HERE IN BALTIMORE AND IN MARYLAND, THEY LIKE NEW YORK STYLE POLICING.....WE HAVE ENOUGH BRUTALITY BUT THE BANKERS IN NEW YORK LOVE IT!  THEY ARE DETERMINED TO INTIMIDATE EVERYONE INTO SUBMISSION!

The NYPD may enforce the law, but they're also a law unto themselves
  guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 6 June 2012 16.01 EDT

News that an officer karate chopped a supreme court judge is in the headlines, but what about the other countless incidents?

New York police patrol Wall Street. What has your experience been with the NYPD? Photograph: Henny Ray Abrams/Reuters When a New York police officer karate chopped Thomas Raffaele in the throat as the 69-year-old watched the arrest of a man in Queens, he probably did not think too much about it.

Certainly his fellow officers did not seem bothered. As revealed in the New York Times, Raffaele immediately sought to complain about being randomly assaulted by a man sworn to protect citizens, not abuse them. But the sergeant at the scene basically ignored him and Rafaelle went to hospital to check out his injuries.

Unfortunately for the New York police department, Raffaele was not your average bystander. He is a judge on the New York state supreme court. Not surprisingly, the NYPD is now taking the assault on him a bit more seriously and has begun an internal investigation.

But, really, if Rafaelle was not a judge would we have ever heard about this? How many other cases of flagrant disregard by the police for the laws they are supposed to uphold go unreported because their victims don't happen to sit on the state's highest court?

I have even had my own experiences. One afternoon several years ago, walking home from work through Chelsea, I heard a voice call out. I looked around to see two officers running towards me, hands hovering over their gun holsters in a way familiar from Hollywood films but much less so from real life. I was hustled over to a wall while they consulted over the radios. It quickly emerged someone wearing a grey shirt had been spotted shoplifting in the area.

I explained – perhaps a little sulkily (my mistake, I admit it) – that I was a British journalist not prone to theft and, much more importantly, was not actually wearing a grey shirt. They let me go. I gave them a dirty look as I walked away (again, my mistake, but dirty looks are not yet illegal). The two men chased after me, stood me against a wall and screamed abuse for several minutes. It ended with one yelling: "Why don't you fuck off back to your own country?"

It was, in the end, a trivial incident. But it revealed a telling attitude that seems to keep emerging at the NYPD: they may uphold the law, but they are also a law unto themselves. I saw it again while covering an Occupy march last year near the South Street Seaport. I watched as a muscular, bald-headed man yelled abuse at the marchers. That was fine. It's called his democratic right to disagree.

But he then hurled a glass bottle at them. It missed, but landed just a few feet away from several of them, sending shards of glass everywhere. Two police officers sat in a nearby van and watched the whole episode. They did not move. I went over to them and pointed out that the man who had chucked the bottle was still there. They shrugged. I pointed out that I was a journalist and taking down their badge numbers. They shrugged again. They did not care. But imagine that an Occupy marcher had thrown that bottle. Does anyone think those two officers would not have leapt out of their van, nightsticks at the ready?

The list of disturbing events seems endless.

Just watch NYPD officer Patrick Pogan randomly decide to assault a Critical Mass cyclist.


__________________________________________________
WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THIS TRANSITION IN PRISON RELEASE IN SOME CASES HAS MORE TO DO WITH BUDGETS THAN MORAL COMPASS.......WE MUST WORK TO SEE REFORMS THROUGH!

Solitary confinement on trial: senators hear from experts on prison reform US prison system's reliance on isolating prisoners is an ineffective and costly human-rights violation, panelists say

The Senate hearing comes after prisoners across the country took part in a hunger strike in response to California's extensive use of solitary confinement at facilities like Pelican Bay. Photograph: Rich Pedroncelli/AP The first-ever congressional hearing on the use of solitary confinement in US prisons has begun in Washington.

Members of the Senate judiciary subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights and human rights are hearing testimony from a range of speakers including a former prisoner who spent years locked alone in his cell for a murder he did not commit, a psychology professor who has studied the effects of long-term prison solitude, a senior prison official who has eschewed his support for the tactic, and a former Republican assemblyman who is at the forefront of the conservative movement for prison reform.

The hearing follows a year in which thousands of prisoners across the country took part in coordinated hunger strike in response to California's extensive use of solitary confinement, and it comes less than one month after an unprecedented class action lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of holding hundreds of men in solitary for a decade or more at the state's Pelican Bay facility.

Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin, chairman of the committee, issued a statement indicating the hearing will "focus on the human rights, fiscal and public safety consequences of solitary confinement in US prisons, jails and detention centers."

"During the last several decades, the United States has witnessed an explosion in the use of solitary confinement for federal, state and local prisoners and detainees. The hearing will explore the psychological and psychiatric impact on inmates during and after their imprisonment, fiscal savings associated with reduced use of solitary housing units, the human rights issues surrounding the use of isolation, and successful state reforms in this area," the statement said.

Prison reform advocates have welcomed the hearing, with supportive statements issued from a range of legal organizations, community groups and representatives of the faith community.

"It's a tremendously significant development," said David Fahti, director of the American Civil Liberties Union national prison project.

While the hearing will cover the state of solitary confinement in the US and is not examining legislation proposals, Fahti said a number of steps can be taken to address the issue. While an estimated 25,000 prisoners are currently held in solitary confinement in the country and another 80,000 believed to be held in so-called restrictive housing, information on the scope of the punishment remains difficult to obtain.

"We just need greater oversight and reporting requirements about prisons and jails' use of solitary. Right now there are none, and so getting a piece of information as basic as how many prisoners are in solitary on any given day is a very difficult undertaking," Fahti said.

He added, however: "We already know enough to make some very concrete recommendations. First of all, people with mental illness are highly over-represented in solitary confinement." He said an inability to manage the stresses, rules and expectations placed upon mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement often results in their prolonged isolation.

"People with mental illness, if you put them in solitary confinement, most of them will break down quite dramatically," he said. "More than half the jail suicides in this country occur in solitary confinement."

Fahti said there should be a prohibition on placing mentally-ill prisoners in solitary confinement. "Same with children," he added, noting that juveniles who are housed in adult prisons and jails are sensibly separated from the adult population, but as a result are sometimes kept in isolation.

Finally, Fahti added, there need to be "durational limits" on the amount of time prisoners can spend in solitary confinement.

"The US is an outlier, not only in how many people it puts in solitary, but in how long they stay there," he said. The American Bar Association has recommended that prisoners not be held in solitary confinement for more than one year, while the United Nation's expert on torture says isolation that lasts more than 15 days can amount to torture.

With just five percent of the global population and a quarter of the planet's prisoners, Fahti says the United States is without equal in its use of solitary confinement when compared to other democratic nations.

"No other democratic country comes close to the US in its use of solitary confinement, both in terms of the number of people in solitary and the extraordinary lengths of time that many of them stay there," Fahti said.

The witnesses at Tuesday's hearing include Harley Lapin, director of the federal bureau of prisons, representatives from the US justice department, and corrections officials from Maryland and Illinois.

They will be joined by Anthony Graves, who in 1982, along with a man named Robert Carter, was convicted of killing a Texas woman, her daughter and her four grandchildren. Moments before his execution in 2000, Carter admitted Graves was not involved in the crime. Graves was eventually exonerated in 2010 after spending 18 years behind bars, the bulk of that time on death row and in solitary confinement.

University of California psychologist Craig Haney, one of the foremost experts on the impact of solitary confinement on the human brain will also address the committee. While testifying before the California assembly's committee on public safety last year, Haney said that all of the men housed at Pelican Bay – and many more held in similar conditions at other facilities – were routinely treated "worse than prisoners in any civilized nation anywhere else in the world are treated, under conditions that many nations and international human organizations regard as torture."

Haney said the men he interviewed at Pelican Bay "complain of chronic and overwhelming feelings of sadness, hopelessness and depression" adding that they were "paying a terrible price as pawns in this failed experiment".

Mississippi's commissioner of corrections, Christopher B Epps, has also been called to testify. In 2007, Epps was responsible for the state's super-maximum security prison, a facility that was rapidly descending into chaos, where prisoners held alone for 23 hours a day in insect-infested cells – the walls smeared with excrement – listened to mentally ill men scream through the night. Tensions increased, leading to stabbings, murders and suicides.

Rather than crack down, prison officials relaxed the harsh conditions, allowing the men recreation, privileges and human contact. The number of prisoners held in isolation fell dramatically. Since that time Mississippi has become symbol of potential in solitary confinement reform. The perceived success in the state prompted Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Ohio and Washington state to begin the process of reducing the number of inmates held in long-term isolation. Epps, who once believed in locking men down as tightly as possible, now advocates for more humanitarian alternatives.

Former Republican leader of the California state assembly and current vice-president of Prison Fellowship, Pat Nolan, another witness in the hearing, has argued for reducing prison spending by cutting the "astronomical growth" in the prison population, which is expanding 13 times faster than the general population and cost taxpayers $68b in 2010.

"Solitary confinement is actually the most expensive form of incarceration, costing up to three times much as general prison population housing. Indeed, Mississippi has reportedly saved $5m by closing its super-max unit, and Colorado will save $4.5m as a result of its pending supermax closure," Nolan wrote in recent letter he co-authored with the reverend Richard Kilmer, executive director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

Alexis Agathocleous, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, one of the organizations involved in filing the class action lawsuit targeting Pelican Bay, supports the witnesses' diverse relationships to the punishment.

"They come from a broad range of perspectives, and I think that what it will serve to illustrate is the range of concerns that the overuse of solitary confinement raises," he said.

"We know that keeping someone in solitary confinement puts them at very serious risk of descending into irreversible mental illness," he said. "That's not tolerable in a society that values the dignity and humanity of all people, no matter whether they are incarcerated or not."



___________________________________________________________
THIS IS MY INITIAL REQUEST OF PUBLIC JUSTICE, A PUBLIC ORGANIZATION SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME PEOPLE.  YOU WANT TO APPROACH THE OVSIGHT EFFORT BY FIRST INFORMALLY LETTING THE ORGANIZATION KNOW OF YOUR INTEREST AND FINDING OUT IF THEY HAVE AN INTERNAL PROCEDURE FOR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS.  IF THEY IGNORE YOU, AS MANY ORGANIZATIONS DO, THEN YOU WILL NEED TO MOVE TO THE MOR OFFICIAL FOI LETTER I SHOW AT THIS SIGHT.  THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO IGNORE YOU AND WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ON INFORMATION THEY PROVIDE.

I am beginning an audit of the MLSC granting system and would like to use Public Justice as a test case.  I would think you would find that good public justice after all.  I am not trying to indicate anyone is dishonest at your organization; simply checking the ckecks and balances.

Below I see the most recent recipient of an award for good service.   I would like to see the documents that your organization maintains on her behalf regarding pro-bono work or other work for which this MLSC would require documents.  Being a public organization there should be an expectation of FOI requests.  Please let me know how to approach this project so as to meet your requirements.

Thank you,

Cindy Walsh
CitizensOversight

 

By statute, the Corporation’s funds must be used by grantees to provide legal assistance to eligible clients in noncriminal proceedings or other matters. The definition of “legal assistance” means the legal representation of eligible clients and includes training, research, coordination with private attorneys and other activities necessary to insure the delivery of quality legal services. Client income eligibility is established as a maximum income of 50% of the median family income for the State of Maryland.

MLSC annually requires programmatic and financial audits of each grantee to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant award. The Corporation also encourages coordination among the grantees and provides technical assistance to promote improvements in legal services delivery.

 ANNUAL IOLTA COMPLIANCE REPORT

MANDATORY INTEREST ON LAWYER TRUST ACCOUNTS PROGRAM (IOLTA)

(Maryland Code, Business Occupations and Professions, Section 10-303).

Annual reporting of IOLTA compliance is required pursuant to MD Rule 16-608. You are required to file this Annual IOLTA Compliance Report with the Maryland Court of Appeals on or before February 15, 2012. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN YOUR DECERTIFICATION TO PRACTICE LAW IN MARYLAND. You may file online or by mail, reporting on the status of your IOLTA account(s) in existence as of the date of your completing this report. Even if you do not have an IOLTA account you must complete and submit this report to be in compliance.

The undersigned attorney hereby declares compliance with the IOLTA Act by checking ONE or MORE of the boxes below as appropriate.

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION

1. I certify that there has been NO CHANGE REGARDING MY IOLTA PRACTICES OR ACCOUNT(S) as reported in my IOLTA Compliance Report filed the prior year.

2. I certify that I have DEPOSITED MY IOLTA ELIGIBLE TRUST FUNDS IN ACCOUNTS PAYING INTEREST to the Maryland Legal Services Corporation (MLSC) Fund as identified below.

3. For Law Firms with "Reporting Attorneys" (check one below): [See reverse side, Instruction #3]

3a. I certify that I maintain and deposit all my IOLTA eligible funds in my LAW FIRM’S IOLTA ACCOUNT(S), which will be submitted under separate cover by the IOLTA Reporting Attorney of law firm identified below.

3b. I certify that I am the IOLTA REPORTING ATTORNEY chosen and authorized by my Firm to file the annual law firm IOLTA Compliance Report and will provide my Firm’s account(s) information as per Instruction #3 on the back of this form.

4. I hereby ELECT A WAIVER OF PARTICIPATION IN THE IOLTA PROGRAM and certify that the average monthly balance(s) of my non-IOLTA trust account(s) is/are $3,500 OR LESS. I further attest that I will notify MLSC when the average monthly balance(s) of said account(s) exceeds $3,500 and at such time convert to an IOLTA account.

5. I certify that I MAINTAIN MY IOLTA ACCOUNT(S) IN A STATE OTHER THAN MARYLAND in which I and/or my law firm practice law, and that I am fully participating in that state’s IOLTA program. I further attest that I will notify MLSC at such time as I establish a trust account containing nominal or short-term client funds that is properly subject to Maryland’s IOLTA law. Name of State: _____________________________________________

6. I certify that I DO NOT HAVE A CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT containing nominal or short-term funds that is subject to the IOLTA requirement because of my professional activities (new admittee, retired, government service, not in private practice of law, in-house corporate counsel, no legal activities in Maryland, other). I further attest that I will notify the Maryland Legal Services Corporation at such time as I establish a trust account containing nominal or short-term client funds that is properly subject to Maryland’s IOLTA statute.





The Benjamin L. Cardin Distinguished Service Award was presented to Debra Gardner, legal director of the Public Justice Center, who has dedicated over 25 years to legal services and has provided leadership in the Right to Counsel/Civil Gideon efforts locally and nationally.



___________________________________________________
Freedom of Information Request:

April, 2012

To:  Office of Attorney General  -  Freedom of Information Act / PA Operations
        200 St. Paul Place
         Baltimore, Maryland 21202

From:  Cindy Walsh
            My Address

RE:  List of Bank of America Fraud Settlement recipients of 'community grants'

In the Winter of 2010 (BoA Settlement AG Execution Copy December 7, 2010), our State Attorney General Gansler entered into an agreement for a settlement of municipal fraud regarding rigged bidding for government contracts.  In the Fall of 2011, it was announced that Attorney General Gansler had agreed to allow the Bank of America to pay this fraud penalty owed to the State of Maryland by way of community grants to non-profits across Maryland. 

I need the document that lists the names and addresses of these non-profits that were chosen to receive these grants as payment of penalties for fraud and the amounts each of these non-profits received.  I have requested this information informally on two occasions but did not receive a response.  I will expect to receive an acknowledgement of receipt of this request detailing how and when the information will be received.

Anticipating a condensed list on a single set of documents, I will pay for the cost of assembly of said documents with the understanding that if this request requires more than a few pages of documents, I will be made aware of total costs before the request is filled.

Thank you for a timely response,

Cindy Walsh
My address and phone number