ALAA Roots — An Unofficial Site

December 17, 2014

2014.12.17: Brooklyn Public Defenders Die-In for Eric Garner

So proud to be with hundreds of fellow Association of Legal Aid Attorneys – UAW 2325 members, Attorneys of Color of Legal Aid (ACLA), 1199 members and other public defenders who walked out of Brooklyn Criminal Court and joined today’s die-in at Brooklyn House of Detention, for Eric Garner, Mike Brown and all other victims of police violence, mass incarceration and a racist criminal justice system. We also took over Brooklyn Bridge Place and marched through downtown Brooklyn.

Chants included:
*Black Lives Matter: Justice for Eric Garner!
*No Justice, No Peace, No Racist Police!
*End Broken Windows: Fire Bill Bratton!
*Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!
*Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Shut it Down, Shut the Whole Damn System Down!
*Indict, convict, send those killer cops to jail, the whole damn system is guilty as hell!
*Who’s Streets? Our Streets!
*What Do We Want? Justice!

#BlackLivesMatter #EricGarner #WeCantBreathe #ShutItDown#FireBratton

More photos at:

https://www.facebook.com/michael.letwin/media_set?set=a.10205433197099686.1073741850.1542848808&type=1

https://twitter.com/jncatron/status/545358281531604992/photo/1

https://www.facebook.com/somesq1958/media_set?set=a.1446531175169.2060694.1589877680&type=3

Coverage:

http://pix11.com/2014/12/17/100-brooklyn-public-defenders-walk-out-in-eric-garner-protest/

https://www.facebook.com/michael.letwin/media_set?set=a.10205422912842586.1073741849.1542848808&type=3

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/new-york-public-defenders-walk-out-of-court-protesting-eric?bftw=main

http://brooklyn.news12.com/news/legal-aid-attorneys-stage-walk-out-at-brooklyn-criminal-court-to-protest-garner-death-1.9723742

http://www.pottsmerc.com/general-news/20141217/defense-lawyers-march-to-protest-police-killings

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/defense-lawyers-march-protest-police-killings-27667839

Attorneys of Color Caucus – ACLA
Association of Legal Aid Attorneys – UAW 2325

Related:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/12/new_orleans_public_defenders_a.html

Tagged photos below at Facebook

IMG_8912 IMG_8913 IMG_8915 IMG_8917 IMG_8920 IMG_8923 IMG_8927 IMG_8929 IMG_8931 IMG_8932 IMG_8933 IMG_8938 IMG_8947 IMG_8949 IMG_8951 IMG_8952 IMG_8953 IMG_8954 IMG_8956 IMG_8960 IMG_8961 IMG_8964 IMG_8965 IMG_8966 IMG_8969 IMG_8970 IMG_8971 IMG_8975 IMG_8976 IMG_8977 IMG_8979 IMG_8980 IMG_8983 IMG_8984

Advertisements

December 4, 2014

December 4, 2014: NYC Protest for Eric Garner

UAW 2325 and 1199 union members from Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn office, stood with our clients and communities by leading a 100-strong contingent across the Brooklyn Bridge to rally with thousands tonight at Foley Square.

Chants included:
*Black Lives Matter: Justice for Eric Garner!
*No Justice, No Peace, No Racist Police!
*End Broken Windows: Fire Bill Bratton!
*The System is Racist!
*Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!
*Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Shut it Down, Shut it Down!
*Who’s Streets? Our Streets!
*NYPD, KKK, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?
*What Do We Want? Justice!

#BlackLivesMatter#EricGarner#ICantBreathe#ShutItDown#FireBratton

IMG_8844 IMG_8847 IMG_8846 IMG_8845 IMG_8851 IMG_8850 IMG_8849 IMG_8848 IMG_8853 IMG_8854 IMG_8855 IMG_8856 IMG_8857 IMG_8859 IMG_8864 IMG_8866

August 12, 2014

ALAA Members Demand NYPD Accountability for Death of Eric Garner

Filed under: ALAA History,Civil Rights,Criminal Justice,Key Documents,Racism — nyclaw01 @ 12:00 am

[Unanimously adopted by Executive Board, Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325]

Tuesday, August 12, 2014
ALAA MEMBERS DEMAND NYPD ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DEATH OF ERIC GARNER

On July 17, 2014, a group of NYPD officers killed Eric Garner, a 43-year-old, African-American resident of Staten Island. The New York City Chief Medical Examiner’s office ruled Mr. Garner’s death a homicide, the result of a “compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.” A video of the encounter shows a police officer choking Mr. Garner from behind and dragging him to the ground. As the officer chokes him and as more officers pile on top of him, Mr. Garner repeatedly gasps, “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe,” until he loses consciousness.

The officers claim that Mr. Garner had been selling loose cigarettes.

Mr. Garner was a client of The Legal Aid Society and a repeated target of NYPD harassment. As members of the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325, representing more than 1,000 attorneys, we stand in solidarity with Mr. Garner’s family and with community members who have been under siege for far too long.

As attorneys, we see instances of police violence against our clients everyday. Moreover, we see how disruptive and destructive the criminal justice system can often be, and how it degrades and dehumanizes the most vulnerable members of our community and vastly diminishes their access to a range of basic survival opportunities. A seemingly innocuous police encounter can lead to a range of serious consequences affecting one’s housing, immigration status, and employment. In the case of Mr. Garner, the police encounter led to him being killed.

The 120th Precinct, where Mr. Garner was killed, is a hotbed of police abuse, with seven of the city’s top ten officers most frequently sued for civil rights violations. Yet the national public outrage at Mr. Garner’s killing and the 120th’s record of abuse has done little to deter more police violence. After Mr. Garner’s death, even more videos have surfaced of the police attacking the men and women of our communities. We have seen officers choke a pregnant woman and stomp on a young man in Brooklyn. We have seen EMTs intervene to prevent officers from assaulting a restrained, mentally ill man. We have seen reports documenting the rampant culture of abuse at Rikers Island. In short, we have seen the violence continue.

Sadly, these are not isolated incidents: they represent a tragic pattern of abuse of poor people and people of color at the hands of the NYPD, a pattern that stretches back to the killings of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., Ramarley Graham, Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Anthony Baez, and many others. In fact, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Garner’s death mirror the NYPD’s killing of another Staten Island resident, Ernest Sayon, twenty years ago. Like Mr. Garner, Mr. Sayon was choked to death in police custody – but in his case, there was no video of the incident, and no officers were ever held accountable.

This time, it will be different. While we are outraged by Mr. Garner’s death, and by police violence in all forms, we are heartened by the strong community response on the North Shore of Staten Island and throughout the city. We demand that our elected officials heed the call of our communities and fight to protect the rights and dignity of poor people and people of color in New York. We demand wholesale changes in the culture and practices of the NYPD. We demand an end to “broken windows” and “stop and frisk” policing, which have targeted New Yorkers on the basis of race and poverty for far too long.

We demand accountability from the NYPD, Police Commissioner William Bratton, Staten Island District Attorney Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., and Mayor Bill de Blasio. We, the undersigned members of the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325, demand justice for Eric Garner.

July 31, 2014

2014.07.31: Urgent Action: Please Join UAW Local 2865 Joint Council in Opposing War on Gaza

Filed under: Antiwar,International Human Rights,Key Documents,Palestine,Racism — nyclaw01 @ 3:04 pm

From: Letwin, Michael
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:04 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS; 1199 Members
Subject: Urgent Action: Please Join UAW Local 2865 Joint Council in Opposing War on Gaza

With the Gaza death toll now at 1100+ and still rising, and the US government replenishing Israel’s supplies of lethal weapons, a growing number of trade unionists around the world are speaking out.

At the forefront is one of our sister units, 13,000-member UAW Local 2865, whose Joint Council has issued Student Workers at the University of California Support Palestine.

To take a stand, please endorse the new Labor for Palestine statement below, already signed by hundreds of trade unionists, (including members of ALAA and 1199), specifying your union membership in the box labeled “Why is this important to you.”

Please also:

1. Forward this message to interested members of other unions.

2. Endorse a parallel statement by Jews for Palestinian Right of Return.

————–

LFP
Labor for Palestine

Stop the War on Gaza: No Arms for Apartheid Israel — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions!

July 28, 2014

“We call on the UN and governments across the world to take immediate steps to implement a comprehensive and legally binding military embargo on Israel, similar to that imposed on South Africa during apartheid.”

Palestinian Trade Unions and Civil Society, Stop Arming Israel, July 20, 2014

“For the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.”

Beyond Vietnam, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1967

* * *

As workers and trade unionists, we join with Palestinian trade unions, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Unite (UK/Ireland), and labor organizations around the world to urgently condemn Israel’s barbaric war on Gaza, which has taken thousands of lives since 2006, including many hundreds in recent weeks.

With them, we stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people against more than a century of Zionist colonialism, dispossession, ethnic cleaning, racism, apartheid and genocide — including Israel’s very establishment through the uprooting and displacement of over 750,000 Palestinians during the 1947-1948 Nakba. Indeed, eighty percent of the 1.8 million people sealed into Gaza are refugees.

With them, we support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), which demands an end to Israeli military occupation of the 1967 territories; full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the right of return for Palestinian refugees, as affirmed by UN resolution 194.

Therefore:

• We call on the US government and its allies to end all aid to Israel.

• We call on workers to emulate dockers in South Africa, India, Sweden, Norway, Turkey, the US west coast, and elsewhere, by refusing to handle military or any other cargo destined for Israel.

• We call on labor bodies to divest from Israel Bonds, and cut ties with the Histadrut, Israel’s racist labor federation. (See model resolution, below.)

Initial Signers (List in formation)

Labor Bodies

NC Public Service Workers Union-UE Local 150

Unite Union NZ

Individuals (Affiliation shown for identification only // *Labor for Palestine co-conveners)

*Suzanne Adely, U.S.-MENA Global Labor Solidarity Network; Former Staff, Global Organizing Institute, UAW

*Monadel Herzallah, former member, Arab American Union Members Council, San Francisco, CA

*Michael Letwin, former President, Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW L. 2325; co-founder, Jews for Palestinian Right of Return, NYC Labor Against the War; US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel

Prof. Rabab Abdulhadi, California Faculty Association SFSU

Judith Ackerman, 1199SEIU, AFT, UFT, AFTRA, SAG, New York NY

Larry Adams, former President, NPMHU L. 300; co-founder, NYC Labor Against the War; People’s Organization for Progress

Joseph Agonito, former President, L. 1845-NYSUT, AFT

Bina Ahmad, ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society

Sameerah Ahmad, Executive Director, Cincinnati Interfaith Workers Center; former member, GEO/UAW L. 2322

Faiz Ahmed, Chairperson/président Canadian Union of Public Employees L. 3903

Tanya Akel, IBT L. 2010, AFT L. 1521

Noha Arafa, ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society

Anthony Arnove, National Writers Union/UAW L. 1981, Brooklyn NY

B. Ross Ashley, SEIU L. 204 (retired), Toronto ON

John Bail, National Director, Pacific Region Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Harry Baker, Former Executive Board member, SEIU L. 1021, N. CA
Sarah Barker, Organiser, New Zealand Nurses Organisation

Julia Barnett, Steward, CUPS, L. 79

Thomas F. Barton, L. 768, DC 37, AFSCME

Bill Bateman, Laborers L. 271; Coordinator, RI Unemployed Council, RI Campaign for Work & Wages

Richard Berg, Past President, IBT L. 743

Michael Billeaux, Co-President, Teaching Assistants’ Association/AFT L. 3220, Madison WI

Walter Birdwell, Retired Steward, National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 283

Richard Blake, IBT L. 512, Jacksonville FL

Dana Blanchard, Berkeley Federation of Teachers, AFT L. 1078

Dave Bleakney, National Union Representative, CUPW, Ottowa ON

Rebecca Bor, Chicago Teachers Union, AFT L. 1

Alexandra Bradbury, co-editor, Labor Notes

Larry Bradshaw, VP SEIU L. 1021, San Francisco

Gloria Brandman, UFT/NYC-MORE Caucus

Deena Brazy, Steward/VP, AFSCME L. 60, Madison WI

Tibby Brooks, National Writers Union/UAW L. 1981

Gene Bruskin, Founder, US Labor Against the War

Gabriel Camacho, UNITE HERE L. 66L Cambridge MA

Chris Carlsson, Co-Director, Shaping San Francisco; SEIU L. 1021; adjunct faculty, San Francisco Art Institute

Nora Carroll, ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society

David Chavez, UAW L. 2865, UC Riverside

Edward Childs, Chief Steward, Unite-Here L. 26

Jan Clausen, Goddard College faculty; UAW L. 2322 Liaison to U.S. Labor Against the War, NYC Chapter

Mary Clinton, Organizer, CWA District 1

L. Antonia Codling, Alt. VP & Former Rep., Attorneys of Color of Legal Aid, ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society

Len Cooper, Victorian Secretary, Communication Workers Union, Australia

Krista L. Cortes, Unit Chair, UAW L. 2865, UC Berkeley

Heather Cottin, Professional Staff Congress, NYC

Mike Cushman, Membership Secretary, London School of Economics, University and College Union branch (UCU)

Denise D’Anne, SEIU L. 1021

Joe Davies, Organizer, Southern Local Government Officers Union, Christchurch NZ

Warren Davis, Exec. VP (Retired), AFGE L. 2006, Philadelphia

Richard Deaton, Ph.D., LL.B., Asst. Director of Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)(retired)

Francisco Martin del Campo, Head Steward, UAW L. 2685, UC Berkeley Unit

Jacob Denz, GSOC/UAW L. 2110; NYU; Brooklyn, NY

Roger Dittmann, PhD, Former Secretary, United Professors of California

Monique Dols, UFT, NYC

Greg Dropkin, Unison; Liverpool Friends of Palestine, UK

Tim Dubnau, Organizing Coordinator, CWA District One

Arla S. Ertz, SEIU L. 1021 San Francisco

Shelley Ettinger, AFT L. 3882, NYC

Mark Evard, National Director, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Ottawa ON

Mikos Fabersunne, Professional Engineers in California Government (retired)

Jessica Feldman, UAW L. 2110, NYC

Chris Ferlazzo, Portland Jobs with Justice

Prof. Mary E. Finn, Ph. D., United University Professionals, State University of New York at Buffalo

Prof. Patrick J. Finn, Ph. D., United University Professionals, State University of New York at Buffalo

Gord Fischer, National Director, CUPW Prairie Region, Winnipeg MB

Jon Flanders, Past President, IAM 1145

Prof. Manzar Foroohar, former Chapter President, California Faculty Association-Cal Poly

Sheena Foster, Global Labour University Alumni

Andre Francois, Recording Secretary, USW L. 8751

Carol Gay, President, NJ State Industrial Union Council

Maxine Gay, Retail Finance & Commerce Secretary, FIRST Union New Zealand

Carl Gentile, National Representative, American Federation of Government Employees

Christine Geovanis National Writers Union/UAW L. 1981

Alborz Ghandehari, Recording Secretary, San Diego Unit, UAW L. 2865 (UC Student-Worker Union)

Hadi Gharabaghi, GSOC-UAW L. 2110; Cinema Studies, NYU

Steve Gillis, VP USW L. 8751 (Boston School Bus Drivers’ Union)

Mike Gimbel, Chairperson, Labor/Community Unity Committee, L. 375, AFSCME

Greg Giorgio, Delegate, Upstate NY Regional Branch, Industrial Workers of the World

Nathan Goldbaum, Member Communications Coordinator, Chicago Teachers Union, AFT L. 1

Marty Goodman, former Executive Board member, Transport Workers Union L. 100

Erik Green, UAW L. 2865, Financial Secretary, Santa Cruz CA

Ira Grupper, Delegate (retired), Greater Louisville (KY) Central Labor Council, BCTGM L. 16T

Maria Guillen, SEIU L. 1021

Gabriel Haaland, CWA L. 9404

Jesse Hagopian, Seattle Education Association/NEA

Denise Hammond, Unifor 591 G

David Heap, University of Western Ontario Faculty Association

Jenny Heinz, 1199SEIU

Stanley Heller, 40-year AFT member, West Haven, CT, now AFT 933 (retired)

Lucy Herschel, Delegate, 1199SEIU, NYC

Fred Hirsch, VP, Plumbers and Fitters L. 393, San Jose CA

Michael Hirsch, National Writers Union/UAW L. 1981
Bridgett Holloman, 1199SEIU, Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn NY

Alexandra Holmstrom-Smith, Chair, UCLA Unit, UAW L. 2865 (UC Student-Worker Union)

Jim Holstun, UUP Buffalo Center Chapter, NYSUT, AFT

Evert Hoogers, National Union Rep., CUPW (retired)

Cherrene Horazuk, President, AFSCME L. 3800

Jonathan House, President (1979-1981), Executive Director (1982-1989), Committee of Interns and Residents, SEIU

Sean Howard, Shop Steward, IBT L. 559, Hartford CT

Janet Hudgins, CUPE (retired)

Ren-yo Hwang, S. VP, UAW 2865, Los Angeles

Joe Iosbaker, Executive Board, SEIU L. 73

Malathi Iyenga, San Diego Unit Chair, UAW L. 2865

Joe Jamison, TWU L. 100 (retired)

James Jordan, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice

Michael P. Kaehler, President, APWU L. 647, Saint Cloud MN Area

Marianne Kaletzky, Head Steward, UAW L. 2865 Berkeley CA

Dan Kaplan, Executive Secretary, AFT L. 1493, San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers

Jim Kaplan, former member, Somerville Teachers Association, MA

Wendy Kaufmyn, Executive Board, AFT L. 2121 (faculty union of City College of San Francisco)

Brian Kelly, UCU Belfast (formerly Carpenters L. 33 Boston and IUMSWA L. 25 East Boston)

Sue Kelly, OPEIU L. 334 (retired)

Russell Kilday-Hicks, VP, California State Employees Association

Ed Kinchley, San Francisco Committee on Political Education; Co-chair, SEIU L. 1021, San Francisco

John Kirkland, Carpenters L. 1462, Bucks County PA

Steve Kirschbaum, Grievance Committee Chair, USW L. 8751

David Klein, California Faculty Association

Jeff Klein, Retired President, NAGE/SEIU L. R1-168

Cindy Klumb, OPEIU L. 153

Richard Koritz, Former President, NALC Branch 630, Greensboro NC

Dennis Kortheuer, California Faculty Association

Bud Korotzer, Shop Steward, AFSCME District Council 37, L. 371 (retired)

Daniella Korotzer, Former VP & Health & Safety Rep., ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society

Francine Korotzer, Shop Steward, AFSCME District Council 37, L. 2054 (retired)

Dennis Kosuth, Shop Steward, Convention Delegate, National Nurses Organizing Committee, National Nurses United

Rebecca Kurti, 1199SEIU

Elizabeth Lalasz, Steward & Bargaining Team Rep., National Convention Delegate, District 13, National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses Unites (NNOC/NNU)

Zoe Lawlor, Unite Teacher, University of Limerick, Ireland

Howard Lenow, American Jews For A Just Peace, trade union lawyer

Kristin Lew, 1199SEIU

Stephen Lewis, SEIU L. 509

Joe Lombardo, CSEA L. 999, Troy Area Labor Council

Marsha Love, UALE, Chicago

Michael Lyon, AFT L. 2121 (retiree)

John McColgan, SENA 9158, United Steelworkers of America

Maureen McDermott, UFT, NYC

Henry Maar, Trustee, UAW L. 2865

Amir M. Maasoumi, former member, Federation des travailleurs du Quebec (FTQ)

Shafeah M’Balia, National Assn. of Letter Carriers, Greenville, NC Branch 1729; Black Workers For Justice

Cindy McCallum Miller, President, Castlegar Local Canadian Union of Postal Workers, BC

Edward Miller, Strategic Adviser, FIRST Union, Auckland NZ

Gail Miller, UFT, NYC

Nathaniel Miller, Industrial Workers of the World

Susan Olivia Morris, Alternate VP, ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society

Irene Morrison, Recording Secretary, UAW 2865, UC Riverside

Hlokoza Motau, National Union of Metalworkers’ Union (Numsa), Johannesburg, South Africa

Kenneth Myers, United Federation of Teachers, NYC

Ken Nash, AFSCME L. 1930, DC 37

Lisa North, AFT L. 2, Brooklyn NY

Raquel Pacheco, UAW L. 2865, San Diego CA

Meredith Palmer, Head Steward, UAW L. 2865, UC Berkeley

Jackson Pitts, Head Steward, UAW L. 2865, UC Riverside

Maria Pizarro, AFSCME L. 2081

Marion Pollack, retiree, Vancouver BC

Jay Poppa, VP, Bridgeport Education Association, Bridgeport, CT

Dr. Anna Potempska, PhD, PEF (retired), NY

Andre’ Powell, AFSCME Delegate, Baltimore Central Labor Council

Peter Rachleff, Labor Educator; UALE

Natasha Raheja, Bargaining Committee, GSOC-UAW L. 2110, NYC

Melissa Rakestraw, Executive Board and Shop Steward, National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 825, Oakbrook IL

Croft Randle, Retired Local Officer and Provincial Representative, Telecommunications Workers Union, BC Canada

Ben Ratliffe, Steward, AFSCME L. 60, WI

Dominic Renda, Chief Shop Steward, CWA L. 1105

Eric Robson, Steward and Trustee, AFSCME L. 171, Madison WI

Marco Antonio Rosales, Unit Chair, UAW L. 2865, UC Davis

Mimi Rosenberg, ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society
Keith Rosenthal, AFSCME L. 3650, Somerville MA

Prof. Emerita Marguerite G. Rosenthal, Massachusetts State College Association/Mass. Education Assn./NEA

Andrew Ross, AAUP, NYU

Janice Rothstein, AFSCME L. 3299, San Francisco

Christina Rousseau, CUPE 3903, Toronto ON

David Russitano, Executive Board, United Educators of San Francisco, AFT/CFT L. 61

Gillian Russom, Board of Directors, United Teachers Los Angeles, AFT L. 1021

Carl Sack, AFT L. 3220, UW-Madison Teaching Assistants’ Association

Keith Sadler, UAW L. 2, Toledo OH

Lauren Schaeffer, Head Steward, UAW L. 2865, Los Angeles CA

Charity Schmidt, Former Co-President, University of Wisconsin-Madison Teaching Assistants’ Association (TAA)

Robert M. Schwartz, National Writers Union/UAW L. 1981, Boston MA

Helen Scott, United Academics AAUP/AFT L. 4996, Burlington VT

Mary Scully, IUE-CWA L. 201 (retired)

Snehal Shingavi, Texas State Employees Union/CWA L. 6186, Austin TX

Tyler Shipley, CUPE L. 3903; Toronto ON

Ahmad Shirazi, Former Board Member, IATSE L. 700, NYC

Sid Shniad, Former Research Director, Telecommunications Workers Union, Vancouver BC

Jerry Silberman, Senior Staff Rep., Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals

Lorrie Beth Slonsky, SEIU L. 1021; Paramedic (retired)

Larry Smallwood, former Telecommunications Workers Union of Canada; Volunteer President L. 7; human rights officer; union activist for equity rights

Nancy Snyder, Recording Secretary Emeritus, SEIU L. 1021

David Sole, Past President, UAW L. 2334, Detroit

Peter Spitzform, AFT/AAUP, University of Vermont

Brenda Stokely, former President, AFSCME DC 1707; co-founder, NYC Labor Against the War; Co-Chair, Million Worker March Movement

Alan Stolzer, Bakers L. 3 (retired)

Susan Stout, Unifor 2002, Canada (retired)

Dante Strobino, UE L. 150, North Carolina Public Service Workers Union, Durham

Brian J. Sullivan, LSSA/UAW L. 2320, NYC

Rick Sullivan, BC Retired Teachers’ Association, Parksville BC

Lee Sustar, NWU/UAW L. 1981; Chicago IL

Alice Sturm Sutter, NYSNA (retired), NYC

Team Solidarity – the Voice of United School Bus Workers

Steve Terry, ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society

Clarence Thomas, Co-Chair, Million Worker March; Executive Board, ILWU L. 10

Elizabeth Thornton, Head Steward, UCLA Unit, UAW L. 2865 (UC Student-Workers Union)

Joanne Tien, Head Steward, UAW L. 2865, Oakland CA.

Azalia Torres, Former Executive Board Member, ALAA/UAW L. 2325, NYC Legal Aid Society

Mike Treen, National Director, Unite Union NZ

Corey Uhl, IBT L. 79, Tampa FL

Jaime Veve, Transport Workers Union L. 100, NYC (retired)

Nantina Vgontzas, GSOC/UAW L. 2110, NYU

Sabina Virgo, Founding and Past President, AFSCME L. 2620

Kay L. Walker, SEIU L. 1021, San Francisco (retired)

Peter Waterman, Researcher/writer on labour internationalisms; ABVA-KABO, The Hague, Netherlands

Dave Welsh, Delegate, San Francisco Labor Council

Nancy Welch, Delegate, UVM United Academics AFT/AAUP

Bruce Wolf, Social Justice Committee, OPEIU L. 2

Sherry Wolf, CWA L. 1032

Cynthia Wright, CUPE 3903

Garrett Wright, National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW L. 2320, NYC

Eddie Yood, CWA L. 1180 Liaison to US Labor Against the War

Carol F. Yost, Organization of Staff Analysts, NYC (retired)

Steve Zeltzer, CWA L. 39521; Pacific Media Workers; KPFA WorkWeek Radio

—————

Labor for Palestine Model Resolution
Stop the War on Gaza: No Arms for Apartheid Israel — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions!

Whereas, Israel is committing yet another series of massacres in Gaza, many victims of which include workers, children, entire families the elderly, and the disabled; and

Whereas, Palestinian workers and their families continue to be killed and maimed by naval vessels, jet fighters, Apache helicopters, white phosphorous and other weapons supplied by the US and its allies; and

Whereas, during 2009-2018, the US government is set to provide military aid to Israel worth $30 billion; and

Whereas, Israel claims of “self-defense” are a thinly disguised pretext for more than a century of Zionist colonialism, dispossession, ethnic cleaning, racism, and genocide against the Palestinian people — including Israel’s very establishment through the uprooting and displacement of over 750,000 Palestinians during the 1947-1948 Nakba. Indeed, eighty percent of the 1.8 million people sealed into Gaza are refugees; and

Whereas, veteran South African freedom fighters have observed that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is “worse than apartheid”; and

Whereas, on July 12, 2014, Gaza civil society issued an urgent appeal for solidarity, calling for an arms embargo and full Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against apartheid Israel, which demands an end to Israeli military occupation of the 1967 territories; full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the right of return for Palestinian refugees, as affirmed by UN resolution 194; and

Whereas, on July 10, 2014, the Congress of South African Trade Unions denounced the latest Israeli massacres in Gaza, and called “on the international trade union movement, various civil society organisations, international religious bodies and even business to speak out against savagery and barbarism against fellow human beings”; and

Whereas, on July 11, 2014, Unite, the biggest union in the UK and Ireland, stated that it “unreservedly condemns the continuing Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and calls for the military strikes and the military build up to be halted immediately,” and reiterated its support for BDS; and

Whereas, the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against apartheid Israel has been endorsed by numerous labor bodies around the world, including the trade union congresses of South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Ireland, Scotland and the UK, and labor bodies in Australia, France, Canada, Norway, Catalunya, Italy, Spain and Turkey; and

Whereas, top U.S. labor officials nonetheless continues to invest billions of from union members’ pension funds in State of Israel Bonds, a pillar of apartheid that enjoys tax-exempt status from the U.S. government; and

Whereas, in opposing the Vietnam War, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared: “For the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent”; and

Whereas, Nelson Mandela declared: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”;

Therefore:

• We endorse Labor for Palestine’s statement Trade Unionists Say: Stop the War on Gaza: No Arms for Apartheid Israel — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions!

• We call on the US government and its allies to end all aid to Israel.

• We call on workers to emulate dockers in South Africa, India, Sweden, Norway, Turkey, the US west coast, and elsewhere, by refusing to handle military or any other cargo destined for Israel.

• We call on labor bodies to divest from Israel Bonds, and cut ties with the Histadrut, Israel’s racist labor federation.

——-
LaborforPalestine.net
LaborforPalestine.us@gmail.com

July 29, 2014

2014.07.29: Updated Signers (173) of Mass Free Speech Grievance

From: Letwin, Michael
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 1:25 PM
To: ALAA Members, 1199 Members
Subject: Updated Signers (173) of Mass Free Speech Grievance

­On July 29, 2014, the ALAA Joint Council voted to “authorize this grievance to proceed through the third step of the grievance process.”

Additional individual endorsers from both ALAA and 1199 will continue to be listed below.

 

Mass Free Speech Grievance
July 15, 2014
List in formation: 173 Signers: 130 ALAA members (including 54 ACLA members*) and 43 1199/SEIU members

The undersigned members of the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325 and 1199SEIU Healthcare Workers East hereby join in grieving Legal Aid Society management’s attempt to ban “non-work-related matter involving the current situation in the Middle East,” as reflected in the two warnings (attached below), concerning messages to the ALAA email discussion list.

This censorship is just the most recent reflection of more than twelve years of pandering to complaints and threats by those seeking to silence antiwar and Palestine human rights opinion at Legal Aid.

Regardless of our individual political views, the targeted speech — like earlier opposition to racial segregation, the Vietnam War, or South African apartheid — is protected under ALAA Collective Bargaining Agreement §§ 3.5 (“Free Speech”) and 1.5. (“Union Activities”), and under relevant 1199SEIU contractual provisions.

In addition, such discrimination contributes to a broader hostile work environment for Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and other people of color, in violation of ALAA Collective Bargaining Agreement § 3.1.1. (“Non-Discrimination”), CBA § 3.1.2. (“Affirmative Action”), relevant 1199SEIU contractual provisions, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

It is irrelevant that ALAA has agreed to eventually relocate its discussion list from the Society’s email system. As long as the current list exists, management may not selectively censor particular views or entire topics, while at the same time turning a blind eye to innumerable political and “non-work-related” messages — often sent by the very same list members who demand censorship of others.

There is no “heckler’s veto” or “Palestine exception” when it comes to free speech.

Moreover, since recipients can easily delete, or configure their individual Outlook settings to automatically “opt-out” of, Palestinian rights (or any other) messages, management may not engage in selective censorship under the guise of additional, unfathomable, unspecified “op-out” procedures.

We call on management to rescind this ban, and respect our free speech rights.

Signers (List in Formation)
*Denotes Attorneys of Color of Legal Aid (ACLA) member

Michael Letwin
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Former President, ALAA/UAW 2325

Noha Arafa*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Azalia Torres*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Former Sr. Attorney & Attorneys of Color (ACLA) Rep., ALAA/UAW 2325

Noor Ahmad*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Susan Olivia Morris
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Alternate Vice President, ALAA/UAW 2325

Jane Sampeur*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Pooja Kothari*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Lucy Herschel
Criminal Defense-Queens
Delegate, 1199SEIU

Marlen S. Bodden*
Criminal Defense-Special Litigation
ALAA/UAW 2325

Nora Carroll
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Antonia Codling*
Criminal Defense-Bronx
Affirmative Action Rep., ALAA/UAW Local 2325

Laurie Dick
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Monica D. Dula*
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Lisa Edwards*
Civil-Harlem
ALAA/UAW 2325

Taylor James*
Housing Help Program, Civil-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Daniella Korotzer
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Former Vice President and Health & Safety Rep., ALAA/UAW 2325

Rebecca Kurti
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Patrick Langhenry
Civil-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Kristin Lew
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
Former Negotiating Committee Member, 1199SEIU

Florence Morgan*
Criminal Defense-Queens
ALAA/UAW 2325

Mimi Rosenberg
Civil-Brooklyn Neighborhood Office
ALAA/UAW 2325

Steve Terry
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Alexandra Smith
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Bahar Ansari*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Luke Schram
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Stephanie Pope
Criminal Defense-Staten Island
ALAA/UAW 2325

Brittany Thomas*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Antonio Villaamil*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Claire Nicolay
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Antoinette Kirwan*
Juvenile Rights-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Kathryn Thiesenhusen
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Lauren Katzman
Juvenile Rights-Broklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Elena Roberts
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Aurea Gonzalez
Paralegal 1
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Rigodis Appling*
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Donella Green*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Dale Ventura*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Jawaid Stationwala*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Greg Johnston
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Katherine Fitzer
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Julie Fry
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Vice President, ALAA/UAW 2325

ManI Tafari*
Criminal Defense-Queens
ALAA/UAW 2325

Ferdinand Cesarano
Criminal Defense-Central Admin.
1199SEIU

Eric Meggett*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Steven Wasserman
Criminal Defense-Special Litigation
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Willliam Brosh, LCSW
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Roslyn Morrison*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Lisa Pitts*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Titus Mathai*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Hilary Dowling
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Bridgett Holloman
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Anna Boksenbaum
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Alternate Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Steven Kliman
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Bernadette Jackson
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Joseph Lavine
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Asmika Dangol
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Claudia Diez
Paralegal II
Criminal Appeals
1199SEIU

Jeffrey Sugarman
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Adrian Lesher
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Grover Francis
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Alternate Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Scott Rudnick
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn|
ALAA/UAW 2325

Warren Deans
Criminal Defense-Central Admin.
1199SEIU

Steven Douglas Levine
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Lois Jackson
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Cynthia Pong*
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Erin M Bannister
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Genesis Fisher*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Tajuana B. Johnson*
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
ALAA/UAW 2325

Bina Ahmad*
Criminal Defense-Staten Island
ALAA/UAW 2325

Naila Siddiqui*
Parole Revocation Defense
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Marie Mombrun*
Civil-Queens
Alt. Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Stephanie J. Fields
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Jacob Rolls
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Rumzi Araj
Criminal Defense-Bronx
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Fazeela Siddiqui*
Civil-Queens
ALAA/UAW 2325

Zoie T. Mair*
Criminal Defense-Staten Island
ALAA/UAW 2325

Jeremiah Schlotman*
Civil-Brooklyn Neighborhood Office
ALAA/UAW 2325

Rodrigo Santelices*
Civil-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Anne Oredeko*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Junior Attorney Rep., ALAA/UAW 2325

Samantha Seda*
Criminal Defense-Queens
ALAA/UAW 2325

Ivan Pantoja*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Middle Attorney Rep., ALAA/UAW 2325

Shahar Azoulay*
Parole Revocation Defense
ALAA/UAW 2325

Andrea Ibrahim*
Criminal Defense-Staten Island
ALAA/UAW 2325

Femi Disu*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Affirmative Action Rep., ALAA/UAW 2325

Robert Newman
Criminal Defense-Special Litigation
ALAA/UAW 2325

Bobby Codjoe*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Cory Walker
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Daniel Moore
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Jason Wu*
Civil-HCLO
ALAA/UAW 2325

Mark Weiner
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Laura Rose Bull
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate and Junior Attorney Alt. Rep., ALAA/UAW 2325

Alison Schill
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Kayla Simpson
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Bridgette Bissonnette
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
LGBT Caucus Alternate Rep., ALAA/UAW 2325

Alma Magaña*
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
Vice President, ALAA/UAW 2325

Candace Graff
Paralegal II
Juvenile Rights-Special Litigation
1199SEIU

Amy Dallas
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Susan Light
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Nadine Griffin
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Imtiaz Hossain*
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Svetlana M. Kornfeind
Criminal Appeals
ALAA/UAW 2325

Frederic Pratt
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Former Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Hernscica Vincent
Paralegal
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Joshua Carrin
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Madeline Porta
Criminal Defense-Queens
ALAA/UAW 2325

Lori Masco
Juvenile Rights-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Melissa Leigh Ballowe
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
Alternate Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Alicia Thomas*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Cynthia LaCaprucia Taylor
Civil-Harlem
Alternate Vice President (Civil Div.), ALAA/UAW 2325

Juan Charbonier
Criminal Defense-Queens
1199SEIU

Hasan Shafiqullah*
Civil-Immigration Law
LGBT Caucus
Former delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Helen Frieder
Civil-Bronx
LGBT Caucus Alternate Rep., ALAA/UAW 2325

Nada Geha
Civil-Staten Island
ALAA/UAW 2325

Richard Blum
Civil-Employment Law
ALAA/UAW 2325

Young Woo Lee
Civil-Employment Law
Alternate Vice President (Civil Div.), ALAA/UAW 2325

Jane Fox
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Todd Smith
Juvenile-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Felicia Leak
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Jeremy E.W. Fredericksen
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Bridgett Holloman
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Mitchell Paolo Esteller*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Jodi Smith*
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Vanita Martin
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Monique Fleury-Brown
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Rachel Messer
Juvenile Rights-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Robert Soriano-Hewitt*
Civil-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Lauren Monosoff
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Margaret Garrett
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Crystal Baker-Burr
Juvenile Rights-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Genitha Wint
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Deborah Pollack|
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
1199SEIU

Bharati Narumanchi*
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Grace Oboma-Layat*
Juvenile Rights-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Robin Gordon Leavitt
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Erin Tomlinson
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Alix Willard
Criminal Defense-Bronx
Delegate, 1199SIEU

Makeysha Woodman
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Lejla Bajrami
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Leah Maloney
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Michelle McGrath
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
ALAA/UAW 2325

Yvonne Nix
Criminal Defense-Manhattan
ALAA/UAW 2235

Alyssa Cose-Primus
Forensic Social Worker
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Diane Akerman
Queens CDP
ALAA/UAW

Anthony Posada*
Queens CDP
ALAA/UAW

Valerie LeBrew
Civil-Queens
1199SEIU Delegate

Omar Garcia
Civil-Brooklyn
1199SEIU Delegate

Jamaal Burnside
Juvenile Rights-Brooklyn
1199SEIU Delegate

Aisha King
Criminal Defense-Staten Island
1199SEIU Delegate

Javier Chuck
Civil-Harlem
1199SEIU Delegate

Magnus Mukoro
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU Delegate

Shawn Bosler
Juvenile Rights-Bronx
1199SEIU

Terence Davidson
Criminal Defense-Central Admin.
1199SEIU

Anastasia Taketomo
Juvenile Rights-LGBT Law and Policy Initiative
1199SEIU

Mily Rosa
Criminal Defense-Queens
1199SEIU

Lasalle Jones
Criminal Defense-Bronx
1199SEIU

Adriano De Gennaro
Civil-Prisoners’ Rights
1199SEIU

Abida Chaudhry
Criminal Appeals
1199SEIU

Phillip Guttman
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Susan Yousefi
Civil-Brooklyn
1199SEIU

Joseph Rivera
Criminal Defense-Queens
1199SEIU

Liliana Canela
Civil-Queens
1199SEIU

Michael Pate
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
Delegate, ALAA/UAW 2325

Pauloma Martinez*
Criminal Defense-Queens
ALAA/UAW

Cheryl Williams*
Criminal Appeals
ALAA/UAW 2325

Emily Poppish
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Sarah Marie Young
Parole Revocation Defense
ALAA/UAW 2325

Jess Braverman
Juvenile Rights-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

Catheranne Wyly
Juvenile Rights-Manhattan
ALAA/UAW 2325

Susan Sternberg
Civil-Lower Manhattan
Alternate Senior Attorneys Representative, ALAA/UAW 2325

Joshua Norkin, Esq.
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Bridget McDevitt
Criminal Defense-Bronx
ALAA/UAW 2325

Catherine Norris
Civil-Harlem Community Law Office
ALAA/UAW 2325

Alexander Smith
Criminal Defense-Brooklyn
ALAA/UAW 2325

——————————­——————————­——————–
ATTACHMENTS

From: Fox, Allan
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:16 PM
To: Letwin, Michael
Cc: Wright, Deborah
Subject: The Society’s email policy

In 2009 and 2013, The Legal Aid Society entered into agreements with the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys to achieve compliance with the Society’s longstanding e-mail policies and to clarify the parameters of Article 1.5 of the collective bargaining agreement with respect to ALAA’s use of the Society’s e-mail system.  (See copies of the attached agreements.)  The 2009 agreement provides that on an interim basis, the Society agrees to permit ALAA members to create personal e-mail groups, provided however that before and after setting up a personal e-mail group any and all potential or existing members of the personal e-mail group must be given an opportunity to opt out of the personal mail group.  Yesterday and today, we received several e-mails to ALAA members about a non-work-related matter sent by you involving the current situation in the Middle East, along with complaints from several ALAA members who received such communications who have elected to opt out of receiving them under the 2009 agreement.  As we have previously advised you, it is a violation of the Society’s e-mail policy and the 2009 agreement to send unwanted non-work-related communications to Society employees who have opted out of receiving such communications.  We are directing you to cease such actions and expect you to abide by your obligations under the 2009 agreement with ALAA and the Society’s e-mail policy. (Emphasis added.)

______________________________________________

From: Fox, Allan
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:05 PM
To: Herschel, Lucy
Subject: Email Policy & Usage

 

As we reiterated in an e-mail to all staff on June 26, The Legal Aid Society’s e-mail system is to be used for work-related communications. Our e-mail policy is clearly set forth in the Employee Handbook, which has been posted on LASnet for many years. Relevant portions were quoted in an e-mail today to all LAS staff. You recently sent a non-work-related e-mail communication to all ALAA and 1199 staff about recent events in the Middle East, and we have received a number of complaints from staff members who object to the communication. We are directing you to cease sending non-work-related communications that violate the policy and expect you to abide by your obligations under the Society’s e-mail policy. (Emphasis added.)

 

July 23, 2014

2014.07.23: Joint Council Discussion of Mass Free Speech Grievance

Filed under: Free Speech,International Human Rights,Key Documents,Palestine — nyclaw01 @ 3:39 pm

From: Torres, Azalia
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:39 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS; 1199 Members
Subject: Joint Council Discussion of Mass Free Speech Grievance

Those of us who signed  the Mass Free Speech grievance are not asking the Joint Council’s permission to grieve management’s discriminatory warnings against ALAA and 1199 members who speak out for Palestinian human rights. The grievance has already been filed, by nearly 150 ALAA and 1199 members, consistent with our union’s practice. Each grievant signed as an individual, not as representative of any caucus and/or executive body. Affiliations were listed to identify them in ALAA and LAS.

While grievants are not all of one mind regarding what is presently happening in the Middle East, we are ALL of one mind in our opposition to management’s decision to selectively strip the freedom of expression from only those members who stand up for Palestinian human rights.  We are also ALL of one mind that management may not pander to those threatening lawsuits against free discussion.

I certainly hope the JC will take a stand against discrimination. But at the very least, it has no right to stand in the way of those of us who do so as a point of principle.

Finally, this is not a personal attack on any one person — not at all. It simply calls on the union to meet its legal and moral duty of fair representation.

Azalia Torres, Esq.

November 25, 2013

2013.11.25: Speech by Azalia Torres at Marden Awards

Azalia Marden 2On November 25, 2013, Azalia Torres (shown here with Attorney-in-Chief Steve Banks), public defender in Brooklyn since 1987, leading member of Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325, and co-founder of Attorneys of Color of Legal Aid (ACLA), was one of the recipients of a 2013 Orison S. Marden Awards for outstanding service to The New York Legal Aid Society.

In this brief video (4:47m), Azalia explains why the award belongs to attorneys of color, senior attorneys, and all Legal Aid staff attorneys.

Congratulations to all 2013 Marden Award recipients.

(Photo and video courtesy of LAS investigator Charles Billups.)

August 13, 2013

2013.08.13: ACLA Statement on the ALAA emails regarding Trayvon Martin

From: Bharati Narumanchi
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:48 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS
Subject: ACLA Statement on the ALAA emails regarding Trayvon Martin

The Attorneys of Color of Legal Aid (ACLA) was founded in 1990 by staff attorneys of color from all practice areas to address the dismal record of hiring and the retention of attorneys of color throughout Legal Aid. As a caucus of ALAA, we sit on the Executive Board, and actively participate in contract negotiations and other union issues. Our members also participate in community trainings, outreach and educational seminars.

We are aware of the many injustices our clients endure in society because we have experienced them firsthand. We stand against this in our work, and we are proud to work alongside our colleagues who recognize this struggle and fight with us.

The Zimmerman verdict was a legal and moral failure. And many of us have felt disheartened and disappointed regarding the existence of the type of laws that allowed an armed George Zimmerman to pursue and kill an unarmed 17-year old Trayvon Martin and to use deadly force without retreating. As people who work in the public sphere, we are keenly aware of the overwhelming disparities in the legal system that are predicated on race. Communities of color deal with a troubling duality — the over-enforcement of laws in their community as well as the under-enforcement of laws when it comes to victims who are people of color.

Historically, attorneys of color within Legal Aid have faced racism within this organization. In the past, we have been kept from promotions, certifications, and have often dealt with a hostile work environment.

Many people of color at Legal Aid felt that the ALAA emails that were circulating among fellow union members were insensitive and disrespectful. The email discussion created an environment where attorneys of color felt alienated by a lack of respect for our experiences. The email communications left many of the attorneys of color, and particularly newer attorneys of color, feeling silenced and left with anger, confusion, and a deeply sincere sense of pain.

The labeling of a dead, unarmed child, Trayvon Martin, as a “thug” or “trouble-maker,” and the viewing of an armed adult, George Zimmerman, as a “victim” demonstrates how laws and facts have historically been misapplied and misconstrued when race is a factor, especially when men of color are involved. We were deeply saddened to see some of these racist beliefs echoed in some of the emails circulated within ALAA.

For many attorneys of color, Trayvon Martin’s death was deeply personal. Trayvon Martin’s death evinces a historic, continued victimization and devaluation of the lives of the members of our community – a devaluation that began with our ancestors and continues today. These disparities are not only an affront to justice and an embarrassment to the legal profession, but they directly effect our brothers, sons and fathers – our families.

As ALAA members, we call for ALL to stand with us and change the culture within ALAA. Our vision for the Legal Aid Society is to have a positive environment that rejects the dominant messages that society sends of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia. We seek to destroy that paradigm within ALAA as well, and we hope that by doing so, we will create a space that is truly egalitarian.

We hope that as brothers and sisters within this union that you will help us fight against injustice within the Legal Aid Society. We will continue to lead this fight, but we call on our colleagues to take a stand with us to continue to promote an inclusive environment at the Legal Aid Society.

ACLA therefore calls for anti-racism training for all attorneys at the Legal Aid Society. The Society conducts important and necessary trainings for staff which raise awareness about the needs of diverse populations we serve, and a comprehensive anti-racism training should become one of the mandatory staff trainings. Therefore, we call on our colleagues to join us in demanding a mandatory anti-racism training for all Legal Aid Society staff.

We hope that you will stand in solidarity with us.

Sincerely,

The Attorneys of Color Caucus

July 19, 2013

2013.07.19: FYI: Trayvon: Goetz 1987, Zimmerman 2013

From: Michael Letwin
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:33 AM
To: 1199 Members; ALAA MEMBERS
Subject: FYI: Trayvon: Goetz 1987, Zimmerman 2013

https://alaa2325.wordpress.com/1987/07/17/1987-07-15-an-open-letter-on-the-goetz-trial/

The City Sun, July 15‑21, 1987

An Open Letter on the Goetz Trial

Editor:

As public defenders, we represent clients who overwhelmingly are young Black and Latino men. From this perspective, we express our outrage with the Goetz decision and with the atmosphere of pervasive racism that permeated the entire case from the time of the Goetz arrest until now.

The verdict endorses Goetz’s view that young Black men asking for money in the subway—without uttering any threats or displaying a single weapon—are by definition committing a crime. It also endorses Goetz’s position as self‑appointed executioner, as evidenced by his statement to Darrell Cabey, “You seem to be all right, here is another.”

The undeniable message of the case reinforces the fact that white civilians can join white police in legally murdering Black people—Michael Stewart, Eleanor Bumpurs, Jonah Perry, Nicholas Bartlett and so many others—they perceive as a threat Vigilante terror against Black people is once again encouraged in New York.

More importantly, the jury did not act alone. Rather, the decision was preordained by the media and criminal “justice” system. It was led by the prosecution, which tried to throw the case in the grand jury and by the trial judge, who initially dismissed the charges. They worked hand in hand with the defense to put the victims, Cabey, James Ramseur, Barry Allen and Troy Canty, on trial, thereby shifting attention away from Goetz’s attempt to murder them.

The media and criminal “justice” system painted Goetz as a white knight and his victims as “Black scum” who got what they deserved. The jury simply did what it was programmed to do.

As public defenders, it is clear that there was a disparity in treatment between “defendant” Goetz and our own clients.

For example, in our experience judges almost never permit on‑the‑scene or in‑court “crime re‑enactments,” not to mention using Guardian Angels to stage these spectacles. Nor do judges ever give jury instructions so favorable to the defendant that a client’s acquittal is inevitable, even in the face of evidence overwhelmingly in the defendant’s favor. In addition, Judge Crane’s contempt citation of James Ramseur in the presence of the jury, while surrounded by five court officers, biased the jury against the victims.

In our experience, the prosecution almost always gives all of its witnesses immunity to testify. As a tactical matter, it is rare that a prosecutor would put on a witness who is likely to sabotage the prosecution’s case.

Yet, in the Goetz case, we saw these and other such actions which do not occur when the defendants are Black or Latino.

We urge all New Yorkers to join us in condemning this all too predictable verdict and the racism it represents.

(The signers of this letter are attorneys and legal workers at the Legal Aid Society. We speak here only for ourselves and not for the Legal Aid Society.)

Julie A. Clark • Michael Letwin • Kimberly L. Detherage • Sharon Buckle • Robin Kuranko • Daniel Ashworth • Florence Morgan • Robert Zuss • LeRoi Gill • Carmen James • Calvin Simons • Robert Ellis • Ellen S. Sacks • Jane Coleman • Ruby Green • Tony Powell • Trilby DeJung • Eric Meggett • Luce Rocque • Valerie Greene • Betsy Barros • Derrick Jones • Joseph Licitra • Catharine Grad • Steven Lubowitz

2013.07.19: Trayvon: Our Free Speech Rights in Court

Filed under: ALAA History,Civil Liberties,Contempt,Free Speech,Key Documents — nyclaw01 @ 10:26 am

From: Michael Letwin
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:26 AM
To: 1199 Members; ALAA MEMBERS
Subject: Trayvon: Our Free Speech Rights in Court

 
In response questions about our right to wear buttons, etc. for Trayvon, please see the decision below. (With thanks to Robin Frankel and Troy Yancey.)
 
——————-
 
https://alaa2325.wordpress.com/1991/04/02/free-speech-decision-frankel-v-roberts-1991/
 
[Emphasis added]
 
165 A.D.2d 382 (1st Dept., 1991)
 
In the Matter of Robin Frankel et al., Petitioners, and Association of Legal
 
Aid Attorneys in the City of New York District 65, UAW, Petitioner- Intervenor,
 
v.
 
George Roberts, as Justice of the Supreme Court, New York County, et al.,
 
Respondents.
 
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
 
April 2, 1991
 
CITE TITLE AS: Matter of Frankel v Roberts
 
SUMMARY
 
Original proceeding in the nature of a writ of prohibition, commenced in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to prohibit respondent Supreme Court Justice from enforcing his judgment and order requiring petitioners to remove a certain political button.
 
HEADNOTES
 
Courts–Attorney Attire–Order of Judge Directing Attorneys to Remove Political Button from Lapels
 
(1) A Supreme Court Justice presiding over a criminal part where only arraignments, initial plea bargaining, and motion practice are conducted improperly ordered, under pain of being relieved as counsel or held in summary contempt, attorneys to remove from their lapels a political button stating that the wearer, a Legal Aid attorney, would be “Ready To Strike”. The order was improvident exercise of the court’s authority to control the courtroom and the proper administration of justice.
 
TOTAL CLIENT SERVICE LIBRARY REFERENCES
 
Am Jur 2d, Contempt, §§ 207380; Trial, § 39.
 
NY Jur 2d, Attorneys at Law, §11Contempt, §13.
 
ANNOTATION REFERENCES
 
Power of court to impose standard of personal appearance or attire. 73 ALR3d 353.
 
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
 
Laura R. Johnson and Michele Maxian of counsel (Robert M. Baum, attorney), for petitioners.
 
Leonard Leibowitz for petitioner-intervenor.
 
John J. Sullivan of counsel (Robert Abrams, Attorney- General, attorney), for respondent. *383
 
Paul H. Levinson and Steven J. Hyman of counsel (Leavy Rosensweig & Hyman, attorneys), for New York Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
 
OPINION OF THE COURT
 
Asch, J.
 
Petitioners seek an order under CPLR article 78 to prohibit respondent Justice George Roberts from enforcing his judgment and order requiring petitioners, on penalty of being relieved or held in contempt, to remove a political button from their lapels which states “Ready To Strike”.
 
The incident in question took place in Part 30 of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, where only arraignments, initial plea bargaining and motion practice are conducted. Hearings and trials with witnesses and jurors are conducted in other courtrooms.
 
On October 4, 1990, petitioner Robin Frankel an attorney employed by petitioner Legal Aid Society was ordered to remove the “Ready To Strike” button from her lapel. When she refused to do so, she was summarily removed as counsel for petitioner Albert Smith who was a criminal defendant in a proceeding now pending before Justice George Roberts and an “18-B” attorney was assigned to represent him. Petitioner Troy Yancey, also an attorney employed by the Legal Aid Society, on the same date, was ordered to remove a similar button from her lapel. On her refusal to do so she was ordered from the court and instructed not to return to represent any defendant while wearing that button.
 
Judge Roberts announced he would relieve the Legal Aid Society as counsel whenever a case was called if the Legal Aid attorney wore a “Ready To Strike” button. He stated further, that on the next day any such attorney would be summarily held in contempt and an appropriate sanction imposed. Justice Roberts sought to explain that he was not taking any position on the threatened strike but would not have the attorneys “politicizing” an issue “extraneous to the work that is conducted in this courtroom.”
 
Justice Roberts has on his own accord stayed his order upon petitioner’s agreement to file this article 78 application and seek an expeditious determination.
 
In La Rocca v Lane (37 NY2d 575,cert denied424 US 968) a priest-lawyer, working for the Legal Aid Society as a defense attorney, brought an article 78 proceeding because the Trial *384 Judge refused to allow him to wear his clerical collar while appearing before the jury in the course of a trial. While the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, it did so only because “the particular limited religious practice has been found to conflict with the State’s paramount duty to insure a fair and impartial trial. The respective interests must be balanced to determine whether the incidental burdening is justified” (supra, at 583). In La Rocca, the Court of Appeals found that a jury might view statements made by a member of the clergy differently then those of others and might ascribe a greater degree of veracity and personal commitment to the rightness of his client’s cause. On the other hand, religious prejudices, often insidious and unstated, might spill over from the lawyer-cleric to the defendant. The court therefore decided that the trial court by compelling defense counsel to remove the symbol of his religious calling before the jury, while incidentally limiting counsel’s right to free exercise of religion, acted to preserve the right of both the defendant and the People to a fair trial (supra, at 584). Obviously, the La Rocca principles do not impel a similar result in the case before us. Even assuming the button might predispose a juror to favoritism or prejudice as to counsel’s client, Justice Roberts’ part had no jury to be impressed favorably or unfavorably.
 
We find that the mere act of wearing a button which has some expression of political import, under the circumstances herein, is an exercise of speech protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution and article I, § 8 of the NY Constitution. While the Trial Judge had the inherent power, in fact the obligation, to require order in the courtroom, the right of an individual under the First Amendment may not be limited or subordinated in his freedom of expression to anything less than the absolute requirement to prevent the obstruction of justice. “‘[T]rial courts … must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.”‘ (In re Little, 404 US 553, 555,quoting Brown v United States, 356 US 148, 153.)
 
The freedom of expression protection afforded by the First Amendment and article I, § 8 unquestionably extends to the courtroom. “Every citizen lawfully present in a public place has a right to engage in peaceable and orderly expression that is not incompatible with the primary activity of the place in question, whether that place is a school, a library, a private lunch counter, the grounds of a statehouse, the grounds of the United state capitol, a bus terminal, an airport, or a welfare *385 center. As we stated in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116 (1972), ‘[t]he crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.’ ” (United States v Grace, 461 US 171, 184-185 [Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part].) Thus, petitioners wearing a button with a political slogan would be entitled to the same protection that would be afforded if the button were worn in any other public place. This manner of expression was not basically incompatible with the normal activity and operation of this courtroom devoid of jurors or witnesses.
 
As such, it clearly presented no “serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice”. (See, Craig v Harney, 331 US 367, 373.) “[W]hile it is the duty of a Judge to preserve order and to insure that justice is not obstructed, it nevertheless follows that any order or regulation imposed upon attorneys practising before him, must be based upon factual conditions which leave no doubt that a continuance of the proscribed conduct will result in a disrespect for order and an impairment in the administration of justice. To this end, therefore, any such order or rule must have a reasonable or plausible basis, else this discretionary power is subject to being declared arbitrarily exercised” (Matter of Peck v Stone, 32 AD2d 506, 508 [order of Judge prohibiting female attorney from wearing miniskirt in courtroom was arbitrary]).
 
In addition, petitioners contend, and it is not disputed, that Justice Roberts took issue not with the fact that petitioners wore buttons but with the message expressed. Thus, petitioners assert he told them that he would permit the wearing of “Save the Whales” buttons. What obviously concerned him was the content of the button itself which he felt would be “unsettling” to the client.
 
Our Court of Appeals has noted the different approach that must be taken when there is an official attempt to restrict content of speech as compared with its time, place and manner. “The State is permitted considerably more latitude in restricting the time, place and manner of speech than it is when it attempts to restrict content. Time, place and manner restriction are valid if reasonable and rationally related to legitimate State interests. Content or subject matter may be regulated only if substantial State interests are involved and then the regulation may go no further than necessary to serve that interest.” (Matter of von Wiegen, 63 NY2d 163, 171.) “[U]nder the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the *386 First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. And it my not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in public facilities”. (Police Dept. of Chicago v Mosley, 408 US 92, 96.) Since Justice Roberts indicated that a political button for an ecological cause (“Save the Whales”) would be favored where the instant labor-relations related button was not, a “substantial” or “compelling” governmental interest in restricting the content of the button must be demonstrated (see, Perry Educ. Assn. v Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 US 37, 45Carey v Brown, 447 US 455, 461-462). Here, although Justice Roberts termed the buttons “unsettling” to defendants clients, he made no inquiry of the client, petitioner Smith, and thereafter relieved counsel for petitioner Smith despite his objection.
 
Thus, the record before us does not demonstrate a “compelling” State interest necessitating the Justice’s complete ban on the mere display of the small button with a particular political message.(See, Perry Educ. Assn. v Perry Local Educators’ Assn., supra, at 45.) Indeed, in light of the fact the button was worn in a nonjury courtroom, there was no showing of any “significant” governmental interest which would be served by a blanket ban, under the circumstances, in the place, manner and time of display (see, Regan v Time, Inc., 468 US 641, 648). The presumption of the court that the button had an “unsettling” and disruptive effect was made, without any inquiry or other factual foundation, and was therefore an improvident exercise of the court’s authority to control the courtroom and the proper administration of justice. (See, Matter of Peck v Stone, supra.) In addition, the court’s action violated the First Amendment and article I, § 8 free speech rights of petitioners.
 
“The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” (Cohen v California, 403 US 15, 24.)
 
Accordingly, the application by petitioners pursuant to *387 CPLR article 78 for an order prohibiting respondent Justice George Roberts from enforcing his judgment and order requiring petitioner attorneys, on penalty of being relieved or held in contempt, to remove a political button which stated “Ready To Strike” from their lapels and requiring the restoration of the petitioner Legal Aid Society to the representation of petitioner Albert Smith, should be granted, without costs or disbursements.
 
Wallach, J.
 
(Concurring).
 
The court’s ruling in this case summarily dissolved the lawyer-client relationship in two pending criminal cases based upon conduct which it allegedly perceived as impairing that relationship, namely, the lawyer’s in-court display of a lapel button containing the legend “Ready To Strike”. It also appears that in a subsequent conference on the matter the Judge indicated a toleration for the button display of some other opinions, citing as a permissible example the oceanic environmentalists’ crusade to “Save the Whales”.
 
If the choice had to be made between saving the lawyers or saving the whales, there is little doubt that the overwhelming majority of Americans would come down on the side of the whales. But the fact that the Calendar Judge here found himself allied with that majority must be the beginning and not the end of our review. In this case the Attorney-General, defending on appeal the challenged ruling which instantly discharged each lawyer who wore the offending “Ready To Strike” lapel button, seems to acknowledge that the controversy is not to be resolved by such a content analysis of the assertive message. First Amendment rights, it is conceded, cannot be automatically left to the not always tender tyranny of the majority viewpoint. The justification for the order raised before us (albeit not too clearly advanced in the record itself) is that a Legal Aid client, viewing the button for the first time, might undergo a tremor of unease, as expressed in the Attorney- General’s brief, “by causing the indigent criminal defendant to lose confidence in the system’s ability to guarantee him his constitutional right to vigorous representation.” This argument, implicating as it does the “undivided loyalty” to the client required of an attorney (see, People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 656), is worthy of our focused attention.
 
No stronger statement in Anglo-American law of the single-minded duty owed by attorney to client can be found than that of Henry Brougham, who at the pinnacle of his career *388 was retained to defend Queen Caroline of England in her trial on the charge of adultery before the British House of Lords. The complainant here was, of course, the reigning monarch, King George IV. Thus, immediately brought into play was the conflict between the duty of loyalty from subject to sovereign (a breach of which could amount to treason) and the professional duty of counsel to client. Lord Brougham had no doubts as to where the path of duty lay, as he informed his fellow peers: “[A]n advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all the world, and that person is his client. To save that client by all means and expedients, and at all hazards and costs to other person, and, among them, to himself, is his first and only duty; and in performing this duty he must not regard the alarm, the torments, the destruction which he may bring upon others. Separating the duty of a patriot from that of an advocate, he must go on reckless of consequences, though it should be his unhappy fate to involve his country in confusion.” [FN1]
 
FN1 2 Trial of Queen Caroline 8 (J. Nightingale ed 1821), cited in Fried, The Lawyer as Friend: The Moral Foundations of the Lawyer-Client Relationship,85 Yale LJ 1060, n 1.
 
This stirring formulation had even its 19th century critics (Chief Justice Cockburn among them) [FN2]as well as modern ones, but since it represents perhaps the historical high-water mark of the definition of total devotion to be summoned by counsel to the client’s cause, let us accept it, for the benefit of the respondent Judge, as the Valhallan standard which he proposed to enforce. Even if we adopt that proposition, what is lacking here to sustain the court’s order are any findings or proofs that counsels’ representation here fell below this heroic level, or that the button message did, in fact, have any chilling effect on the equanimity of any particular client. The one client we know anything for certain about, petitioner Albert Smith, is a party to this proceeding; he stands before us objecting to the discharge of his counsel and seeks her reinstatement with, or without, the allegedly offensive button.
 
FN2 In 1864, at a dinner attended by the then-86- year-old Brougham, Cockburn observed: “The arms which an Advocate wields, he ought to use as a warrior, not as an assassin. He ought to uphold the interests of his clients per fas, but not per nefas. He ought to know how to reconcile the interests of his client with the eternal interests of truth and justice.” (Megarry, A Second Miscellany-at-Law, at 36 [Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1973].)
 
The Attorney-General embraces the court’s assumption that a client’s morale would necessarily be shaken once the message *389 of the button was perceived. But the stifling of First Amendment rights cannot be permitted to rest upon a mere assumption, particularly one so facially untenable as this. As a rationale for the court’s action, its lack of merit is apparent from the following:
 
(1) The order did not enjoin future private disclosure by counsel to the client of the labor dispute and the ensuing prospect of a strike; neither was the court concerned with any disclosure in the past. The defendant-morale problem did not seem significant outside the four walls of the courtroom. Nor did the disclosure which actually occurred here of an impending strike, prior to any intervention by the Judge, appear to cause any turmoil inside the courtroom. In any event, the court made no such findings.
 
(2) It is not beyond all conjecture, subject only to repudiation by competent proof, that some clients might find the button message encouraging, suggesting as it does that his advocate possesses a certain energetic militancy and willingness to defy “the establishment”.
 
(3)There is a type of experienced client, not unknown to the criminal Bar, who has learned that a swift and efficient disposition of his pending matter is ofttimes less advantageous to him than a lame and halting progress, beset by delays and obstructions at every turn. The heart of such a client, had he stood alongside one of these appellant lawyers in IAS Part 30 on October 4, 1990, before Judge Roberts, might well have leaped up to behold the message of the button, holding out, as it does, the prospect of a strike which hopefully would serve to postpone the day of reckoning in his case. Delay in a criminal case, as such a client knows, plays into his hands far more frequently than those of the People.
 
Since, therefore, the order rests entirely on an unproven assumption, the validity of which is dubious at best, the arraignment court’s summary directive constituted an arbitrary exercise of judicial power, and must be reversed on that ground.
 
Kupferman, J. P.
 
(Dissenting, in part).
 
A courtroom is not a place for the unrestricted marketing of ideas. The petitioner was free to wear a button outside the courtroom and even to picket outside the courthouse. (See, Wise, One-Day Work Stoppage by Legal Aid Lawyers, NYLJ, Jan. 30, 1991, at 1, col 3.)
 
Petitioner and her colleagues were in the courtroom to represent clients. They were not spectators. The Court of *390 Appeals has emphasized the single-minded allegiance owed by an attorney to the cause of the client. (See, People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652.)
 
A Judge may or can be perturbed by irrelevant issues or by the impingement of a threat to the repose necessary for judicious consideration of the problems before her or him. The petitioner is an officer of the court. She should have assisted in rather than resisted attaining that end.
 
The majority here assumes that the Judge was concerned with the offense to his sensibilities rather than with the due administration of justice. No such assumption can be made. That I would not have reacted as the Judge did and perhaps have made a poor quip as to whether “strike” was a baseball term and the season was over, is beside the point. I do not take seriously the in terrorem effect of the statement on the button.
 
However, the Judge must have decorum in the court, and must have counsel who are in the courtroom for court business. The client must know that the lawyer is there for him or her and not for an extraneous labor issue.
 
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the Heaven.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1.) It also applies to place, and the Judge had a right to rule that the button was not, with its comment, in the proper place at the proper time.
 
I would deny and dismiss the petition, without costs. I would, of course, allow the intervention by the union.
 
Carro, J., concurs with Asch, J.; Wallach, J., concurs in a separate opinion; Kupferman, J. P., dissents in part in a separate opinion.
 
Application for a writ of prohibition granted, without costs. *391
Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.