One of the most influential figures in African American life between the two world wars was Charles Hamilton Houston. A scholar and lawyer, he dedicated his life to freeing his people from the bonds of racism. Houston played a significant role in dismantling the Jim Crow laws, which earned him the title "The Man Who Killed Jim Crow".
Charles Houston grew up in a middle-class family in Washington, D.C. His father, William Le Pre Houston, was an attorney, and his mother, Mary Hamilton Houston, a seamstress.
Charles Houston with his Father and Mother
Houston enrolled at Amherst College in Massachusetts, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and was one of six valedictorians in 1915. Determined to be a lawyer like his father, Houston taught English for a couple of years back in Washington in order to save enough money to attend Harvard Law School. Houston noticed while teaching, that blacks had not advanced meaningfully in the past 20 years and were becoming increasingly victimized by segregation in the public and private sectors.
As the U.S. entered World War I, Houston joined the then racially segregated U.S. Army as an officer and was sent to France. Houston was an artillery officer in France. He witnessed and endured the racial prejudice inflicted on black soldiers. These encounters fueled his determination to use the law as an instrument of social change.
Lieutenant Houston in Artillery Unit, World War
Houston returned to the U.S. in 1919 and attended Harvard Law School. He was a member of the Harvard Law Review and graduated cum laude. Houston was also a member of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. He received his JD from Harvard in 1923 and that same year was awarded a Sheldon Traveling Fellowship to study at the University of Madrid. When he returned to Washington to join his father’s law firm, he began taking on civil rights cases. He was admitted to the Washington, DC bar in 1924.
William Houston practiced law in Washington, D.C., for more than four decades, and taught legal office management at Howard University’s law school.
Howard University School of Law: Preparing for Struggle
Mordecai Johnson, the first African-American president of Howard University, named Charles Houston to head the law school in 1929. Houston brought an ambitious vision to the school, he set out to train attorneys who would become civil rights advocates. At the time, courses were offered only part-time and in the evening. Houston created an accredited, full-time program with an intensified civil rights curriculum. In Houston's capacity as Dean, he had a direct influence on nearly one-quarter of all the black lawyers in the United States, including former student Thurgood Marshall. Houston transformed a second-rate law school into a first class institution that churned out generations of brilliant black lawyers. His determination to train world-class lawyers who would lead the fight against racial injustice gave African Americans an invaluable weapon in the civil rights struggle.
Howard Law School Course Syllabus
Houston diversified the course offerings and made sure students received more rigorous training for work in the field of civil rights.
This 1931 memorandum from Houston asked all law school staff to provide an overview of their courses and stated his intention to strengthen the curriculum.
Original HU Law School Building
This row house in downtown Washington was the home of the Howard University law school when Charles Houston was dean. He strengthened the school’s academic standards and instilled a sense of social mission. Under Houston, the law school graduated a group of highly effective civil rights lawyers, the most illustrious of whom was Thurgood Marshall.Professors at the law school plan a year of coursework.
Houston knew many of the foremost legal minds of his day and brought them to Howard as program advisors and speakers.
In this photograph he poses with Mordecai Johnson, president of the university, and Clarence Darrow, the famed lawyer who defended the theory of evolution in the Scopes trial in 1925.
Charles Houston arguing a case in court
Houston continued to argue cases in court and work for equality in the legal community during his years as dean of Howard’s law school. When the American Bar Association refused to admit African American attorneys, he helped found the National Bar Association, an all-black organization, in 1925.
A New Legal Team at the NAACP
In 1934 Charles Houston left the Howard University School of Law to head the Legal Defense Committee of the NAACP in New York City. Seeking out bright, dedicated attorneys to join the mission, he built an interracial staff that defended victims of racial injustice. Among the lawyers recruited was Thurgood Marshall, Houston’s star student from Howard’s law school.
In July 1938 policy disagreements and health problems caused Houston to relinquish the leadership of the NAACP legal committee to Thurgood Marshall. Summing up Houston’s contribution to the struggle against segregation and racism, Marshall later remarked, “We owe it all to Charlie.”
Through his work at the NAACP, Houston played a role in nearly every civil rights case before the Supreme Court between 1930 and Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Houston's plan to attack and defeat Jim Crow segregation by demonstrating the inequality in the "separate but equal" doctrine from the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision as it pertained to public education in the United States was the masterstroke that brought about the landmark Brown decision. In Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1939), Houston argued that it was unconstitutional for Missouri to exclude blacks from the state’s university law school when, under the “separate but equal” provision, no comparable facility for blacks existed within the state.
Houston’s efforts to dismantle the legal theory of “separate but equal” came to fruition after his death in 1950 with the historic Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, which prohibited segregation in public schools.
In the documentary "The Road to Brown", Hon. Juanita Kidd Stout described Houston's strategy,
"When he attacked the "separate but equal" theory his real thought behind it was that "All right, if you want it separate but equal, I will make it so expensive for it to be separate that you will have to abandon your separateness." And so that was the reason he started demanding equalization of salaries for teachers, equal facilities in the schools and all of that."
Houston took a movie camera across South Carolina to document the inequalities between African-American and white education.
Then, as Special Counsel to the NAACP Houston dispatched Thurgood Marshall, Oliver Hill, and other young attorneys to work to equalize teachers' salaries.Houston led a team of African-American attorneys who used similar tactics to bring to an end the exclusion of African-Americans from juries across the South.
Charles Houston was one of the most important civil rights attorneys in American history. A lawyer, in his view, was an agent for social change—“either a social engineer or a parasite on society.”
Woman with slave girl in the mid 19th century, New Orleans.
The debate over reparations in the United States began even before slavery ended in 1865.
It continues today. The overwhelming majority of academics studying the issue have supported the calls for compensating black Americans for the centuries of chattel slavery and the 100 years of lynching, mob violence and open exclusion from public and private benefits like housing, health care, voting, political office and education that occurred during the Jim Crow era.
Despite this academic support, the nation is arguably no closer to consensus on this issue than it was 150 years ago. Not surprisingly, my research has shown that the idea remains widely unpopular with white Americans and overwhelmingly supported by African-Americans.
The example of a Founding Father
The debate over reparations began not long after the country was founded.
In 1790, Benjamin Franklin committed to instruct, employ and educate the children of those he had set free from bondage. Franklin saw this as a way to “promote the public good, and the happiness of these our hitherto too much neglected fellow-creatures.”
After slavery ended, Senator Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania proposed the reparations bill in 1867. It provided 40 acres of land to each adult male and to each female who was the head of a family. In addition, it called for funding to construct a homestead on the land. Stevens saw reparations as necessary to avoid racial hatred, inequality and strife.
Callie House, who was born enslaved, took up the charge in the 1890s under the auspices of the National Ex-Slave Mutual Relief, Bounty and Pension Association. She was arrested and ultimately imprisoned for her efforts in 1917. She was accused of raising money to support a cause that the government argued was so implausible as to constitute fraud. The organization had built a membership in the tens of thousands from 1897 to 1898, and continued to grow thereafter.
Scholars pick up the cause
Slave market in Atlanta, Georgia in 1864.
The case for reparations for African-Americans was taken up in academic and popular circles more than 40 years ago.
Yale Law Professor Boris Bitkker gave the first significant academic treatment of the issue in his book “The Case for Black Reparations” in 1972. The book followed the public demand for US$500 million in reparations from white churches and synagogues by civil rights leader James Foreman.
The issue remained on the political agenda of some black nationalist organizations like the the Nation of Islam and later the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations. It was also part of the research agenda of scholars such as Bernard Boxxil and Howard McGary. Boxill and McGary provided a basis in moral philosophy for black reparations that future scholars expanded into other disciplines.
In 2001, well-known anti-apartheid activist Randall Robinson published his book “The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks.” After its publication and popular success, a new group of academics began to give significant attention to the issue.
A popular movement also arose that sparked lawsuits relating to slavery and state-supported racial violence in Tulsa, Oklahoma (see Race Riots). All of the suits were dismissed by the courts, causing many to conclude that legislative action was the only possibility for redress.
The legislative approach had succeeded previously in one instance. Years earlier, the Florida legislature enacted legislation that made Florida the first and only state to provide reparations for state-supported mob violence against African-Americans during the 1923 Rosewood massacre.
A number of cities and universities began investigating their historic relationship to slavery. Several states issued apologies for slavery. The United States House of Representativesfollowed suit in 2008. The Senate joined in the following year. The 2014 article by Ta Ne-hisi Coates in The Atlantic represents a recent resurfacing of the issue.
My current research explores the commonality between the views held by the majority of American whites on this issue and the views of dominant ethnic and racial groups who oppose redress for injustices and harms inflicted in other countries.
Social hierarchy and reparations globally
Following World War II and the extermination of Roma peoples alongside Jews in death and concentration camps, the Federal Republic of Germany refused redress to the Roma at the same time it provided extensive reparations to Jewish victims.
Australia’s rejection of reparations in response to the theft of over 100,000 indigenous children over the course of 60 years under federal and state laws provides another example. Japan’s refusal to provide redress to the Korean woman forced into sexual slavery during World War II is one more.
In each case, the rejection of redress corresponds to the low social status of the victims. This reflects a phenomenon social psychologists identify as “social dominance.” It describes a state in which certain groups have a disproportionate share of a society’s “negative social value” such as incarceration, poverty and substandard housing. Others in the same society have a disproportionate share of “positive social value” including education, political power, wealth and quality housing.
Groups enjoying the benefits of social dominance often reject claims by subordinate groups, even when they are rooted in horrible and well-established historic injustices.
The reasons for rejecting these claims vary, but they ultimately flow from the perceived flawed character of the group members. Following World War II, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer identified the Roma as a “race of criminals” who in no way deserved reparations. In Australia, former Prime Minister John Howard rejected reparations based on the idea that “contemporary Australians should not be held responsible for mistakes of the past.” An interesting position in light of the continuation of the practice into the 1970s.
A ledger recording the sale of slaves in Charleston, South Carolina.
In Japan, the claim was made that the issue of the “Korean comfort women” was settled at the end of the war by the agreement to end hostilities. It is worth noting that in Germany and Australia, both groups had disproportionately high incarceration and poverty rates and were broadly viewed as having cultural and moral deficits. In Japan, a similar view is illustrated by the recent remarks of a government official that the victims of the years of enslavement were actually Korean prostitutes who “volunteered.”
Uprooting racial subordination in America
In the same way, white Americans' rejection of reparations has little to do with the oft-repeated challenges that “my family did not own slaves” or that “the debt was paid in the blood of the Union and Confederate soldiers.”
African-Americans fall at the bottom of America’s racial and social hierarchy. That reality has routinely and popularly been explained as a result of their inferiority. Initially the claim was rooted in genetics. Today it is based primarily on a theory of cultural deficiency.
Until these ideological bases of racial subordination are acknowledged and rejected, no “case for reparations” will convince the majority of white Americans that reparation are due African-Americans. A clear example of this can be found in the hundreds of comments to my recent New York Times editorial on the issue. The comments reflect the negative views of African-Americans held by many readers as well as an intense emotional rejection of reparations.
My proposal looks at slavery and the Jim Crow era separately. I draw the distinction to prevent the memory of the enslaved from being overshadowed by the more recent injustices of the Jim Crow era. I believe each group of victims warrants specific attention and an appropriate response.
Compensatory reparations should be limited to the harms of the Jim Crow era.
For slavery, I suggest that reparations take the form of monuments, museums, memorials and educational programs that are currently lacking in this country. One early step would be the creation of commissions at the state and local level that would identify the enslaved, their owners, and any role they played in the development of the state and its industries. This information would be used along with existing research and funded grants to develop appropriate projects to honor the enslaved and to demarcate the contributions they made.
A comparable examination should be made at the federal level to note persons of national significance. In light of the centuries-long history of slavery that took place here, we have a great deal to learn and illuminate about this aspect of our shared history.
This approach provides the focus needed on the lives of the enslaved, their humanity, and their indispensable contribution to America’s growth and development. At the same time, the proposal attends to the survivors of the governmental abuses inflicted over the course of 100 years following slavery’s end who remain without recognition or redress.
Professor Carlton Waterhouse has served at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law since 2010. He is nationally recognized for his work on environmental justice and is known internationally for his research and writing on reparations for historic injustices and state human rights violations. His views have been published in the Wall Street Journal online and his articles have appeared in prestigious law journals including the Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, the Fordham Environmental Law Review, and the Rutgers Law Review. He attended college at the Pennsylvania State University where he studied engineering and the ethics of technology before deciding to pursue a legal education. He is a graduate of Howard University School of Law, where he was admitted as one of its distinctive Merit Fellows. While in law school, he was selected for an internship with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law where he participated in the preliminary formation and development of the Civil Rights Act of 1992. Professor Waterhouse currently serves as a member of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the United States Civil Rights Commission
After law school, he began his career as an attorney with the United States Environmental Protection Agency where he served in the Office of Regional Counsel in Atlanta, Georgia and the Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. At the EPA, he served as the chief counsel for the agency in several significant cases and as a national and regional expert on environmental justice, earning three of the Agency’s prestigious national awards. His responsibilities at the EPA included enforcement actions under numerous environmental statutes, the development of regional and national policy on Environmental Justice and the application of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the EPA permitting actions. Following a successful nine-year career with the EPA, Professor Waterhouse enrolled in a Ph.D. program in the Emory University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences as one of the select George W. Woodruff Fellows. The previous year, he graduated with honors from the Candler School of Theology at Emory University with a Master of Theological Studies degree. In 2006, he graduated from Emory with a Ph.D. in Social Ethics.
Congratulations to Kimberly Gardner on her outstanding primary victory!
Last month, we posted, "We Need Black Prosecutors". The voters of St. Louis decided the same thing and elected Kimberly Gardner as the democratic nominee and the next presumptive St. Louis City Circuit Attorney. In a city that is majority African-American, it is of extreme importance that St. Louis is finally positioned to have it's first Black Circuit Attorney. Ms. Gardner will become the most powerful person in the St. Louis City criminal justice system.
When a kid commits a crime, the justice system has a choice: prosecute to the full extent of the law, or take a step back and ask if saddling young people with criminal records is the right thing to do every time.
"It's easier to build strong children than to repair broken men"
Adam Foss, a former assistant district attorney in Suffolk County, Massachusetts discussed how prosecutors can change lives. He is among the type of black prosecutors we had in mind when we wrote our post last month. Below is a video of a TED talk Mr. Foss gave about the power of the prosecutor. At the beginning of his talk, he asked the audience a few simple questions that drove home a very powerful point that too many prosecutors miss.
What makes Ms. Gardner's victory even more amazing is the fact that she won dispite the fact the neither the St. Louis Police Officers Association or the Ethical Society of Police (St. Louis' black police union) endorsed her. Both unions endorsed other candidates. As a result, Ms. Gardner doesn't have any political obligation to police officers.
I've never had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Gardner, but the limited interviews and news clips I have seen, indicates she shares some of the same sentiments as Mr. Foss.
I believe Ms. Gardner will be a fine circuit attorney dedicated to her new position and will be a refreshing change from the current administration.
However, there is no greater protection than personally understanding your rights. It's still important to educate yourself about the law and how our court system works.
Two years ago this week, Eric Garner died in Staten Island after officers wrestled him to the ground, pinned him down and applied a fatal chokehold. The man who filmed the police killing of Eric Garner, Ramsey Orta, is now heading to jail for four years on unrelated charges—making him the only person at the scene of Garner’s killing who will serve jail time. Last week Orta took a plea deal on weapons and drug charges. He says he has been repeatedly arrested and harassed by cops since he filmed the fatal police chokehold nearly two years ago. We speak to Eric Garner’s daughter, Erica Garner, and Matt Taibbi, award-winning journalist with Rolling Stone magazine. He’s working on a book on Eric Garner’s case.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Video made by Laron Murray and The Fortune Society media team featuring the final words of Eric Garner over John Coltrane’s "Alabama." This isDemocracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, we turn now to another police killing, this one here in New York. Two years ago this week, Eric Garner died in Staten Island after officers wrestled him to the ground, pinned him down and applied a fatal chokehold.
POLICE OFFICER 1: Put your hand behind your head!
ERIC GARNER: I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe!
RAMSEY ORTA: Once again, police beating up on people.
POLICE OFFICER 2: Back up. Back up and get on those steps.
RAMSEY ORTA: OK.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The man who filmed the police killing of Eric Garner, Ramsey Orta, is now heading to jail for four years on unrelated charges—making him the only person at the scene of Garner’s killing who will serve jail time. Last week, Orta took a plea deal on weapons and drug charges. He says he has been repeatedly arrested and harassed by cops since he filmed the fatal police chokehold nearly two years ago.
AMY GOODMAN: Eric Garner’s death spurred protests over New York Police Department’s use of excessive force, its policy of cracking down on low-level offenses. Eric Garner’s family reached a $5.9 million settlement with New York City last July.
To talk more about where the case stands today and the fact that Ramsey Orta will be going to jail, and also Bernie Sanders’ concession to Hillary Clinton—Eric Garner’s daughter, Erica Garner, who joins us today, campaigned with Bernie Sanders. He had a TV campaign ad centered on her story. We’re also joined by Matt Taibbi, the award-winning journalist with Rolling Stone magazine, working on a book on Eric Garner’s case, the author of a number of books, including The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! I’m so sorry, Erica, as you sit here to see video after video of police killing culminating right now, and once again seeing the video of your father gasping and saying, "I can’t breathe." But you have been speaking out publicly about this for almost the full two years. You haven’t stopped.
ERICA GARNER: Yes. I’ve protested. I’ve spoke on panels. I traveled across this nation. I exhaust all avenues. I even endorsed Bernie Sanders to get my message out. And it’s like we keep having a conversation I exhausted for two years. And, you know, how much talking do we need to have? The Black Lives Matter movement been very compassionate, patient, and basically begging the nation. You know, we are under attack as black people. We are being gunned down every day. And these officers are not being held accountable. And no charges, from Tamir Rice to my dad to Freddie Gray, you know, has been.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And your reaction when, obviously, the events last week—two more incidents, two more deaths, caught on video, and yet nothing seems to be happening?
ERICA GARNER: No. All I’m hearing is conversation. We need legislation put into place. We need a special prosecutor. They’re just now using the special crimes prosecutor for a guy last week named [Delrawn Small]. And that was the undercover police officer who shot a black man.
AMY GOODMAN: Wayne Isaacs was the off-duty police officer who shot Delrawn Small.
ERICA GARNER: Yes. And it’s like, you know, we need some type of legislation put into place. We need a special prosecutor. Governor Cuomo put that as an executive order temporarily after my father passed away, and no one is talking about it. You know, no one is trying to make it permanent.
AMY GOODMAN: The reason we know exactly what happened in your father’s death is because of that videotape. The man who filmed the police killing of your father, Eric Garner, Ramsey Orta, is now headed to jail for four years on unrelated charges—making him the only person at the scene of Garner’s killing who will serve jail time. So, last week, Ramsey Orta took a plea deal on weapons and drug charges. He has said he’s been repeatedly arrested and harassed by police. Earlier this year, Ramsey Orta came to Democracy Now!, and we talked to him.
RAMSEY ORTA: Clearly, when they jumped out on me, that was the first thing that came out his mouth: "You filmed us, so now we’re filming you," because I asked, "Why do you have your cameras out?" When they jumped out on me, they had their phones in their hand, instead of a gun or anything, from my knowledge, was supposed to be in their hand. So I asked him: Why is he filming me? And he said, "Because you filmed us."
AMY GOODMAN: So that is Ramsey Orta speaking on Democracy Now! The significance of what he did? Soon after your dad was killed, at a memorial service that was held, there’s actual applause during the service for one man, for Ramsey Orta, who was sitting in the audience.
ERICA GARNER: Yes, it showed the courage to do it, and also he told the whole world, like he showed the whole world, you know, what exactly went on. If there wasn’t no video, you know, we wouldn’t know, like, he was killed. And we don’t have that from the police department. We don’t have transparency. I knew body cameras would be a bad idea if it wasn’t a federal legislation or some type of thing that says if you mess with this camera, if you turn it off or if anything goes wrong with this camera, you know, you will be held accountable. And now you’re hearing cases like the camera fell off, like in Alton Sterling case, or, you know, it’s basically our word against theirs.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Matt Taibbi, I wanted to bring you in. You’ve been doing research specifically on the Eric Garner case and trying to look at this whole issue of police killings. This whole issue of, as we’ve seen, of the—in the Alton Sterling case, where somebody does do independent filming, and they’re confiscated; meanwhile, the police cameras fall off—the importance of these cameras and the battle over cameras?
MATT TAIBBI: I mean, it’s critically important that citizens make these recordings. I think the Eric Garner case is a classic example of why this is necessary, because reports later surfaced that the official police report later that evening left out the fact that a chokehold had been used. And so, had there been no film of what happened, we might never have heard of this case. It would have gone down probably as an accident that took place, where a person who was in bad health simply gave out in the middle of a routine arrest. But we—you know, because we have that video, we saw exactly what happened. So it’s critically important that people make these videos. And I think what’s going on now is that everybody has cellphones, and for the first time people are seeing how common this is.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk, Erica Garner, about what’s happening now with the federal investigation? I mean, the police officer in the case was not charged. You did have a lawsuit, the family had a lawsuit, that was settled for $5.9 million. But the federal investigation, what is that? And this is two years now.
ERICA GARNER: Yes. It’s like the DOJ is dragging their feet. A couple of months ago, I sat in a civil liberties panel with representatives from the DOJ. And I kindly asked them, you know, face to face, as we was on the panel, you know, "What is taking so long? How come my family didn’t get no answers, any type of updates on my father’s case?" And they told me, you know, they will answer my question soon. Here we are almost to the two-year anniversary, and I hear—I see an article out about, you know, how two federal prosecutors from the DA in Brooklyn and two prosecutors from Washington is fighting over whether or not it’s enough evidence to go on. You know, the Brooklyn side is saying, "Well, we don’t have enough evidence," but the people from Washington are saying, "Well, we do. We want to push forward." And it’s up to Loretta Lynch to make that decision.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And even some of the basic information, two years later, is not out. For instance, the past record of the officer involved, Pantaleo, in terms of his excessive force decisions in—previously. What’s happened with that?
ERICA GARNER: No. I put in countless FOIA requests. Matt Taibbi helped me with some of the letters. And the response I got was letters stuck underneath my door or in my mailbox from the NYPD telling me I have to ask Daniel Pantaleo for permission to look at his records and that what I’m asking for is unwarranted. What can be more warranted than his daughter asking, just simply asking about what complaints was made against this man?
AMY GOODMAN: And, Matt Taibbi, if you could talk more about this and this major piece the Times did about how—this battle that’s going on within the Justice Department about whether to even continue with this investigation into the Eric Garner death?
MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, if I could just follow up quickly, though, on this issue of the personnel records with—of Daniel Pantaleo. This has been a fight that’s been going on for two years. The Legal Aid Society last year filed suit and actually got a judge to order the Civilian Complaint Review Board to disclose very limited information about basically just how many substantiated abuse complaints there were in Pantaleo’s file. And the city at that point could have just released the information, but they chose to appeal, and they’re fighting this basically to the death. It’s now two years. It’s probably going to be three years before this is resolved. And the law is really not on the civilian side. It actually says that you need the express written permission of the police officer to obtain personnel records. There’s Section 50-a of the New York Civil Rights Code. It provides extraordinary protections to police officers. So, it’s extremely difficult for somebody, you know, even a family member of a victim, to get to those records. It’s almost impossible. And that’s one of the things that’s played out in this case.
AMY GOODMAN: Erica Garner, I wanted to get your response to Bernie Sanders now conceding that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee. You campaigned with Bernie Sanders. He made a TV commercial with you as the subject, taking on the issue of police brutality. What are your thoughts today, how your story, what happened to your dad, the issues you care about—are you also throwing your support to Hillary Clinton?
ERICA GARNER: I’ll throw my support towards any nominee, presidential nominee, that’s going to show me what the DOJ will look like, what they’re going to do about the crisis that’s going on in America right now, and that’s going to stand behind the chokehold bill. Letitia James has been putting that bill in for a while. She hasn’t gotten any support from anyone and—any other elected—
AMY GOODMAN: The Manhattan borough president.
ERICA GARNER: —any elected officials. And it’s like, you know, right now, every elected official in the House right now is up for election. And, you know, I say we refuse our vote until they hear our issues and fight for our issues.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And by chokehold bill, for those who are not aware, could you explain?
ERICA GARNER: This chokehold bill will make it illegal, all the way illegal, to—for the police officers to choke anyone. It’s in the policies of the New York Police Department policies, but it’s not actually a law.
AMY GOODMAN: According to The New York Times, the last time the federal government brought a deadly force case against an officer in New York was 1998, almost 20 years ago, when Francis Livoti stood trial, eventually was convicted of charges of choking to death a young Bronx man named Anthony Baez. I want to thank you both for being us. Erica Garner, even on this second anniversary of your father’s death, our condolences to you and your family. And thanks so much, Matt Taibbi, for being with us and pursuing this case for Rolling Stone and for your book.
That does it for our broadcast. After the conventions—we’ll be broadcasting two-hour specials every day from Cleveland next week and then the Democratic convention in Philadelphia—I’ll be doing a convention wrap-up at Provincetown Town Hall on the 29th of July and Martha’s Vineyard on the 30th.
Republished with permission under license by Democracy Now.
Television's Judge Joe Brown, who served a five day prison sentence this summer, stated that jails are slave warehouses. Brown was found in contempt when he reportedly became verbally abusive to court workers and ignored Juvenile Court Magistrate Harold Horne's warning to calm down. Watch the video of his comments concerning that incident on our corrupt judges page.
During an interview he presented a very interesting take on mass incarceration. He acknowledges systemic racism and discrimination while finding many of the victims of mass incarceration complicit in there own destruction. Brown points out that most people in jail did it to themselves by pleading guilty, most likely because of plea bargains. He touches on Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, and Blacks not exercising political power correctly
He invoked W.E.B. Du Bois' talented tenth concept and expressed the view that part of the problem is that many of the most talented people in the black community do give back and are only concerned only about themselves.
I realized everyone needs to know how to navigate the court system while witnessing people being financially ruined by predatory lawsuits and elderly people at risk of being homeless because of minor building code violations. Courts have the power to ruin your life. If you're not wealthy, you should take a moment and learn more about the law.
A 60 Minutes segment about Glenn Ford demonstrates the bias, indifference and callousness that occurs everyday in courtrooms.
The original prosecutor, Marty Stroud, apologized and admitted that he and the justice system perpetrated a horrible injustice upon Mr. Ford. However, Stroud admitted at the time of Mr. Ford's conviction, that he and his team celebrated the victory.
The current prosecutor, Dale Cox does not believe an injustice was committed against Glenn Ford. He reasoned since Mr. Ford was not executed and freed after 30 years, the system worked. Cox stated, "I'm not in the compassion business, none of us as prosecutors or defense lawyers are in the compassion business. I think the ministry is in the compassion business. We're in the legal business. So to suggest that somehow what has happened to Glenn Ford is abhorrent, yes, it's unfair. But it's not illegal. And it's not even immoral. It just doesn't fit your perception of fairness."
We Need to Talk About an Injustice
Bryan A. Stevenson is an American lawyer, social justice activist, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and a clinical professor at New York University School of Law. Stevenson has gained national acclaim for his work challenging bias against the poor and minorities in the criminal justice system.
The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. – John Adams
About 200 municipal judges, prosecutors and court administrators met in secret Friday, August 14, 2015, at UMSL to plan for Missouri court reform changes forced by Senate Bill 5, the legislation that takes effect Aug. 28.
Meetings held by public officials, especially when they concern issues as important as municipal court reform which has been the subject of public outcry and protest which gained national attention invites suspicion. It has already been well documented that St. Louis area municipal courts have been used to generate revenue and abuse rights. However, this is nothing new, municipal courts have operated this way for decades. Professor T.E. Lauer, a law professor at the University of Missouri published, "Prolegomenon to Municipal Court Reform in Missouri" a stinging indictment of the municipal courts in 1966. Professor Lauer stated in his argument:
"It must be recognized, however, that in bringing about this reform it may be necessary to overcome substantial resistance on the part of municipalities which will be reluctant to lose their power over offenses defined by state law. Not only would this reform diminish the importance of the municipal court, but more importantly it would cause a loss of revenue to municipalities, in that municipal fines, which are now paid into the municipal treasury, would become state fines to be paid to the school fund."
Missouri lawyers, judges and court personnel certainly knew the greater St. Louis municipal court system was an issue. I'm certain some Missouri Circuit Court, Missouri Court of Appeals and Missouri Supreme Court judges were at one-time municipal court judges or represented clients in municipal court and saw first hand the problems. The fact that constitutional rights of poor and minority defendants were routinely violated was known to most lawyers who after all are officers of the court. However, the vast majority of those court officers remained silent instead of bringing it to the public's attention. It appears that very few lawyers lodged formal complaints, and many attorneys profited from an unfair court system resulting in an increase in clients and fees. It's unfortunate that it took a protest movement and international attention before anyone took serious action.
In 2013, the municipal courts of St. Louis City and County collected $61,152,087 in fines and fees. During that same time, the combined total of court fines and fees collected by Missouri municipal courts was $132,032,351.63. This means that the municipal courts in the St. Louis region accounted for 46% of all fines and fees collected statewide, despite being home to only 22% of Missourians.
St. Louis area municipalities have most certainly become dependent upon the revenue generated by their municipal courts. The judges, prosecutors, and court administrators mostly likely, directly or indirectly, receive their pay, raises or bonuses based on the amount of revenue generate. Reduced municipal court revenue would probably result in job losses, which of course those in attendance at the closed meeting, would not want to fall victim to. St. Louis area municipalities have a vested interest to keep their courts because municipal courts can generate revenue in others ways besides traffic tickets. Municipalities have already stepped up enforcement of tall grass, housing code, and various other types of municipal ordinance violations.
Holding a closed meeting naturally makes people wonder if this was a strategy session to exchange ideas how to keep the revenue from municipal courts flowing. After August 28th, there will certainly be increasing municipal court revenue from fines other than traffic violations. Even if a municipality does not increase the number of violation citations, they could simply increase the standard fine from say $100 to $500.
Until people educate themselves and become familiar and active within our "justice" system, justice will remain a concept unavailable to many. If you have not already done so, become familiar with the ordinances of your municipality. Browse around this site to learn how you can help yourself with certain legal issues without having to pay for an attorney.
On the one year anniversary of Michael Brown's killing, keep in mind that before the militarized response to the Ferguson Protesters occurred, ignorance was weaponized in and around the St. Louis area. Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge) and is not used here as an insult to anyone. Various police departments and municipal courts used people's ignorance of their rights and how to properly defend those rights in court as weapons against the very people they were sworn to protect and serve.
As the discussions about Michael Brown's death continued, the fact that people were being victimized not only by the police but by the municipal courts began to be reported. After I lost my job and ran into my own legal issues, I was shocked to see how blatant rights were being violated within our local courts. The new municipal court reforms put in place are a good start, but it's just a matter of time before municipalities start implementing new strategies. As time passes, new issues will dominate the headlines and memories of specific details about police and municipal courts will begin to fade. The remedies normally available through the courts are usually too expensive because of the high cost of attorneys, but you don't need an attorney to make the court system work for you.
Policing has changed and the reactions to excessive force by police has changed dramatically. Prior to Mike Brown's killing, police departments almost always stood by the side and defended cops accused of brutal acts and unjustified killing. That has now changed, at least when a video exists. Hopefully, there will come a day when a video is not required to bring justice against rogue cops. I am certain the vast majority of police are decent, honest and hard-working, but there are some that are not and that factor coupled with the blue code of silence wreak havoc on certain communities. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, responding to comments about a University of Cincinnati Police Officer, during a conversation about with Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd conceded police do protect each other from criticism no matter what, as do other professions.
Americans have short attention spans and memories. Municipalities will most likely start violating rights again using new creative unfamiliar methods and ignorance will once again be weaponized and used against people. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. However, most people are only vaguely familiar with the law; even lawyers only know a small portion of the law. There is a principle which is sometimes put in the form of a rule of evidence, that everyone is presumed to know the law. That principal is based on the difficulty to prove that a person did, in fact, know the law. Additionally, many people would purposefully not make themselves aware of particular laws to preserve their ignorance. As long as people remain ignorant about their rights and how to invoke and protect them, that ignorance of the law will certainly be taken advantage of and weaponized not only by unscrupulous governments but by predatory businesses and institutions.
Just as slavemasters used ignorance against slaves to exploit them, St. Louis area municipalities have used ignorance of state law, legal procedure and constitutional protections to exploit and oppress people. Many St. Louis municipalities created illegal laws with the sole purpose of creating revenue. Just because an ordinance exists doesn't mean it's valid; ordinances and other laws sometimes get struck down as being void, illegal or unconstitutional. Most municipalities know that many people won't even bother to read or research the law.
You don't need a lawyer to discover what the law says, the law is available for everyone to read. Prior to my job loss, I made a pretty decent salary and could easily afford to pay an attorney to take care of traffic tickets. For example, I paid attorneys as little as $30 to handle traffic violations. Bellefontaine Neighbors has a speed trap on eastbound Lewis & Clark (Hwy 367) just past Hwy 270 overpass, where the speed drops from 55 to 45. There's a sign posted with the reduced speed limit about halfway on the overpass. A truck in the right lane blocked the posted 45mph sign from my view. A traffic cop was positioned just past the overpass and I got caught by that trap. I found an attorney on Craigslist, paid that attorney $30 to have the violation reduced to a moving violation, but I had to pay the City of Bellefontaine a fine of about $200.
However, even a $100 red light ticket fine became a major burden after my steady income was gone. There are a lot of organizations that provide free legal assistance, their resources are limited and they can only help so many people. When my legal issues arose, I could not afford an attorney, and the legal assistance agencies I contacted couldn't help. I was facing the loss of tens of thousands of dollars, so I learned how to effectively defend myself. This site contains valuable free information for you to help yourself and additional information is constantly being added. No one will ever fight as hard for you as you will, don't get caught in the trap of being dependent on someone else to do for you what you can learn to do for yourself. Even if you can currently afford to pay for legal services; keep in mind that may not always be the case. During the very time when I was most vulnerable and need assistance the most was when I could not afford legal services. Fortunately, I was able to research the law for myself, but most people I witnessed in court on their own lost; your ignorance is their power.
Skewed statics, policial, institutional and media spin all contribute to confusing the issues and create or increase ignorance. One of Adolf Hilter's closest advisers, Joseph Goebbels, stated; If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself. To overcome ignorance, you must first learn to see through the layers of lies to first understand what the actual issues are and then formulate a strategy to overcome them.
Phillip Agnew, with Dream Defenders, gives a near perfect response to the systematic oppression of black people during the PBS program America After Ferguson and exemplifies what can happen when a person is no longer held captive to ignorance.
See the full-length PBS program America After Ferguson, which includes additional statements by Phillip Agnew not shown in the brief clip above. Tim Wise during his lecture on the Legacy of Institutionalized Racism addresses the topic of responsibility brought up in America After Ferguson.
The News 4 Investigates documentary, “The Injustice System: Cops, Courts and Greedy Politicians", aired yesterday June 26, 2015, and points out many of the flaws with our justice system. It's not enough to know the problem exist, people caught up in an unjust system must be taught how to navigate their way out. At the moment, a lot of attention is being given to this issue, but like all issues, over time people will forget and the system will eventually figure out new ways to strip rights and cash from its victims.
Take the time to look around this site and become familiar with the tools you need to defend yourself. Your rights do not evaporate simply because you can't afford an attorney, but most people don't know how to invoke their rights. If you can't afford an attorney you have two choices; continue being a victim and having you hard earned money stripped away from you or take some time and learn about our court system and the rules that protect you. Decide whether you want to miss a few hours of television programming and develop knowledge that may help you the rest of your life or become a helpless victim to a system that will surely invent new ways to as my departed grandmother in law would say "rob you without a gun".
The Friendship Nine was a group of African American men who went to jail after staging a sit-in at a segregated McCrory's lunch counter in Rock Hill, South Carolina in 1961. The group gained nationwide attention because they followed an untried strategy called "Jail, No Bail", which lessened the huge financial burden civil rights groups were facing as the sit-in movement spread across the South. They became known as the Friendship Nine because eight of the nine men were students at Rock Hill's Friendship Junior College. They are sometimes referred to as the Rock Hill Nine.
Today, after 54 years of being labled as "Felons", The Friendship Nine were officially exonerated in court. Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "Justice too long delayed, is justice denied". Although, I am glad that these men's names have finally been cleared, the fact that it took so long to do so is a complete failure of justice. Most likely in the future, say 20, 30 or even 50 years from now, there will most likely be a story of someone wrongly convicted in 2015 finally getting justice.
There are too many stories of men, some of whom have spent half of their lifetime in jail, because they have been wrongly convicted of crimes. Learn to fight for your rights and get justice today, so people won't have to celebrate 50 years from now that justice has finally reached you.
