Press Release Just In from AdaWatch:

The National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) is an alliance of more than 500 national, state, and local disability organizations joined to protect and strengthen the civil rights of people with disabilities. NCDR's ADA Watch has united hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals in opposition to the confirmation of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and has organized opposition events in Washington, DC and in Columbus, Ohio.

NCDR's president, Jim Ward explains: "Sutton's career has been highlighted by aggressive -- and often successful -- efforts to dismantle federal disability rights and civil rights protections. He has actively worked to weaken Federal protections for people with disabilities, minorities, seniors, women victims of violence, Medicaid recipients and others. Sutton -- like too many of the Bush judicial nominees -- has targeted the New Deal, the Great Society, Medicaid, the ADA, Olmstead, and the authority of a democratically elected Congress to legislate remedies when petitioned by American citizens."

Thursday, January 30: Disability Rights supporters will attend the official Executive Session of the Senate Judiciary Committee at 9:30 AM in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226. This will be followed by ADA Watch's "People's Hearing," in Dirksen 138 at 1:30 PM, to examine the impact of Mr. Sutton's activism on people with disabilities. Individuals from Sutton's home-state of Ohio will share their stories and illustrate the threats of Federalism to real people.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has surpassed California and Texas as the largest prison system in the United States, holding 164,011 prisoners as of November 7, according to recent Bureau of Prison population reports.

In 2000, BOP announced it would be building several new facilities a year in the coming years. In 2001, BOP received $883 million for new facilities. For 2002, the Bush administration "proposed spending one billion dollars for BOP construction and $31 million for INS detention construction ....The new generation of facilities cost an average of $110 million to build and can house 1,200 prisoners each."

The New York Times, in an editorial today, calls Miguel Estrada, one of Bush's judicial picks who is scheduled to be voted on today in the Senate, An Unacceptable Nominee

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on Miguel Estrada, a nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Estrada comes with a scant paper trail but a reputation for taking extreme positions on important legal questions. He stonewalled when he was asked at his confirmation hearings last fall to address concerns about his views. Given these concerns, and given the thinness of the record he and his sponsors in the administration have chosen to make available, the Senate should vote to reject his nomination."

There's more, we recommend you read it--and fax your Senator today.

The Federal Government is demanding that high schools provide them with names of students, to be used for military recruitment. Schools are worried.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, which was passed more than a year ago, schools face new requirements on testing and the hiring of teachers. But many school districts are only now coming to terms with a little-noticed provision in the law dealing with military recruiters. That provision requires schools that receive federal aid to give military recruiters the names, addresses, and phone number of high school juniors and seniors, and to provide military recruiters with the same access to students as employers and college recruiters get. There is an exception, though. Students and parents must be given an opportunity to request that the information be withheld."

So spread the word, you have a right to refuse.

Paul Rubens, aka Peewee Herman, is charged with a misdemeanor count of possession of child pornography in California. His lawyer, Blair Berk, has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges.

Attorney Blair Berk confirmed that the motion, filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, said the sexually provocative images found in his home were made years before California deemed child pornography ownership illegal.

Sexually explicit images of children made up a very small portion of a "vast" vintage porn, kitsch and erotica collection owned by Reubens, who is best known for entertaining young TV viewers as the nerdy man-child Pee-Wee Herman, the motion said. The images -- in a book, a film and 24 magazines -- were "produced decades before [child pornography] possession was ever proscribed," the motion said.

Some of the images were produced at the turn of the 20th century, the motion said. In addition, a statute of limitations had expired before Reubens was charged, it said."

A big thanks to Hamster for leading us to Death Behind Bars , about the death of Charlene Marquez, a 39 year old female inmate, and how it highlights the need for more drug-treatment programs.

"Her death highlights two serious problems, critics say. The first is the ease with which illegal drugs are smuggled into prison. It's a common problem across the country, one corrections personnel nationwide struggle to resolve. But the second has a more local flavor: Colorado's failure to fund drug-treatment programs adequately inside and outside the prison system. And it's a problem that is about to grow worse, as the state Legislature makes significant budget cuts in human-services programs in light of the state's economic woes .

Colorado currently ranks dead last in state dollars spent in drug treatment. (The state is officially listed as 49th because Georgia state officials neglected to turn data in on time. However, had Georgia turned information in on time, Colorado would rank 50th.)

Research shows that for every $100 Colorado spends on the consequences of drug and alcohol abuse, only 6 cents are spent on treatment programs, says Janet Wood, director of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse division of the Colorado Department of Human Services.

That investment is about to drop as state budget problems, exacerbated by a sluggish economy, have resulted in budget cuts in drug-treatment programs, both in the prison system and outside.

According to Allison Morgan, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Corrections, 75% of inmates have some kind of drug or alcohol problem.

Research shows that most women in prison are victims of substantial physical and/or sexual abuse and have deep-seated emotional needs, Morgan says. DOC research shows that women who do have drug and alcohol problems typically need higher levels of treatment than male prisoners.

But there's another issue as well.

But some say prison is not conducive to recovery from addiction and that institutional drug-treatment programs face significant obstacles to success.

"Prison is not a therapeutic environment," said Christie Donner, co-coordinator of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, a project of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center.... Donner says less than half of prisoners who need help with drug and alcohol problems receive it. Most receive it shortly before their release date, after they've already become hardened from exposure to prison culture. "People get warehoused for years, and when they get close to being released is when they're eligible for treatment," she said. "This notion that everyone who needs treatment gets it is not the truth. It's a very small percentage that are actually offered treatment.....

"The City Council has barred police and other city workers from asking about the immigration status of people they deal with. The ordinance, which was approved 9 to 0 Monday, makes two exceptions. One is for anyone police have "reasonable suspicion" to believe was once deported and has committed a felony. The other allows police to assist federal agents as required by law."

"Backers said it was the first local ordinance of its kind to be adopted since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. However, many cities have similar laws dating from before the terrorist attacks, said Robert Okin, deputy district director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service."

This just in via e-mail from Legal Aid Attorneys:

Support your right to participate in lawful political and First Amendment activity -- attend an important court hearing on Wednesday, January 29th at 3:00 p.m.

The New York City Police Department has asked a federal judge to virtually eliminate court-ordered protections for citizens and organizations who engage in lawful political acitvity in New York City. The court order they seek to overturn prevents the police from spying on first amendment activities unless a targeted person or group engages in criminal activity.

Oral arguments on the police department's motion in the case, "Handschu v. Special Services Division," will be held on Wednesday, January 29th at 3:00 p.m.

Courtroom 17-C
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street (east of Foley Square)
New York, NY
(4, 5 & 6 Train to Brooklyn Bridge;
J, M, Z, A, C and E to Chambers St.)

Citing the events of September 11, 2001, David Cohen, Deputy Police Commissioner for Intelligence and a 35-year veteran of the CIA, has told the court in the Police Department's motion papers that continuing to require a "criminal predicate" to conduct political investigations hampers intelligence collection on potential terrorists.

The "Handschu" case was filed in 1971 shortly after it came to light that police had for decades spied on lawful activities of social and racial justice advocates. A front-page article by Chisun Lee in the December 18th Village Voice presents a history of the "Handschu" decree, and what is at stake for New Yorkers. Click here to read the article.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a welcome editorial today criticizing the feds for putting noted marijuana expert, activist and author Ed Rosenthal on trial for growing pot. Some quotes:

... Ed Rosenthal agreed to grow Oakland's medical marijuana -- in compliance with city law and with the blessing of local officials -- But in a trial now under way in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the 58-year-old Rosenthal has become a focal point for the federal government's "war on drugs." He is charged with felony marijuana cultivation and conspiracy, which could bring him 10 years-to-life imprisonment if convicted.

Rosenthal had been deputized by the city of Oakland as "an officer" in the city's program to distribute medical marijuana. Proposition 215, passed by California voters in Nov. 1996, was designed to allow patients -- with a doctor's approval -- to grow and use marijuana to, among other things, relieve the effects of cancer, AIDS and glaucoma.

The trouble is, despite substantial anecdotal evidence, the federal government never has recognized the medicinal potential of marijuana. Drug Enforcement Administration official Asa Hutchinson points out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not approve "medicine by popular referendum. " He made that comment in response to a letter by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer calling for "a proper sense of balance, proportion and respect for states' rights."

WHEN Ed Rosenthal agreed to grow Oakland's medical marijuana -- in compliance with city law and with the blessing of local officials -- he had no idea he was about to become the target of federal authorities who would try to send him to prison.

The war on drugs should not be about Rosenthal. He represents one city's noble effort to distribute medical marijuana in a controlled, responsible way. Without Rosenthal, many patients would be forced to turn to dealers in the streets, enriching the enterprises that should be the real focus of a war on drugs.

There's more so go read the whole thing.

Last week the federal court refused to gag Rosenthal during the trial. For updates, go to NORML.

Regina McKnight is a young African-American woman who was convicted of killing her stillborn baby by using crack cocaine and sentenced to twelve years in jail. Her sentence was upheld by the South Carolina appeals court yesterday.

For some sociological and medical reasons why her sentence is unfair, please read this by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

This has been a high-profile case, particularly in South Carolina. Here's some background, as sent to us by those in the know:

McKnight was charged with homicide by child abuse. This crime carries a penalty of up to life in prison and requires proof of "extreme indifference" to life. The state blamed the stillbirth on Ms. McKnight's use of cocaine although, in fact, there was no evidence that the cocaine did - or even could have caused this stillbirth. Nevertheless in the second trial, (the first ended in a mistrial) a jury convicted Ms. McKnight in less than 15 minutes of deliberation.

The state supreme court took the case on direct appeal. Her team of lawyers and amici were all optimistic about a victory after a compelling oral argument in the case and an extraordinary DPA and other amicus from a unanimous medical and public health community. (Not to mention clear law on our side) Here is a woman the State admits had no intention of harming her fetus -- yet the court has upheld her conviction for homicide by child abuse -- 20-years to life. Had she intended to kill the fetus she would have gotten 2 years in jail.

The primary evidence in the case was a doctor who said that one time use of cocaine was known to cause death. His only support for this was popular press about the Len Bias case. Apparently that was enough for this court too as they stated: "Given the fact that it is public knowledge that usage of cocaine is potentially fatal, we find the fact that McKnight took cocaine knowing she was pregnant was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury on whether she acted with extreme indifference to her child’s life."

You can read the full text of the opinion here.

Her defense team is asking people to write Regina words of support, a postcard or letter, at the jail. If you are interested in doing so, post a comment with your email address and we will email you Regina's address. We don't want to post it here because we don't want people writing her hate letters, and we are well aware that there are people out there who can't understand why this is unfair.

Update: Here is an excellent article outlining the support of the medical community for Regina Mcknight , and includes this list of organizations that joined in the Amicus effort on her behalf.

Briefs amici curiae in support of appellant, Regina McKnight were submitted on behalf of:

South Carolina Medical Association
South Carolina Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors
American Nurses Association
National Association of Social Workers
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Institute For Health and Recovery
The South Carolina Nurses Association
The American Society of Addiction Medicine
The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry
The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals

More information on the case is available here.

Via How Appealing, who got it from Law.Com reporter Tony Mauro, we learn there's a new blog by the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press. It's called Behind the Homefront, and is "a daily chronicle of news in homeland security and military operations affecting newsgathering, access to information and the public's right to know."

Here's an entry from January 24th we are interested in: (links omitted here, but contained in original):

THE STAGE HAS BEEN SET FOR SUPREME COURT ACTION on the question of whether the public has a right of access to the terrorism-related immigration proceedings, most of which, of course, are long over. On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit rejected a government request for rehearing by the entire court, letting stand a decision holding that automatic closure of all post-September 11th immigration proceedings was unconstitutional. The Third Circuit last month decided not to rehear a case that reached the opposite conclusion, that the First Amendment does not guarantee a presumptive right of access. The split in the circuits can only be resolved by Supreme Court review. News coverage: Detroit Free Press; News Media Update (3rd Cir.); News Media Update (6rd Cir.)

A detailed article about Gary Condit's libel suit against author Dominick Dunne, A Horse-Whisperer's Tale Trails Dominick Dunne, appears in today's New York Times' book section. The article sets out the details of Dunne's tall tale. The lawsuit is over Dunne's retelling of it on radio and television talk shows.

Here's part of what Dunne said on the radio:

"Now some of this I can't explain, and I don't want to get into any trouble saying. But according to what the procurer told the horse whisperer who told me, is that Gary Condit was often a guest at some of the Middle Eastern embassies in Washington — where all these ladies were.

"And that he had let it be known that he was in a relationship with a woman that was over. But she was a clinger. He couldn't get rid of her. And he had made promises to her that he couldn't keep. And apparently she knew things about him and had threatened to go public. And at one point he said, `This woman is driving me crazy,' or words to that effect.

"And I wrote all this down at the time, and what the horse whisperer said that the procurer said is, by saying that, he created the environment that led to her disappearance. And she shortly thereafter vanished." Reminding his audience that "I can't vouch for any of this," Mr. Dunne added that he was told that a semi-conscious Ms. Levy had been hustled aboard a private plane. The procurer, Mr. Dunne said, speculated that "she was dropped at sea."

Dunne repeated his remarks in a shorter fashion on Larry King Live. The issue in the lawsuit, according to the Times, is "...whether and when journalists can traffic publicly in rank rumor."

When the Times reporter telephoned Dunne for his comments on the lawsuit, "Mr. Dunne said, "How did you get my number?" He added: "I just am not going to talk. This is a very bad time in my life." Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio host on whose show Dunne told the story, did not return repeated calls to her.

Lin Wood, the excellent Atlanta libel attorney who has obtained libel settlements for John and Patsy Ramsey and Richard Jewell, is representing Condit. Wood argues that "Mr. Dunne knew the story was "nothing more than unverified and unsubstantiated rumor and gossip."

Wood, who said this was the first defamation suit filed by the former Congressman but may not be the last, expects the case to be "a close call." He added: "Does our legal system sanction a society that basically approves of rumor-mongering on national television and national radio stations? Can you simply go on the air and make any accusation you choose?" Journalists do not operate by written rules, but disseminating rumors is not a generally accepted practice in mainstream media.

The suit is considered a long-shot, but not out of the ballpark. Dunne is the sole defendant, so there may not be any deep pockets to fund a large settlement.