Mediaboss Marketing

The United States justice system is full of landmark cases that have shaped how we understand and apply the law. Lets explore 10 of the most critical court cases that changed the justice system.

Related: Top 10 Times The US Government Took Inanimate Objects To Court

In 2015, Edward Caniglia had an argument with his wife, where he allegedly placed a gun on the table and told his wife to shoot him. Rather than comply, she left and called the police, asking them to complete a welfare check.

Caniglia was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation, stipulating that the authorities would not take his guns. But police entered Caniglias home without a warrant and seized his firearms.

Caniglia sued the police, arguing that the warrantless search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The police claimed that they acted under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allowed them to conduct a search and seizure for non-criminal purposes.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Caniglia, stating that the community caretaking exception did not apply to a private home and that the police violated his Fourth Amendment.

The Courts decision reaffirms the importance of Fourth Amendment protections for private homes and personal property, limiting the scope of the community caretaking exception and strengthening the requirement for police to obtain a warrant before entering a private home.

In 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering. Gideon could not afford a lawyer and was ultimately convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

Gideon petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. Gideon argued that he should have been provided with a lawyer, even though he could not afford one.

The Supreme Court agreed with Gideon, ruling that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel for defendants who cannot afford one.

Gideon v. Wainwright established a right to counsel for all criminal defendants, regardless of their ability to pay. The ruling expanded criminal defendants rights and helped ensure that poor and marginalized individuals are not unfairly targeted or punished.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested and interrogated by police concerning a rape and kidnapping. During the interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. However, the cops never told him about his right to remain silent or his ability to have an attorney present.

The prosecution used his confession as evidence, and he was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

Mirandas lawyers appealed, arguing that the police had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by not informing him of those rights.

The Court ruled that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel before interrogation. Additionally, any statements obtained in violation of these rights cannot be used against the individual.

Miranda v. Arizona strengthened protections for criminal defendants and established clear guidelines for the police during interrogations. It is a crucial safeguard against coerced confessions and other abuses of power.

In 2007, Tarahrick Edwards was convicted of armed robbery and rape. Edwards appealed his conviction, arguing that the court minimized minority representation, allowing only one black individual to sit on the jury.

One juror voted to acquit Edwards, but due to Louisiana non-unanimous jury law, he was sentenced to life in prison. Edwards challenged his conviction stating that Louisianas non-unanimous jury conviction laws were unconstitutional.

After repeated attempts to overturn his conviction, the Supreme Court stated that non-unanimous jury verdicts could not be applied retroactively.

Edwards v. Vannoy clarified the retroactive application of the law in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020). The decision allows individuals convicted by non-unanimous juries to seek relief and challenge their convictions as long as the case happens after 2020.

In 1967, William Furman, a black man, was arrested for murder after he broke into a home and killed the homeowner. Furman was convicted, and the trial judge imposed the death penalty. However, under Georgia law at the time, the death penalty was not mandatory for anyone convicted of murder, leaving the sentencing to the discretion of the judge or jury.

Furman appealed his sentence to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Georgias death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory application. Specifically, Furman argued that the death penalty was more likely to be imposed on defendants who were black, poor, or otherwise disadvantaged.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that Georgias death penalty statute, as well as the death penalty statutes of other states, violated the Eighth Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court stated the death penalty was being imposed with no standards to guide its application and that it was unconstitutional.

The Court did not, however, hold that the death penalty itself was unconstitutional. Instead, it held that how it was being imposed was unconstitutional.

Furman v. Georgia forced states to revise their capital punishment statutes to include safeguards against discriminatory applications. In response, many states adopted new laws that required juries to consider mitigating factors before imposing the death penalty and provided an appellate review of death sentences.

In 1972, a group of burglars broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. The burglars were later connected to President Richard Nixons re-election campaign. Soon after, an investigation began into the administrations role in the break-in and the subsequent cover-up.

Special prosecutor Archibald Cox issued a subpoena for Nixon to release recordings of conversations that had taken place in the Oval Office. Nixon refused to comply with the subpoena, citing executive privilege and arguing that the tapes contained confidential information that would harm national security if released.

In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court held that Nixon had no authority to withhold evidence relevant to a criminal trial. The Court rejected Nixons claims of executive privilege, finding that while the president had a constitutional duty to protect national security, this duty did not give him the power to override the law or obstruct justice.

As a result of the decision, Nixon was forced to release the recordings, which contained incriminating evidence that ultimately led to his resignation.

The United States v. Nixon decision established that no one, not even the president, is above the law. The decision affirmed the judiciarys power to hold the executive branch accountable and require the release of evidence in criminal trials.

The case remains an important precedent for cases involving executive privilege and the separation of powers between branches of government.

In 1981, police officers in Los Angeles obtained a search warrant based on information from a reliable informant. However, the warrant was later found to be invalid due to a technical error.

Nonetheless, the officers searched Leons home and found drugs and other evidence of drug trafficking. Leon was charged with drug offenses.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court; they created a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which allows evidence to be used at trial even if the warrant was later found to be defective, as long as the police acted in good faith when obtaining the warrant.

Some have praised the decision in United States v. Leon as a necessary step to balance the need for law enforcement with the protection of individual rights. In contrast, others have criticized it as weakening the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In 1982, James Batson, a black man, was on trial for burglary and receiving stolen goods. During jury selection, the prosecutor used challenges to strike all four black potential jurors from the jury pool, leaving an all-white jury.

Batsons defense attorneys objected to the prosecutors use of peremptory challenges, arguing that it violated Batsons rights under the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. The trial court rejected the objection, and Batson was convicted and sentenced to prison.

On appeal, Batson argued that the prosecutors use of peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors based on race was unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutors use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based solely on their race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that a defendant has the right to a jury pool selected without regard to race and that challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors based on race or ethnicity.

Batson v. Kentucky established an important precedent for ensuring racial fairness in jury selection. It signaled a shift away from the historical practice of excluding jurors based on race, and it established clear guidelines for preventing discrimination in the jury selection process.

The ruling has been hailed as a significant step forward in the fight for racial equality in the criminal justice system. However, some critics argue that the Batson rule has been difficult to enforce and has not gone far enough in addressing issues of racial bias in the criminal justice system.

In 1960, the Civil Rights Movement placed a full-page ad in the New York Times that criticized the treatment of civil rights protesters in the South.

L. B. Sullivan, the city commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, sued the New York Times for defamation, claiming that the ad contained false statements about him and harmed his reputation. At trial, the jury awarded Sullivan $500,000 in damages.

The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling that the First Amendments protection of free speech and press extends to statements about public officials. Such officials must prove actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) to recover damages.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan has significantly impacted the freedom of the press and the ability of individuals to criticize public officials without fear of being sued for defamation. The actual malice standard set by the Court became an essential element of First Amendment law. It has been applied to a wide range of cases involving media coverage of public officials and matters of public concern.

In 2009, James Kahler shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters. Kahler was charged with capital murder, found guilty, and sentenced to death.

Kahlers defense team argued that he was not responsible for his actions due to his mental illness. However, the trial judge instructed the jury that mental illness alone was insufficient to negate intent or justify a lesser charge of second-degree murder.

Kahler appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judges instructions violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Kansas law prohibiting the use of mental illness as a defense to criminal charges did not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court noted that while mental illness can mitigate criminal sentencing, it does not negate the mens rea or intent required for a conviction.

The Court further held that the specific jury instructions given in Kahlers case did not violate his constitutional rights, as they did not preclude the consideration of his mental illness as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Some advocates have criticized the decision in Kahler v. Kansas, arguing that the ruling could discourage defendants from seeking help for their mental health issues and lead to more severe punishments for those with mental illnesses.

However, the decision also reflects a longstanding legal principle that criminal intent is a critical element of criminal law and that mental illness, while a mitigating factor, cannot excuse criminal behavior entirely.

View original post here:
Top 10 Court Cases That Changed the U.S. Justice System - Listverse

In a jammed media sphere littered with the crumbling shells of failed news sites, its hard to imagine a new one whose mission could really set it apart. Nevertheless, when Naftuli Moster, a former Hasid known for his tireless advocacy for improved secular education in the ultra-Orthodox community, asked me to help launch his new project, I jumped at the chance; I saw that contrary to King Solomons famous pronouncement, this was, after all, something new under the sun:

Shtetl.org, focused on New Yorks rapidly growing ultra-Orthodox community, will be the first such news outlet not under the control of an established rabbinical leader or sect from within that community. With aspirations to meet the highest standards of traditional journalism, this new English-language publications aim is to report without fear or favor a mission that promises to at once shake up, inform and illuminate an insular civic sector whose growing presence and clout reverberate far beyond its redoubts in Brooklyn neighborhoods such as Borough Park and Williamsburg, and upstate New York towns such as Monsey and Kiryas Joel.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews dressed for the Passover holiday stand outside the New Jersey Center for the Performing Arts (NJPAC), April 24, 2019, in Newark, N.J. (Kathy Willens/AP)

Still, unlike Moster, I am myself a secular Jew; one who spent many years as news and investigations editor at The Forward, a well-known liberal media outlet steeped in secular Jewish identity, and as an investigative reporter for the Daily News. What could I possibly bring to the table?

For this, there is a backstory. It informs my own motivations and my hopes about what this new outlet can be.

By the time I turned 25, I had lived with Tibetan Buddhists in the Himalayas; an underground cell of Christian missionaries in Afghanistan, and with Sufis in Shiraz, Iran but until I knocked on a strangers door in the Maalot Dafna neighborhood of East Jerusalem, I had never met a Haredi Jew.

It was there, in 1978, that I met and befriended a chozer bteshuva, or returnee to faith, as formerly secular Jews are known the son of prominent Israeli academics I knew. A former left-wing activist, my new friend now lived in a Jerusalem community that sought to maintain the lifeways of the Eastern European ghetto. Taking me through his neighborhood of narrow streets with bearded men in black coats and women in sheitels and long skirts, he brought me to his class at Yeshiva Ohr Somayach, a still new institution at the time, funded by wealthy North American Jews and housed in a block-long building of gleaming white Jerusalem stone.

I was entranced enough, it turned out, to spend a good portion of my 10 months in Israel studying there and living in a community wholly foreign to anything Id previously encountered.

It was through Ohr Somayachs approach to teaching Scripture that I learned for the first time what close reading really meant a mode of critical engagement with texts quite unlike anything Id learned in high school or college. It was also my encounter with a formidable system of thought whose sexism and ethnic chauvinism shook me deeply. I ultimately turned in a different direction. But paradoxically, I owe to this confrontation in my mid-20s a sharpened mind and a greatly deepened sense of Jewish identity.

Women pushing strollers walk past the Yeshiva Kehilath Yakov School in the South Williamsburg neighborhood, April 9, 2019 in Brooklyn. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

During this sojourn, I lived in a community whose ethos of mutual support and solidarity taught me lessons that have stayed with me to this day. It has helped inform my faith in everything from the redistribution of wealth in programs like Social Security and Medicare, to my belief in the centrality of decency and compassion as the existential cornerstones of a viable polity.

At the same time, I was astonished at some of the conversations Id find myself in with brilliant men the yeshivas were all male whod grown up in this world. Amid complex legal discussions, they would simply stare at me blankly when Id make references in passing to: Chairman Mao; feudalism; antibodies; Neanderthals; Tahiti; Fidel Castro; the U.S. Constitutions Fourth Amendment, and Charles Darwin, to name but a few.

It wasnt until decades later that I understood why. Working as a reporter for prominent Jewish newspapers, I learned, to my surprise, that many ultra-Orthodox Jews never looked at those papers, much less non-Jewish news outlets. Nor was television permitted in their homes. Haredi rabbis condemn these outside news sources, instead authorizing only news sources they or their factions control, directly or indirectly.

These publications offer a strictly authorized version of reality, with results that can range from comic to cruel. In one instance, the Brooklyn Yiddish weekly Di Tzeitung was forced to apologize to the Obama White House in 2011 for airbrushing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton out of an historic Situation Room gathering, a move in line with its policy of banning female images to maintain sexual modesty. The iconic photograph, whose usage agreement banned such airbrushing, captured President Barack Obama and key members of his national security team gathered around a monitor watching as Navy SEALs in Pakistan closed in on 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden.

More disturbingly, and much closer to home, one Hasidic newspapers recent campaign on behalf of a convicted child sex abuser laid the ground for the grand rebbe of one of the largest Hasidic sects to honor him with a highly-publicized pilgrimage to visit the abuser in prison. The campaign and the November visit took place against the backdrop of a continuing effort by Rabbi Zalman Teitelbaums Satmar sect to win commutation of the 50-year sentence being served by Nechemya Weberman. Not coincidentally, Vochenshrift, the Yiddish newspaper that conducted the campaign, is loyal to Teitelbaums faction.

An Orthodox jewish man walks through the Borough Park neighborhood on the eve of the Passover holiday on April 8, 2020 in New York. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Weberman, now 64, was convicted in 2012 on 59 counts for repeated sexual assault, including rape, of a teen member of the sect whom he was treating as an unlicensed therapist starting from when she was 12. (Two counts were later reversed on appeal.) A Daily News article identified 10 other young women who claimed that Weberman had sexually assaulted them but reported that they were too afraid to come forward and face the shunning and intimidation that sect members inflicted on the accuser.

Vochenshrifts series on Weberman, which started in August, lionized him as a tremendous Hasid and victim of mesira, a grave sin wherein one Jew informs on another in contravention of Jewish law. The articles inspired a parade of solidarity visits to Weberman by other Hasidim, climaxed by the grand rebbes journey.

They say hes wrongfully accused, Shulim Leifer, a member of the Hasidic community, told JTA. Its written in a sense that its a foregone conclusion, that its a lynching that he went through.

Given the media environment in which they live, its little wonder that many Hasidim would look at the case this way. Moreover, these tightly controlled media outlets inspire reactions with real-world political consequences. During the trial, the young woman suffered widespread condemnation as a zona, or whore, and threats from other Satmar Hasidim for daring to report her abuse to secular law enforcement authorities.

Prior to the trial, more than 1,000 Hasidic men flocked to a banquet that raised an estimated $500,000 for Webermans defense. Brooklyns then-district attorney, Charles Hynes, prosecuted Weberman his first ever high-profile case against a member of the boroughs Satmar community only after sustained criticism that he had for many years shrunk from pursuing such trials. Hynes denied the charge. But as Leon Goldenberg, an Orthodox political activist noted at the time, The fact is that [Orthodox Jews] make up 10 to 15% of the electorate.

The Daily News Flash

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

More recently, Hynes successor, Eric Gonzalez, called on the governor to commute Webermans sentence the only instance of such an appeal by Gonzalez on behalf of a convicted sex abuser, according to The City. Gonzalezs August 2021 letter to the governor, which went unanswered, may have been ill-timed. It arrived on Andrew Cuomos last day in office, following his resignation in a scandal.

Mobilized by their distorted media bubble, this voting bloc intimidates city and state leaders from enforcing laws on everything from fire codes to education.

In 2011, the chief of the fire department responsible for New Square, a Hasidic enclave of almost 10,000 in Rockland County, told The Forward that at least 60% of its structures had serious code violations. Rockland County lawmaker Joe Meyers was blunt about why. New Square has a lot of power to deliver votes in elections, he said. Officials who otherwise do their jobs fall down when it comes to New Square.

As mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio was no less mindful of this blocs power. In an official 2019 report, city investigators cited political horse-trading between his representatives and state legislators as the reason for a one-year delay in the citys release of a report finding Hasidic yeshivas were failing to give their students an adequate, legally required secular education.

We can counterbalance the hold that rabbinically controlled media outlets maintain on their readers, many of whom are actually hungry for news that directly impacts their lives. Quietly ignoring the rabbinical ban on the internet, they seek news out on anonymized laptops or second mobile phones in the privacy of their own homes. Shtetl will focus on this audiences concerns. This holds the potential to cultivate a cohort whose information horizons will extend beyond the narrow limits dictated by their leaders. Shtetls reports and investigations will also inform political leaders, journalists, civic leaders and taxpayers outside the ultra-Orthodox community about the many issues whose ramifications affect everyone.

For me, it even dangles the promise, eventually, of being able, after so many decades, to hold discussions about topics ranging from Darwin to democracy with some of the best trained minds I have ever encountered. Thats why I agreed to join Shtetls board and hope to contribute to its success.

Cohler-Esses, a former Daily News investigative reporter, is a board member of Shtetl-Haredi Free Press.

Visit link:
A new look at the lives of ultra-Orthodox Jews: Shtetl.org provides ... - New York Daily News

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On April 5, 2023, Verisk Analytics, Inc. (the "Company") entered into the FifthAmendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the "FifthAmendment") which amends the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement datedas of April 22, 2015 (as amended by the First Amendment dated as of July 24,2015, the Second Amendment dated as of May 26, 2016, the Third Amendment datedas of May 18, 2017 and the Fourth Amendment dated as of August 15, 2019, the"Existing Credit Agreement", and the Existing Credit Agreement as amended by theFifth Amendment, the "Amended Credit Agreement") among the Company, the lendersparty thereto and Bank of America, N.A. as administrative agent. The FifthAmendment provides for (i) an extension of the maturity date of the $1.0 billionrevolving credit facility under the Amended Credit Agreement to the date that isfive years after the date of the Fifth Amendment, (ii) implementation of "TermSOFR", "SOFR Daily Floating Rate" and "SONIA" as reference rates for borrowingsunder the Amended Credit Agreement, (iii) certain modifications to thedefinition of "Applicable Rate", among other things, to reflect reductions inthe unused commitment fee, (iv) changes to the financial covenant based on theconsolidated funded debt leverage ratio to increase the ratio level from3.50:1.00 to 3.75:1.00 and to allow for a one temporary step-up to 4.25:1.00 andone temporary step-up to 4.50:1.00 in connection with the closing of a permittedacquisition and (v) certain other modifications and updates to the ExistingCredit Agreement as further detailed in the Fifth Amendment. All borrowingsunder the Amended Credit Agreement shall continue to remain unsecured.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment is qualified in its entirety byreference to the Fifth Amendment, which is annexed as Exhibit 10.1 and isincorporated by reference in its entirety.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an

The information contained in Item 1.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K isincorporated by reference into this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read more here:
VERISK ANALYTICS, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance...

The power of arrest is a critical component of law enforcement in every country, including India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA). While the basic principles of arrest are similar in all three countries, there are some differences in the way that arrest is carried out and the legal framework that governs it.

This article discusses the power of arrest in India, the UK and the USA.

India

In India, the power of arrest is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which lays down the rules and procedures for arrest. The police are empowered to arrest a person if there is a reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence. However, the police must follow certain guidelines when making an arrest. For example, they must inform the person being arrested of the grounds for the arrest, and they must obtain an arrest warrant if the offence is non-cognizable.

The power of arrest in India is also subject to judicial oversight. The Supreme Court has held that the power of arrest must be exercised with caution and only in cases where it is absolutely necessary. The court has also ruled that the police cannot arrest a person simply to pressure them to confess to a crime.

United Kingdom

In the UK, the power of arrest is governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which sets out the procedures that the police must follow when making an arrest. The police can arrest a person if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has committed an offence, is about to commit an offence, or is in the process of committing an offence. The police must also inform the person being arrested of their rights, including the right to legal representation.

The power of arrest in the UK is also subject to judicial oversight. The courts have held that the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence before they can be arrested. They have also held that the police must use the minimum force necessary to effect an arrest.

United States of America

In the USA, the power of arrest is governed by state and federal law. The police can arrest a person if they have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. The police must also inform the person being arrested of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

The power of arrest in the USA is subject to constitutional oversight. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, including arrests. The courts have held that the police must have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime before they can be arrested. They have also held that the use of excessive force during an arrest can violate a person's constitutional rights.

In conclusion, the power of arrest is a critical tool for law enforcement. While the basic principles of arrest are similar in all three countries, there are some differences in the way that arrest is carried out and the legal framework that governs it. It is important that law enforcement officials follow the rules and procedures for arrest and that the power of arrest is subject to judicial and constitutional oversight to ensure that it is used appropriately and fairly.

See more here:
Power Of Arrest In India, USA And UK - BW Legal World

In 2021, the International Tribunal On US Human Rights Abuses Against Black, Brown, and Indigenous Peoples found the United States government guilty of genocide. The tribunal drew upon the legacy of the 1951 petition submitted to the United Nations by the Civil Rights Congress: We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People. Jalil Muntaqim joinsRattling the Barsto discuss his life, the USs long history of genocide, the need for a New Afrikan independence movement in the US, and the strategy to internationalize this struggle beyond compromised institutions such as the United Nations.

Click here to learn more about the Spirit of Mandela campaign to organize a Peoples Senate.

Jalil Muntaqim is a former member of the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. He was incarcerated for 49 years as a political prisoner of the United States, and released in 2020. Muntaqims is the author of several books, the most recent of which isWe Are Our Own Liberators: Selected Prison Writings.

Studio/Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, Im Mansa Musa. And today we have a comrade of mine and a good brother, a freedom fighter, former political prisoner, prisoner of war Jalil Muntaqim. Welcome to Rattling the Bars, Jalil.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Salaam alaykum, jambo, guten tag, peace, whatever your language is, I speak to you and address you in solidarity and peace.

Mansa Musa:

And before we get started, Ramadan mubarak.

Jalil Muntaqim:

[Foreign language], brother, I appreciate that. Thank you for your time.

Mansa Musa:

Yes sir. And tell Rattling the Bars audience a little about who is Jalil Muntaqim.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Thats a good question. Thats a long sense of answer to that question. Jalil Muntaqim, I am a veteran member of the Black Panther Party, Black Liberation Army. I have been engaged in the struggle since age of 16. I actually have engaged in struggle since I was born, you might say. Let me just preface this one. My mom was a student of African dance as a young child and she used to teach African dance to myself and my sister. And her teacher told her that we are of African descent and this is what she taught us, so I was raised with the understanding that I was of African descent.

She did not allow us to be identified or named a Negro or a [inaudible] or a Black person or any other derogatory names that has been launched against our Black people in this country, African people in this country. And so as a result of that I always had been conscious of the reality of our situation here in this country. At the age of 16, I joined the Black Panther Party, became a member of the Black Panther Party. And at the age of 18 I was recruited into the Black Underground. By the time I was 19, I was with Black Underground, that evolved and turned into the Black Liberation Army. By the time I was 19, I was captured.

I was captured on August 28th, 1971, the week after they murdered Comrade George Jackson on August 21st, 1971. Allegedly our action was in retaliation of his murder. The resulted in my being in prison for 49 plus years, almost 50 years in prison, as a result. I didnt get out until October 6th, 2020. And Im also an author. Ive written two books, one called We Are Our Own Liberators, and anybody interested, they can get it from blackdragonmme.com. We Are Our Own Liberators, blackdragonmme.com. And the other book Ive written have published is called Escaping the Prism: Fade to Black.

And that can be obtained from AK Press. Let me see what else. As a result of my incarceration, I continued to be an organizer. I was an organizer while I was in high school. I started the first Black student union in my high school and I was in San Jose, California. And as a result of that, we was able to get Black study programs established because there was no ethnic programs in the schools back then. And so we was able to get Black studies program going on at that time. And so as my process of my evolving when I went to prison, I continued to organize in 1970-

Mansa Musa:

Well stop right there. Because we want I got you. But no, thats good information. And in full disclosure to our audience, I met Jalil as he was getting ready to go into his prison organized. I met Jalil in, I think it was 73 when they was making a call to take the issue of political prison, prisons of war to the UN. And its right at this juncture that I want to open the next question is, walk us through the progression of the strategy to internationalize Americas oppression of Black and Brown people.

Give us a Because we know that your strategy has been, and your organizational strategy has been to internationalize our struggle. And you find a lot of conversation around why internationalize it when we have a And people have a tendency to look at the national problem, whats going on on a national level and feel as though when you say international, its almost as if you overlooking local situations. So as walk us through that progression.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Very good. Back in 1975, I returned from New York City to San Quentin Prison. And at the time when I returned back to San Quentin Prison, I was put in Adjustment Center. And as a result of me placed in Justice Center, I decided it was necessary for us to move forward in terms of our struggle. One of the things that when I was in Adjustment Center, I was locked next door to [inaudible 00:05:19], the oldest political prison in the United States today.

Mansa Musa:

Thats right.

Jalil Muntaqim:

And San Quentin [inaudible 00:05:25] on the same gallery, he was in Adjustment Center. The area where Comrade George was murdered at. And I received a pamphlet, a newsletter from a National Committee of the Defense of Political Prisoners, was a committee that was put together in support of the Panther 21 case right back in 1970s, in 70, 71. Yuri Kochiyama, who was a friend and member of the AAOU, African-American organization that Malcolm X had put together. She sent me a newsletter, and in the newsletter, they talk about human rights and the issues of human rights.

So at that point in time and knowing that El-Haj Malik Shabazz had told us, he had instructed us that its necessity for us to take our struggle to the international arena and that our struggle is more than just a civil rights, its a human rights. And with that understanding, El-Haj Malik Shabazz says, For long as we continue to maintain our struggle within the civil rights dynamics of struggle, that the United States will continue to confine our struggle within those parameters within the jurisdiction of the United States. Thats been a civil rights issue. And he said that, El-Haj Malik Shabazz, Malcolm X said that we need to take it to the international community and make our struggle a human rights one.

And so at that point in time, when I decided that was necessary for us to establish what I organized, what they called the US Prisons Petition Campaign to the United Nations. And this was the first petition campaign that was submitted to the United Nations that dealt with the issues, not only the conditions of our prison situation, but also the issues of existence of political prisons in the United States. So thats one other area for which we began to internationalize our struggle. Now naturally, as you well know, prior to that, our struggle has been internationalized due to Black Panther Party.

Was internationalized when Robert Williams went into exile. He had to go to Cuba and went to China. And then for other places talking about our struggle. Eldridge Cleaver, when they established the Black Panther Party office in Algeria, they traveled throughout the country. Huey P. Newton established a working relationship with [inaudible] when he went to China. And so for us, there has always been a means and a method for which we tried to internationalize our struggle and take it out of basically the jurisdiction of the US to codify and/or limit and prohibit to what degree were able to fight back to resist a White supremacy and capitalist imperialism.

Mansa Musa:

All right, lets go right here then, on that right there. All right. So we recognize the progression and we recognize the historical significance and the relationship. But lets look at this here, it says it is a consensus worldwide that the United Nations Because thats where, when we talking about internationalizing, we talking about going to an institutional body to get some type of mandate to come out to say that what the United States is doing is inhuman.

So the mechanism that weve been talking about is the United Nations, but its the public consensus, ineffective as a body, but mainly when it comes to addressing complaints against United States and human rights. Case in point, going back to your point, Paul Robeson, they took a petition to the UN in 51, we charged genocide documenting the lynching of Black people and poor people in this country. Then you reference Malcolm X, and as you noted, we made it, we took it in terms of the strategy that you outlined, took it in and put political prisoners and prisoners of war in that space.

But what is it about this body? I understand international context, but what is it about the United Nations that gives you some type of solace that this is a good place to put attention in? When you look at the Palestinian situation, you look at, they allow United States to bomb our Iraq, both under false narrative of trying to get [inaudible] uranium, they killed [inaudible]. So we know that when it comes to United Nations, that its really the United States foot-stool for lack of better terminology. So educate our audience on why this particular body under that overview that I just outlined.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Very good. Im glad you raised that question because there are some contradictions in regards to our movement trying to have the United Nations to support us in the broader scale of which it exists. I think its important to understand that the United Nations, in terms of international law, its a body of international law. And as much as there are held together by individuals, nation, state individuals and organizations who may be coattailed to the United States because of the money that United States put into the United Nations, it diminishes our capacity to influence the processes.

But that doesnt mean that we not should try to influence the process. Ultimately what it does is we are by presenting our struggle and our issues to the United Nations, it goes to the people as well. Those individuals will bring those issues to the people. And thats what we really want to address. We really want to address the people of the world by regard to our struggle. And so this is a body from which we can do so, at least raise the issues, our concerns, our struggle to that body. And so that it can be reached at a broader branch of people. Now weve had comments go to Geneva, weve had petitions submitted to Geneva on the issues of our struggle.

And we need to continue to do so because it is a body of laws, international law. We are trying to make the United States adhere to the international law, for instance genocide. In 2018 I proposed that we bring the International Jury to the United States and we held an International Tribunal. And the International Tribunal on October 25th, 2021, they found the United States guilty of five charges. This is an esteemed body of international jurors, some of them have working relationships with the United Nations, and they are now promoting their verdict of October 25th, 2021 stated that the United States is guilty of five charges that we brought to them.

Five charges of mass incarceration, police terror and murder of our people, environmental racism, health inequities, and also the exists of political prisoners. The United States was found guilty by an esteemed body of international jurors on the reality of that they have violated international law as it pertained to those five particular issues. And so for us, we are using what mechanism is available to us. If we could create another mechanism for which we can build our international relationship with other folks and people, then we would do so. But thats the only mechanism thats working at this point in time. As you stated, Paul Robeson in December 17th, 1951, about two months after I was born, had brought the issues of genocide to the United Nations.

As you well know, the FBI hindered hindered that process. They would refuse to allow Paul Robeson to leave the country. And although William Patterson was able to go over to Geneva and present the petition, they tried to prevent him from coming back to the United States. And so for us its always a means, based upon the instructions of El-Haj Malik Shabazz, Malcolm X, to find the ways that we can reach our people on the international platform. When I say our people, Im talking about the progressives on the international platform. Let them know what is actually going on here in the United States amongst Black people, Brown people, Indigenous people in this country. It is a mechanism, its not the end results, it is a method for which we can bring our struggles into the international community.

Mansa Musa:

And that bring me to my next question. Because like you say, its a real effective strategy. You have got the international body of people thats directly related to the UN in some shape, form, or fashion to come-

Jalil Muntaqim:

Which are supporting our movement now.

Mansa Musa:

To come and review the indictment that we brought about genocide. And you had them review the indictment, and as a result of reviewing the indictment, they came out with the International Tribunal on human rights abuse against Black and Brown, Indigenous people. How are you taking that finding? Because that finding in and of itself, we know dont have the force of law. Its a nice document and its a nice support mechanism.

How do you plan on taking that document and moving the narrative forward to try to start peeling off more support from countries in terms of recognizing that the United States is practicing genocide against us. How do you plan on taking that document? Because as you said, if that same body wouldve been the voting body of the general assembly in the UN, then United States would be thus duly charged based on that. So how do you plan on-

Jalil Muntaqim:

Lets look at that on a couple levels. First level is here, United States is a treaty member of the Genocide Convention of 1948. United States has on its books, in its federal books, 18 USC 1091, which simply mimics or copies the genocidal doctrine of 1948. But we know that the United States will not charge itself with genocide, although theyre in violation of their own laws. So what were going to do, what we intended to do is build our base so that we can file a legal petition in the federal courts charging the United States having violated their own rules or regulations and according to international law.

And so in that instance, well be able to educate greater people both nationally and internationally of the contradiction that we have with the United States in regards to their Adherent to this false philosophy, aberrant philosophy of White supremacy, that ensures that other people of color are inferior to White people. And so when we understand that dynamic, we are raised in peoples consciousness, using international law as well as national dynamics where we can engage them by building our base of support. We also are building toward what we call peoples assemblies. Were building a peoples assemblies based upon what we call a Peoples Senate.

And we would have ambassadors who would travel throughout the world and raise our questions, our issues in those particular bodies. We have been over in the Caribbean, we have been the areas of Africa. I went to Greece last year to the International Symposium of Political Prisoners in Greece, African Greece. And I told them at my presentation that you will not be free, the international community will not be free until Black people were free in this country. And so in this way were making the connections with the international community based upon the idea and goals and objectives based upon the decision, the verdict of the International Jury finding the United States guilty of genocides.

And so with that understanding, based upon their own violation of their own laws, we can do two things. One, bring them to court, raise it on a national level and continue to send out our ambassadors around the world and speak on these issues, raise these questions. Weve been to South Africa, weve been to Ghana, weve been to Barbados, weve been to Greece. I got some people once to, theyre thinking about having me go tour parts of Europe and also Latin America. And so this is how we built out our struggle and join the progressive communities around the world who has been engaging, fighting against US imperialism and White supremacy throughout the world.

Mansa Musa:

And now, I like that connection because as our audience would need to be made aware of, when we talk about international struggle, weve been able to make the connection in terms of United States own laws and that at some point in time a forum going to have to be held about that. And they going to have to address that at some point in time in the court of law in the United States, which gives them a lot more People got a local mentality and a national mentality, be able to put them in a space where they comfortable with recognizing that, We are affected by this because we can see it right here, right now.

As opposed to trying to get them to take a broader perspective and say, like Malcolm say, We all in the same boat. All right, we talk about this here, Jalil. Lastly, so you mobilized the necessary support and you get the necessary results in terms of the United Nation, the courts. So what is the relief that we are asking for? What are we looking to get in return? Because I think most people want to know, are we just rabble-rousing or do we have actually got a strategy of what we want in return and what we going to do with our return?

Jalil Muntaqim:

Okay, well lets look at this a little bit more deliberately. We know that the United States have been found guilty of genocide. We know theyve been engaged in the process of genocides for the last 400 years. We know that the system of White supremacy is not going to just disappear. So it is our duty to divorce ourselves from a system thats engaging in genocides. We have to ensure that we are suffering no more harm. The trauma that we have suffered in the last 400 years is indelible. It has been internalized for the most part. And so we have to do a whole new reeducation, reprocessing of our consciousness.

And that means that we have to decolonize ourselves, when I say decolonize our mentality and our thinking in terms of who we are as a people in this country. And thats another issue that we have to address. Are we in fact a colonized nation, a colonized people? And if we are, then we need to figure out some ways how to manage that idea that we need to divorce ourself from the conditions of colonization. So that means that we need to move towards independence. Im saying this here. At the minimum, we divorce ourself from a system that has been engaging in genocide. We have to remove ourselves from harm. Thats what Im saying, because they been killing us for the last 400 years.

Mansa Musa:

And continue to do it.

Jalil Muntaqim:

And continue to do so. When they just shot this kid the other day, this young man the other day, shot him 60 times. They shot at him a hundred times and shot him 60 times. How many bullets does it take to kill one man? That was not just a message to this one guy or this one family, it was a message to everyone, of police terror. Thats the reason why they found guilty of genocide, by the way that theyve been murdered us by police terror. You see what Im saying? Mass incarceration is another issue. Mass incarceration, what they found guilty of by the international jurors of mass incarceration, thats genocide.

So we got to fight against this mass incarceration. One way to fight against it is to end penal slavery by the 13th Forward. By ending penal slavery, we take the incentive out of mass incarceration. That means they cannot profit off our labor. Our people dont understand that slavery was never totally abolished in the country, we have what we call penal slavery. They just [inaudible 00:21:26] to the United States Constitution. So thats another area where we are fighting back. Other, environmental racism. We know what happened in Flint, Michigan. Or Mississippi. Why is it that our people Health inequities is another area which we have found ourselves confronting the issues of genocide, which we have found guilty of.

Why is it that White people live twice as long as Black people in this country? Where does that come from? Why is it that it has been stated that Black man is an endangered species in this country? Where does that come from? It comes from the idea of White supremacy and trying to maintain a system from which we, Black people, Brown people, Indigenous people maintain inferiority to White superiority. Which again, I say is an average philosophy, its an average psychological And in my understanding, its a mental disorder. And White superiority is a mental disorder. And I say that based upon what the DMS-IV book says, the diagnostic book says.

Mansa Musa:

Thats right. Thats their book.

Jalil Muntaqim:

The psychological diagnostic book states that superiority complex is in fact a complex, it is a psychological disorder. And White supremacy is a derivative of the superiority complex where they feel their superiority. So these people are crazy. So we got to remove ourselves from these people because they have been harming us for the last 400 years.

Mansa Musa:

I gotcha.

Jalil Muntaqim:

So for building this outward, both on the national, international level, is extremely important. This is the reason why after the verdict by the international jurors finding the United States guilty on those five charges, we decided it is necessary for us to build what we call a Peoples Senate.

Mansa Musa:

Talk about that.

Jalil Muntaqim:

We got to create alternatives to the existing reality of our existence here in the United States. And so what were doing now, knowing that the United States functions as a corporation in behalf of other corporations, the law says Not what Jalil says, the law says, the Supreme Court has stated in, I think Citizens Action, but they determined that corporations are people. So we also know that the United States is in fact a corporation, based upon 28 USC 3002 Section 15A-

Mansa Musa:

Commercial code?

Jalil Muntaqim:

Yeah, commercial code. And it informs that the United States is in fact a federal corporation. And so when they say our people, For the people by the people, theyre not talking about sentient human beings, theyre talking about corporations. They function in behalf of corporations, not for human beings. And so when we decided that its necessary for what to build what we call a Peoples Senate to divorce ourself from a system thats not working in our best interest and began to create alternative systems, alternative modes of operation, alternative ways of where we can fulfill our prosperity, our goals, our ambitions, our livelihood outside of the dictates of the system that has been engaging in genocides against us.

And so the Peoples Senate is important. So were going to have Peoples Senates across the country. Were going to build peoples assemblies across the country, and were going to establish the financial and economic basis for which we can be able to strive, utilizing the resources that we have available to us in any cities and states across the country. And this process will begin to ensure that our struggle moving forward is safeguarded because we have created a condition for which we have a body of people who are engaged in struggle against a system that has been involved with genocides against us.

Not only that, but were also moving towards national liberation independence. And this is a hard one for people to chew on. We know that there are sovereign nations in this country. The Native Americans, the indigenous people in this country for the most part are sovereign nation. How come we arent? Thats a question I need to ask. If they can be a sovereign nation, how come we arent? If we look at the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution as an example, we realized that we never had an opportunity when they promulgated the 13th Amendment in 1865. We never had the opportunity to do three things.

One, to decide whether we want to stay in the United States, decide whether we want to go to Africa or return back to Africa, or decide we want to create our own homeland, what is called a plebiscite vote. The part of our struggle is to ensure that we have a plebiscite vote, make determination what we want. So the Fourth Amendment imposed the civilization on the 3 million to 5 million African people who were emancipated in 1865. And so for us, its always made a question of who are we in terms of our nationhood, that has not been established by us for us.

And so that is another part of this process of separating ourself, divorcing ourself from a system thats been engaged in genocides against us for the last 400 years. Now that we have law established in terms of international protocols by an esteemed body of international jurors have determined the United States has been engaged in this process of genocides against us. That informs us that we need to separate ourself and divorce ourself from a system thats doing us harm, has been doing us harm for the last 400 years. And so thats part of the process.

Mansa Musa:

So how can we get in touch with you and how can our viewers get in touch with the Spirit of Mandela?

Jalil Muntaqim:

Very good question. Go to spiritofmandela.org and tap over to the Peoples Senate, or go to Peoples Senate, spiritofmandela.org and youll find all the information you need to find to be involved with this process. We have what we call in the Spirit of Mandela, Im raise this up so you can see it. Youll find this particular document right here, for the Spirit of Mandela Explanation and Recruitment manual. And this is what we are organizing for.

Now, when we first initiated this campaign naturally in terms of our political prisoners, we was moving under the United Nations Spirit of Mandela Rule, which is the basic standards for the treatment of prisoners, which they turned into the Mandela rule. And so were using that idea of the Mandela rule, thats why we came with this name, Mandela Rule, to ensure our people on the inside of these penal slave institutions are granted the same rights that are supposed to be granted to anyone who have been incarcerated or who have been imprisoned. Based upon the Mandela rules, based upon the United States standard treatment of prisoners, which is now the Mandela rule.

And so thats one of the areas that were dealing with. But more importantly, we want to end penal slavery in the United States. When we end penal slavery, we end the school to prison pipeline, we end the issues of mass incarceration. We end, for the most part, targeting our community for mass incarceration. And so thats one of the ideas of building a Peoples Senate and raising this to peoples consciousness and understanding to what degree we have to resist. So yeah, thats what were doing.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, hey, thank you.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Spirit of Mandela.

Mansa Musa:

Spirtofmandela.org.

Jalil Muntaqim:

.org/peoples-senate. Thats what people need to go to.

Read more:
Jalil Muntaqim: The time to end prison slavery is now - The Real News Network