From: Torres, Azalia
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:35 PM
To: 1199 Members; ALAA MEMBERS
Subject: 9/29-10/2: Israeli Draft Resisters in NYC
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||
September 29, 2009
2009.09.29: 9/29-10/2: Israeli Draft Resisters in NYC
2009.09.29: Today, 5-7:30: Emergency Protest Against Honduras Coup
From: Letwin, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:18 AM
To: 1199 Members; ALAA MEMBERS
Subject: Today, 5-7:30: Emergency Protest Against Honduras Coup
COALITION SUPPORTING THE RESISTANCE AND PEOPLE OF HONDURAS CALL FOR EMERGENCY ACTIONS TO PROTEST THE ATTACKS ON THE BRAZILIAN EMBASSY IN HONDURAS
Candlelight Vigils & Protests to Occur Across the country on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29
NEW YORK ACTION TO BE HELD AT
UNION SQUARE
14TH ST. & BROADWAY, MANHATTAN
5-7:30PM
COALITION DEMANDS AN END TO THE REPRESSION CARRIED OUT BY THE FRAUD MICHELETTI GOVERNMENT AND THE RETURN OF PRESIDENT MEL ZELAYA
Today, Sunday September 27, 2009, a coalition of progressive forces supporting the demands of the people of Honduras learned that the situation in that country is becoming more and more critical.
As a result of the growing dire situation in Honduras, peace and social justice activists are calling for another round of protests and vigils to take place around the United States on Tuesday, Sept. 29.
Furthermore, the coalition is issuing an emergency alert as a result of developments learned on Sunday, September 27.
At this very moment, a delegation of officials representing the Organization of American States (OAC) are being detained by Honduran immigration officials at the Toncontín international airport in Tegucigalpa.
By order of the fraud and illegal government of Robert Michelet, the delegation of diplomats cannot enter into the country. This act violates all international laws and conventions with respect to the sovereignty of foreign countries. The officials had left Honduras in rejection of the illegal government. But in light of the fact that the Constitutional President of the Republic, President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales had returned to the country, the officials returned to express their solidarity as well as support the Arias plan proposed by the U.S. State Department and the President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias.
The Honduran Ambassador in Washington has stated that the Secretary of the OAS, Mr. Insulsa is informed of the situation in Honduras.
The leaders of the Coup d’état have managed to block all Internet service.
The detention of OAS officials comes after several days of Michelet aggression against the Brazilian embassy. Michelet ordered the Embassy attacked when it was reported that President Zelaya was staying there.
It has been confirmed that coup leaders have dropped chemical gas on the Embassy and are using LRAD’s (Long Range Acoustic Devices) against President Zelaya, his wife and other supporters at the Brazilian embassy.
This is another violation of international law and conventions and can be interpreted as a blatant act of war.
LRAD’s are manufactured in the U.S. and can cause permanent hearing damage. A photographer captured the use of LRAD’s, which emit an acoustic beam so offensive and painful that it can cause serious damage to hearing. The sound is similar to a car alarm but dramatically more intense. At full capacity, the LRAD emits a 150 decibel sound wave, journalists report.
This weapon has frequently been used by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Zelaya reports from the Brazilian embassy that they have been subjected to “bombardments with chemical products and ultrasound waves that provoke illness and make people very nervous.”
The coalition of forces supporting the people and resistance of Honduras are urging everyone to come out Tuesday in cities around the country to protest this act of aggression, to demand that the White House condemn this aggression and to support the demands of the Honduran people.
The coalition includes IFCO/Pastors for Peace, Hondurans in Resistance U.S.A, the International Action Center, San Romero Church, Rev. Luis Barrios, La Peña del Bronx, Local 1199 SEIU, Alberto Lovera Bolivarian Circle; NALACC, Bayan USA, Ramsey Clark, Artists and Activists United for Peace; Peruvians in Action; Human Rights Project of the Urban justice Center; Colectivo rebel Diaz, Cuba Solidarity New York, Red de Organizaciones Afro-Centroamericanas-USA, Human Rights Project of the Urban Justice Center; Millions 4 Mumia; International League for Peoples Struggle; Comité Dominicano de Solidaridad con los Pueblos, Troops Out Now, Jersey City Peace Movement, NJ Action 21; Trabajadoras por la Paz, Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional – FMLN, Red de Comunidades Salvadoreñas en el Exterior, Empresarios por el Cambio, Centro de Derechos Laborales and others.
-30-
September 22, 2009
2009.09.22: RE: Urgent Appeal to ALAA Members: Defend Free Speech at Legal Aid
From: Letwin, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:20 AM
To: [M]
Subject: RE: Urgent Appeal to ALAA Members: Defend Free Speech at Legal Aid
[M],
Sorry for the delayed response, but it’s been . . . A little hectic.
I think you know me well enough to see that I don’t set out to be “hurtful,” but rather to stand up for my beliefs. Would you really respect me if I didn’t? (I wouldn’t.)
And the union, including union email, *is* a forum for political expression — particularly when others routinely do so. (Vote for Obama, whatever.) Should the test really be whether one’s point of view is popular?
Under similar attack, MLK explained the principle I try to honor:
“One day a newsman came to me and said, “Dr. King, don’t you think you’re going to have to stop, now, opposing the war and move more in line with the administration’s policy? As I understand it, it has hurt the budget of your organization, and people who once respected you have lost respect foryou. Don’t you feel that you’ve really got to change your position?” I looked at him and I had to say, “Sir, I’m sorry you don’t know me. I’m not a consensus leader. I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I’ve not taken a sort of Gallup Poll of the majority opinion.” Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.
“On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right?
“There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.”
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/remaining_awake_through_a_great_revolution/
Best,
Michael
—–Original Message—–
From: [M]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:56 PM
To: Letwin, Michael
Subject: Re: Urgent Appeal to ALAA Members: Defend Free Speech at Legal Aid
I love you but you did this to yourself and to all of us. we don’t have a free speech right bc we work fora non profit law firm. I cringe when you send those emails that intentionally provoke outrage and are HURTFUL. I don’t understand why you think that’s ok. I support your positions politically, but alaaemail is not the forum. I don’t think you are going to get a lot of support from your colleagues on this issue.
but I wanted to come to las bc I thought you were a badass and I love love love you.
sent from my cell…
On Sep 15, 2009, at 8:47 PM, “Letwin, Michael”
wrote:
> The attached Word document provides background and context in
> opposition to the proposed surrender of free speech rights on the
> union email lists, which is scheduled for a vote at this Thursday’s
> Joint Council meeting.
>
> *To endorse this statement, please say so in a “reply all” message.*
> <Defend.Free.Speech.doc> <Attachment 1 —
> LASALAAE-mailArbitrationSettlement072809[1].pdf>
September 17, 2009
2009.09.17: RE: Response to Debbie Wright & Latest Free Speech Signatories
From: Letwin, Michael
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:47 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS; 1199 Members
Subject: RE: Response to Debbie Wright & Latest Free Speech Signatories
[J.],
I don’t understand your point.
Allen Popper admits that he complained to management, but denies contacting the ADL or threatening to undermine LAS funding: “I do not deny that I grieved that, because I think it creates a hostile working environment. . . . I never had any organization , Jewish,not Jewish, political of any sort contact Legal Aid. Others did. I know that because I spoke to several of the persons who did complain. I respect their actions to do so , but, it is not something I would have considered.”
As explained in the Free Speech document, management made verbal comments mentioning Popper and/or unidentified others having contacted the ADL (with whom management says it had discussions) and threatening to undermine LAS funding; they would not be more specific.
The Free Speech statement did not vouch for the accuracy of management’s comments, but rather relayed their stated reasons for censoring the speech in question. In other words, it recounted what we were told.
The union can determine who (if anyone) was in fact responsible for those actions through a Request for Information under the NLRA.
Although Popper’s other complaints are not in dispute, attached are the following three documents specifically cited in the statement (and not previously footnoted).
1. Letter of October 29, 2001 from the UAW to Allen Popper.
2. Grievance Letter of April 5, 2002 from Allen Popper to Daniel Greenberg.
3. Email of July 31, 2006 from Michael Letwin to Dawn Ryan, in response to grievance by Allen Popper.
Michael
_____________________________________________
From: J.
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:59 PM
To: Letwin, Michael; ALAA MEMBERS; 1199 Members
Subject: RE: Response to Debbie Wright & Latest Free Speech Signatories
But still no substantiation of your allegations against Allen Popper, nor a public apology.
As I said yesterday, the email issue is of extreme importance.
However, equally, if not more important is our respect for each other.
You made some very damning accusations.
Please provide us with evidence supporting each and every one of your accusations, or apologize.
I am not commenting on the merits of anyone’s opinions regarding any political issues…..just basic respect.
_____________________________________________
From: Letwin, Michael
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:51 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS; 1199 Members
Subject: Response to Debbie Wright & Latest Free Speech Signatories
Importance: High
The following is in response to Debbie Wright’s message of earlier today.
1. To vote or not
If one thing is clear from the membership-wide discussion that began yesterday, it’s that vague oral reassurances at some offices in August, when many members were on vacation, have not clarified our rights, the proposed “compromise,” the events that underlie it, and options other than surrender.
There should be no vote until the membership has had a full and informed discussion of this issue — particularly since the “compromise” is no better than what management wanted to begin with.
2. Just a trial period
Even under the most liberal reading, we would lose both individual and collective free speech rights during any “trial period.” For example, under the new system, no one could respond to Debbie’s position — or for that matter, about how our free speech rights will have been diminished.
3. “Management-run email”
The union e-list was never meant be confidential — there is no such thing in a discussion list of 700 people — whether on or off LAS email. Moreover, the threat of censorship has come not from management “spying,” but from snitching within our own ranks.
4. It’s not just the war or Palestine?
But it is: the only known demands for censorship at Legal Aid involve messages against the war or in defense of Palestinian rights.
5. Management is just being “prudent”
Under the law, a hostile work environment means “discriminatory workplace harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age or sex. Additionally, the harassment typically must be severe, recurring and pervasive.” http://employeeissues.com/hostile_work_environment.htm. Clearly, none of these criteria applies to the political opinions under attack here — and management does not claim otherwise.
Therefore, the union’s responsibility is not to justify or excuse management censorship, but rather to defend those who risk unwarranted punishment for expressing protected political opinions. Members who demand that management silence and punish those views do not belong on the union email list.*
*(In response to questions about the history cited in yesterday’s statement, Allen Popper does not deny repeatedly demanding that management suppress and/or punish speech against the war or in defense of Palestinians. Rather, he says, “I am very proud of my conduct. If you do not like it. I really do not care.” As previously stated, reports about threats to Legal Aid funding (and the ADL’s involvement) comes from management and union leaders. Last week, the ALAA Executive Board (including Popper) rejected Susan Morris’ proposal to verify those claims through a Request for Information to management pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act Section 8(a)(5)).
—————
Current Signers of Defend Free Speech at Legal Aid Statement
As of today, the following 32 union members have endorsed the Defend Free Speech at Legal Aid statement (apologies for any unintended omissions). (List in formation; affiliations listed for identification only.)
*Noha Arafa (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; ALAA Alt. Vice-President)
*Julie Fry (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; ALAA Vice-President)
*Michael Letwin (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; former ALAA Pres., 1990-2002)
*Susan Olivia Morris (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; ALAA Executive Bd., LGBT Rep.)
*Ivan Pantoja (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; ALAA Executive Bd., Jr. Atty. Rep.)
*Azalia Torres (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; former member, ALAA Executive Bd.)
*Jennifer Burkavage (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn, Delegate)
*Steve Terry (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Florence Morgan (Criminal Defense-Queens)
*Mimi Rosenberg (Civil-Brooklyn)
*Antonia Codling (Criminal Defense-Bronx; former member, ALAA Executive Bd.)
*Roslyn Morrison (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Patrick Langhenry (Civil-Brooklyn)
*Marisa Benton (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Janet Forrester (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Lisa Edwards (Harlem Community Law Office)
*Brian Hutchinson (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Reda Woodcock (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Sigmund Israel (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Terrence Davidson (Criminal Defense-1199)
*Simone Berman-Rossi (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Kathryn Thiesenhusen (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Gregory Johnston (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Bahar Mirhosseini (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Stephanie Kaplan ((Criminal Defense-Manhattan)
*Katherine Fitzer (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Cheryl Williams (Criminal Appeals)
*Jonathan Garelick (Criminal Appeals)
*Steve Kliman (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
*Marva Brown (Criminal Defense-Bronx)
*Adrian Lesher (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)(“I endorse this statement to the extent it opposes the proposed compromise.”)
*Laurie Dick (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
2009.09.17: Response to Debbie Wright & Latest Free Speech Signatories
From: Letwin, Michael
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:51 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS; 1199 Members
Subject: Response to Debbie Wright & Latest Free Speech Signatories
Importance: High
The following is in response to Debbie Wright’s message of earlier today.
1. To vote or not
If one thing is clear from the membership-wide discussion that began yesterday, it’s that vague oral reassurances at some offices in August, when many members were on vacation, have not clarified our rights, the proposed “compromise,” the events that underlie it, and options other than surrender.
There should be no vote until the membership has had a full and informed discussion of this issue — particularly since the “compromise” is no better than what management wanted to begin with.
2. Just a trial period
Even under the most liberal reading, we would lose both individual and collective free speech rights during any “trial period.” For example, under the new system, no one could respond to Debbie’s position — or for that matter, about how our free speech rights will have been diminished.
3. “Management-run email”
The union e-list was never meant be confidential — there is no such thing in a discussion list of 700 people — whether on or off LAS email. Moreover, the threat of censorship has come not from management “spying,” but from snitching within our own ranks.
4. It’s not just the war or Palestine?
But it is: the only known demands for censorship at Legal Aid involve messages against the war or in defense of Palestinian rights.
5. Management is just being “prudent”
Under the law, a hostile work environment means “discriminatory workplace harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age or sex. Additionally, the harassment typically must be severe, recurring and pervasive.” http://employeeissues.com/hostile_work_environment.htm. Clearly, none of these criteria applies to the political opinions under attack here — and management does not claim otherwise.
Therefore, the union’s responsibility is not to justify or excuse management censorship, but rather to defend those who risk unwarranted punishment for expressing protected political opinions. Members who demand that management silence and punish those views do not belong on the union email list.*
*(In response to questions about the history cited in yesterday’s statement, Allen Popper does not deny repeatedly demanding that management suppress and/or punish speech against the war or in defense of Palestinians. Rather, he says, “I am very proud of my conduct. If you do not like it. I really do not care.” As previously stated, reports about threats to Legal Aid funding (and the ADL’s involvement) comes from management and union leaders. Last week, the ALAA Executive Board (including Popper) rejected Susan Morris’ proposal to verify those claims through a Request for Information to management pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act Section 8(a)(5)).
—————
Current Signers of Defend Free Speech at Legal Aid Statement
As of today, the following 32 union members have endorsed the Defend Free Speech at Legal Aid statement (apologies for any unintended omissions). (List in formation; affiliations listed for identification only.)
Noha Arafa (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; ALAA Alt. Vice-President)
Julie Fry (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; ALAA Vice-President)
Michael Letwin (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; former ALAA Pres., 1990-2002)
Susan Olivia Morris (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; ALAA Executive Bd., LGBT Rep.)
Ivan Pantoja (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; ALAA Executive Bd., Jr. Atty. Rep.)
Azalia Torres (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn; former member, ALAA Executive Bd.)
Jennifer Burkavage (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn, Delegate)
Steve Terry (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Florence Morgan (Criminal Defense-Queens)
Mimi Rosenberg (Civil-Brooklyn)
Antonia Codling (Criminal Defense-Bronx; former member, ALAA Executive Bd.)
Roslyn Morrison (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Patrick Langhenry (Civil-Brooklyn)
Marisa Benton (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Janet Forrester (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Lisa Edwards (Harlem Community Law Office)
Brian Hutchinson (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Reda Woodcock (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Sigmund Israel (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Terrence Davidson (Criminal Defense-1199)
Simone Berman-Rossi (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Kathryn Thiesenhusen (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Gregory Johnston (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Bahar Mirhosseini (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Stephanie Kaplan ((Criminal Defense-Manhattan)
Katherine Fitzer (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Cheryl Williams (Criminal Appeals)
Jonathan Garelick (Criminal Appeals)
Steve Kliman (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
Marva Brown (Criminal Defense-Bronx)
Adrian Lesher (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)(“I endorse this statement to the extent it opposes the proposed compromise.”)
Laurie Dick (Criminal Defense-Brooklyn)
September 15, 2009
2009.09.15: MEMBERS: INSTRUCT YOUR DELEGATES – VOTE NO
From: Morris, Susan
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:54 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS
Subject: MEMBERS: INSTRUCT YOUR DELEGATES – VOTE NO
On Thursday, 9/17, at the Joint Council Meeting, a vote will be taken on what has been labeled the “Interim Memorandum of Agreement.” This is an agreement between The Legal Aid Society and the ALAA involving a serious change in the Society’s contractual obligation to us as union members that allows us to communicate freely using the email system.
For the reasons listed below, we urge members to instruct their delegates to vote no on this so-called “Agreement.”
This agreement seriously curtails an existing contractual benefit. As such, it should require the vote of the entire membership rather than the delegates. Labeling the change “a vote to interpret” the contract as opposed to a vote to amend the contract is fallacious and inappropriate. The terms of this agreement result in a loss of an existing contractual right, and therefore should require a membership vote. Preferably, this vote would be taken after contract negotiations are resolved, as a vote on any contractual alterations would be conducted.
The “Interim” period is not defined. In the division meetings, we were advised that the terms would be for a trial period only, and there is no definition to the length of this period.
There are no protections in this agreement for our membership who may not live up to the unclear definitions and regulation provided.
The gravity of this change in contractual obligations is such that our ALAA leadership organized division meetings to ensure that all members were informed of the details; unfortunately, because of LAS’ timing in demanding the agreement be signed onto by ALAA, these meetings were held during the heaviest vacation period, and not well attended; indeed, some divisions have not yet had their meetings – and certainly not with enough time to have cluster/subdivision meetings to vote in order to instruct the delegates on how to vote at the Joint Council Meeting.
The LAS advises us that they would like to avoid arbitration, which was voted on by the JC in a prior meeting. In spite of this claim, the agreement begins and ends with the position that arbitration is where we will end up.
The terms of the agreement could almost be compared to a “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy in that the “rules” are circular and nonsensical.
The agreement claims that the “opt-out” policy shall be adhered to; we currently have an “opt-out” policy in that ALAA list members have the ability to delete and/or set up rules to avoid those emails the members find disagreeable.
We have always had a free exchange of ideas in the ALAA, and we have always been able to use our ALAA email list and the LAS email system to foster this exchange. The fact that certain people speak out passionately about issues that are dear to their hearts should not be reason for curtailment of our ability to speak out and to speak up. As lawyers who give voice to the silenced, it is inconceivable that we should allow LAS to curtail this exchange. The fact that a few people find that the passions of some are in opposition to their views is not a reason to shut down the system that we have practiced for many years.
For the reasons outlined above, we urge the members to instruct their delegates to vote no and to not approve the “Agreement” which LAS has proposed.
Susan O. Morris, BK CDD
Julie Fry, BK CDD
(Please refer to the forthcoming email that will outline the history of free speech on the email system, which also includes the information that LAS has determined certain claims to be unfounded regarding the passionate political speech that is currently under attack.)
ALAA Roots -- An Unofficial Site 