itself.

Last week the Washington DC utility company, undoubtedly at the request of the US government, turned off the building’s water electricity supply. Washington DC police and the Secret Service are preventing people from bringing food and water into the embassy. A number of American citizens, acting in support of democracy in Venezuela, entered the building to protect it against an invasion by coup supporters. They are also demonstrating outside of the building. The embassy protectors are being represented by attorney Mara VerhaydenHilliard of the Washington DC Partnership For Civil Justice.

Popular Resistance, Answer Coalition, Code Pink

Guest – Attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard has in the past successfully sued both the Washington DC police department and the New York City Police Department for their abuse demonstrators. She is co-chair of the Guild’s National Mass Defense Committee. co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund in Washington, DC, she secured $13.7 million for about 700 of the 2000 IMF/World Bank protesters in Becker, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., while also winning pledges from the District to improve police training about First Amendment issues. She won $8.25 million for approximately 400 class members in Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al. (alleging false arrest at the 2002 IMF/World Bank protests). She served as lead counsel in Mills, et al v. District of Columbia (obtaining a ruling that D.C.’s seizure and interrogation police checkpoint program was unconstitutional); in Bolger, et al. v. District of Columbia.

—-

Lawyers For The Left: In The Courts, In the Streets And On The Air

Lawyers For The Left: In The Courts, In the Streets And On The Air is the title of the just published book by our own Michael Steven Smith. It profiles the some of the nation’s most effective agents of social change. Michael discusses how he came to write this book and previews several of the lawyers profiled therein.

As Chris Hedges quotes “The lawyers in this book valiantly fought the erosion of justice and assault on the court system.”

Portside Review by Bill Ayers:

Now open Michael Steven Smith’s smart and compelling Lawyers for the Left, and you’ll find yourself plunged into the contradictions and swirling through the vortex where that question—what is the law?—is on everyone’s mind all the time. It takes on a unique urgency and a fresh vitality as its debated case by case and issue by issue by these committed advocates battling against a system they see as deeply and unfairly stacked against their clients—Black freedom fighters, Puerto Rican independistas, Indigenous and immigrant rights activists, women warriors, anti-war militants, water defenders, dissidents and radicals. None of the lawyers you’ll meet here holds fast to the traditional view that the law is simply a civilized mechanism for resolving disputes in an intelligent and reasoned way. They agree, rather, that any honest analysis of the law begins elsewhere, noting that in all times and in all places, the law is constructed in the service of whatever social/economic system created it. In other words, the law is a mechanism of control that works to protect and perpetuate existing social relations.

——————-

——————-

Law and Disorder May 13, 2019

Fidelity and Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution 

The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in the world. Interpreters of the Constitution are faced with the challenge of how, over time, to read a document that’s not only old but also inflexible.

In his new book Fidelity & Constraint, by Oxford University Press, Lawrence Lessig, one of the nation’s leading legal minds, explains that a fundamental approaches to interpreting the constitution is a process he calls translation. In fact, some of the most significant shifts in constitutional doctrine are products of the evolution of the translation process over time. In each new era, judges understand their translations as instances of “interpretive fidelity,” framed within each new temporal context.

Throughout American history, there has been a second fidelity in addition to interpretive fidelity: what Lessig calls “fidelity to role.”

In each of the cycles of translation the role of the judge — the ultimate translator – has also evolved. Old ways of interpreting the text now become illegitimate because they don’t match up with the judge’s perceived role.

When that conflict occurs, the practice of judges within our tradition has been to follow the guidance of a fidelity to role. Ultimately, Lessig not only shows us how important the concept of translation is to constitutional interpretation, but also exposes the institutional limits on this practice.

The first work of both constitutional and foundational theory by one of America’s leading legal minds, Fidelity & Constraint maps strategies that both help judges understand the fundamental conflict at the heart of interpretation whenever it arises and work around the limits it inevitably creates.

Guest – Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, Lessig was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school’s Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Lessig serves on the Board of the AXA Research Fund, and on the advisory boards of Creative Commons and the Sunlight Foundation.

—-

Free Range Kids

You may have heard about the shaming of parents who let their son or daughter walk to school by themselves, or ride public transportation alone. They’re often ridiculed on social media and cast as neglectful. But in some instances, the consequences have gone beyond public shaming.

In 2015 parents in Silver Spring, Maryland made national headlines they were investigated for child neglect for letting their children, ages 6 and 10, walk home from a park by themselves.

In another case Lenore Skenazy, a former New York Daily News columnist was called America’s worst mom after writing a column in 2008 about why she let her 9-year-old son ride the subway by himself.

Last year, Utah passed a law making it not a crime for parents to let their children play in a park without supervision or walk home alone from school. This is hopeful news for our guest Lenore Skenazy who has been advocating for so-called free range parenting laws for many years.

Under the law, neglect does not include allowing a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities such as going to and from school by walking, running or bicycling, going to nearby stores or recreational facilities and playing outside.

A recent U.S. Census showed that 7 million of the nation’s 38 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are left home alone on a regular basis, while the average time spent alone is six hours per week. Only a few states legislate an age under which kids may not be home alone.

Guest – Lenore Skenazy – New York City columnist-turned-reality TV show host got that title after letting her 9-year-old son take the subway, alone. In response to the enormous media blowback, she founded the book and blog, “Free-Range Kids,” which launched the anti-helicopter parenting movement. She has lectured internationally, including talks at Microsoft Headquarters and the Sydney Opera House, and has written for everyone from The Wall Street Journal to Mad Magazine. Yep. The Mad Magazine. And she’s a graduate of Yale.

———————

———————