Author: mopress

Note: the following letter from Ramsey Muniz (forwarded by his spouse) hints that the Leavenworth prisoner may soon mount a federal appeal of his conviction and sentencing on marijuana related charges.–gm

***************

The enclosed letter was written by Ramsey Muniz. It is
a legal response written to a person who expressed disbelief
in our government resorting to such tactics as framing individuals.–Irma Muniz (via email Jan. 18, 2005)

***************

October 19, 2005

Dear Mr. Ochoa:

Your letter shows that you’re different from those
who make a hobby of being interested, including seekers
after causes and people who like to get their names of
letterheads. The sincerity expressed in your letter has
developed a profound respect from me. However, while I
sincerely respect your honest opinion, I must disagree
with the basis supporting your assertion that you don’t
believe me because, on your own words, you haven’t seen
your government doing such things to others, including
those who are more dangerous than myself.

The reason for your radical position is only one,
which is "misinformation." The words "public confidence
in the criminal justice system," most of the time are
used to justify releasing someone who has had his constitutional
rights trampled on by government agents.

Of course, this bad side of the government, when this
is disclosed by a criminal defendant, apparently never
meets the necessary credibility of citizens who cannot
understand that our democratic system demands that
government officials shall be subject to the same rules
of conduct that are common to the citizen. See
Olmstead v United States, 277 U.S. 433, 585, 48 S.Ct.
575 (1928). The government’s misconduct in criminal
cases has been well documented in the American justice
system, causing expressions from courts as "there comes
a time when enough is more than enough – it is just too
much." Williamson v. United States, 311 F.2d 411, 445
(5th Cir. 1962) (a contingent fee informer case).

Although you are now aware, the existence of misconduct
involving misbehaving officials, as in my case, has been
well documented in the American Jurisprudence. Under
clearly established federal law, the government violates
a defendant’s right to due process when it fails to
disclose evidence favorable to the accused prior to trial
and the evidence is "Material either to guilt or to
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith
of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,
87 (1963). In addition, the Supreme Court has long
recognized that "A prosecutor’s knowing presentation
of false testimony is ‘inconsistent with the rudimentary
demands of justice.’" Jacobs v. Scott, 513 U.S. 1067 1995)
(Stevens, J., dissenting from denial of petition for
writ of certiorari) (quoting Mooney v. Holohan,
294 U.S. 102, 112 (1935)).

As a result, due process is violated when a
prosecutor fails to correct testimony that he knows
to be false, even when the falsehood goes only to the
witness’s credibility. Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28,
31 (1957) (per curiam); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264,
269 (1959). These principles illustrate "the special role
played by the American prosecutor in the search for truth
in criminal trials." Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263,
281 (1999). In our system, the prosecutor’s role
"transcends that of an adversary; [the prosecutor] ‘is
the representative not on an ordinary party to a
controversy, but a sovereignty…whose interest…in a
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case,
but that justice shall be done.’" United States v. Bagley,
473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985) (quoting Berger v. United States,
295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)).

As you many now understand, without having solid and
irrefutable evidence that my conviction was obtained by
misbehaving (government) officials, any claim of such
wrongdoing would be, under the law, ridiculous and a
waste of time. The filing of a motion for a new trial,
in my case, will be based on recently discovered evidence
(undisclosed by the government at trial) proving such
allegations. After the filing of the motion in a federal
court, the evidence supporting my claim will be public
record, and you, as well as many others, will receive a
copy of such motion. Accordingly, I believe that at this
time your radical position against the credibility of
my cause is somewhat …premature?

Your letter, however, has a profound value for my
cause. For ordinary citizens, interest is a necessary
condition of influence. When they communicate concerns
with respect to the credibility of my allegations, they
become more influential.

Please receive my most sincere gratitude for your
very welcome correspondence.

Sincerely,

Ramiro R. Muniz

******************

http://www.freeramsey.com

A roundup of web news about the high goddess of Texas environmental responsibility, Part One, Corporate Watchdog Radio.

Corporate Watchdog Radio:
Show 3, "Bhopal, India, 21 Years Later" ; mp3 audio.

"On the
night of Dec. 3, 1984, a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India emitted a
noxious gas cloud of Methyl Isocyanide. More than 20,000 people
have died as a result."

In addition to an interview with Wilson, attorney Sanford Lewis interviews Sathyu Satinath Sarangi, Managing Director of the Sambhavna Trust Clinic in Bhopal:

"We estimate there are 120,000 to 150,000 people who are chronically
ill from the gas disaster. And there are 10,000 to 15,000 people
who are sick from the contaminated groundwater. And also there
were tens of thousands of children who were born after the disaster,
and we have found that those children also carry the marks of Union
Carbide’s poison," says Sarangi.

"The women of Bhopal they have just got back last week. They were at
the Dow India’s Bombay headquarters where they demonstrated and they
pasted a proclamation asking Dow to clean up Bhopal and to stop
marketing and producing Dursban which was banned in the US, but is now being promoted and produced in India," says Sarangi

"So the women continue to fight. They are fighting for clean
water in the groundwater contaminated area. And they are fighting
for punishment to Warren Anderson and Union Carbide, demanding that the
US government send them to the Indian courts. And they continue
to fight for better medical care. . . ."

"So the fight for what they
call justice and dignity–that continues. And what is amazing and
inspiring is that the stuggle of these women becomes more powerful with
every passing year."

A Museum of Remembrance and a statue dedicated to the disaster was dedicated in December, with a march of children, a vigil in front of a Union
Carbide factory, and denunciation of the "crumpled life" that has been left to victims.

Interlude: "Flames not Flowers" by Movement in Motion, a Bhopal rap.

Developing a theme of women’s leadership in the global movement for environmental justice, Lewis next interviews Lois Marie Gibbs,
executive director of the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice,
who in 1978 founded the Love Canal Homeowners’ Association.

"It is perfectly logical and predictable," says Gibbs, "that if you
threaten the lives of children, mothers will stand up and be
‘unreasonable’ and do what they have to do to make it right," says
Gibbs. "If someone holds a gun to your child’s head and says it
may or may not go off, you have every reason to scream ‘unreasonably’ get that
gun away from the child’s head. That’s the way it is with
chemicals."

Turning now to Diane and Dow, Lewis says that both Diane Wilson and Dow
executive Warren Anderson are both fugitives of a sort (this was before
Wilson was jailed).

"Diane has been charged with criminal trespass for hanging a banner at
a Union Carbide Dow Chemical facility that said, "Dow: Responsible for
Bhopal. She received a six month jail sentence for that which she is due to serve.

"Warren Anderson was CEO of Union Carbide back in 1984 when the Carbide
plant in India blew up and killed more than 20,000 people. He
visited Bhopal shortly after the incident and agreed to return for any
legal proceedings. After leaving he was charged with manslaughter
for those thousands of deaths, along with Union Carbide. However,
Anderson and Carbide have refused to return to India to face the
criminal trial. In the eyes of the Indian courts, they are fugitives from the law."

"Wilson has now pulled a similar maneuver to Anderson’s. For now, she has refused to return to Texas to serve her sentence. Instead, on Nov. 15 she began a search for Warren Anderson, to discuss their common fate and as she says to try to talk some sense into him."
DIANE WISON: "I’ve got criminal trespass and I’ve got five months in jail. And I imagine for refusing to go to jail, one time I kind of looked into it, and that they can definitely increase the penalties for my refusing to go to jail, so I could possibly be looking at a year’s jail time…."

"They do not want me out there talking, and I know even they talked with one of the plant managers down there and they said all she wants to do is talk about Bhopal. That is right and I will continually talk about it.

SANFORD LEWIS: So now instead of returning to Texas you are going to go on a hunt for Warren Anderson.

DIANE WILSON: I just decided to bring out the very blatant inequality between corporate crime and just little old blue collar crime like me like criminal trespass. As an ‘unreasonable woman’ I’m going to try to talk some sense into him.

LOIS MARIE GIBBS: Diane is absolutely right. You know this is a double standard in this country. People like Warren and corporate executives get away literally with murder, while someone like Diane who is standing up for her community, for her fisher people–that’s how they make a living–for the country. You know they are being chased by the police for speaking out and doing what America prides itself on–the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression.

In November 2005 concerned shareholders of Dow Chemical, led by New York pension funds, filed a formal resolution in advance of the May 2006 shareholder meeting asking the company to address its responsibilities for the Bhopal disaster. The resolution follows previous requests from the investment community, including formal request for an SEC investigation into misleading representations made by company officials about legal responsibilities and liabilities pending from the Bhopal disaster, dioxin contamination in Michigan, Agent Orange exposure among military veterans, and the pesticide Dursban. Stanford Lewis, the host of Corporate Watchdog Radio, authored the August letter to the SEC.

For information on student activism see: http://www.studentsforbhopal.org/

What are the chances that a Bhopal type accident could happen in the USA? Director of the toxics campaign for Greenpeace, Rick Hind, recalls the Texas City explosion that killed over 500 people in 1947. Because of the Bhopal tragedy in 1984, the USA Congress in 1986 asked for an inventory of hazardous risks and then in 1990 legislated Bhopal amendments to the Clean Air Act, requiring federal oversight over Risk Management Plans.

"We know that the chemical companies’ own self reporting indicates that there are 4,000 facilities in the USA that threaten more than 1,000 residents and workers," says Hind. "Approximately 100 of these threat

en a million people and the workers on site…. Every major city remains on those lists. And even according to Bush administration security experts, nothing has been done to reduce our vulnerability to this hazard since 9/11. And at least one top advisor says this should be our top priority over the next two years."

Chlorine is the major risk, but we know safer and more effective alternatives, not only for chlorine, but for amonia. Instead of reducing risks through alternative chemicals, "the industry is preferring higher fences, more guards, and meaner dogs," says Hind. Meanwhile, commonsense solutions such as alternative chemicals, reduced amounts, or relocations are being held up by the oil and chemical lobby that has essentially controlled both houses of Congress since 9/11.

For more info see the Greenpeace Toxics Campaign website.

Corporate Watchdog Radio: Show 5, "Christmas for Corporations" ; mp3 audio (move the play marker a little past half way).

This email from Paul Wright, Editor of Prison Legal News: "The fifth circuit upheld the conviction of three INS officers who showed a depraved indifference to an immigration detainees medical indifference. After a raid a 15 year old suffered a broken back, how isn’t said, but the defendants were convicted of a civil rights violation for wiping their feet on the now paralyzed child, pepper spraying him to see if he would move, driving him around Texas on the floor of a police bus, etc. He died 11 months later."

EXCERPT from opinion of the court: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT; No. 04-20131; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Richard Gonzales, Louis Gomez, Carlos Reyna:

The defendants, Gonzales, Gomez, and Reyna worked as
deportation officers for the San Antonio division of the INS.
They were members of the elite San Antonio Fugitive Unit, a group that specialized in tracking down and deporting illegal aliens with criminal records. Early in the morning of March 25, 2001, their unit, together with INS agents from Houston, prepared to raid a house in Bryan, Texas. They were advised to be alert. The night before, agents had encountered an armed 15-year old near the house.
At 8:00 AM, the raid began. The San Antonio unit rushed in
the front door while the Houston officers maintained a perimeter
around the house. Minutes later, one of the house’s occupants,
Serafin Carrera, lay paralyzed on the kitchen floor.

The testimony is unclear about which officers took down
Carrera, though Gonzales, Gomez, and Reyna were all involved.
The prosecution did not charge the defendants with excessive
force in taking Carrera down or with causing the broken neck
which he suffered in that process. Instead, the defendants were
convicted for their behavior thereafter.

All three defendants had close contact with Carrera while he
lay handcuffed on the floor. Carrera begged for help, screaming
"they broke me . . . Tell them to kill me . . . Tell them to take me to a hospital." In response, Gomez taunted, "From here you’re going to go to jail and you’re never going to get out, you son of a f*cking mother." Officer Gonzales called him "cabron" and invited his fellow officers to wipe their feet on him. The three defendants stood in the kitchen, with Carrera on the floor crying for help, trying to figure out how to get their paralyzed detainee into an INS van. Officer Gonzales, the San Antonio team leader, ordered a detention officer to pull the van closer to the house, saying "I don’t want anybody to see what’s going on." Next, Gonzales, Gomez, and two other officers dragged Carrera from the house, across the backyard, and into the van. Carrera complained of pain, asking to be shot and put out of his misery, while Officer Gomez pulled him through the van door and onto the front seat. Gomez struggled to position Carrera’s limp body on the seat, finally leaving him slumped on his side and handcuffed. As the van departed for the Brazos County Jail, Officer Reyna asked the driver to give Carrera a screen test—an unofficial maneuver in which the driver slams on the brake causing a handcuffed passenger to lurch forward and hit his face against the screen.

The nearby Brazos County Jail was not the final destination
for Carrera or any of the other detainees. The INS Officers
merely used its parking lot as a makeshift processing area for
the illegal aliens. After processing, the aliens were to be sent by bus to New Braunfels, and then removed to Mexico.

After all the aliens were loaded into two vans, the officers
returned to their cars and followed the vans to the Brazos County Jail for processing. At the jail, all three defendants dragged Carrera off the van, hitting his head against the door on the way out. They dragged him across the parking lot while taunting him and playing with his limp body. Gonzales ordered the bus driver to open the luggage compartment, and threatened, jokingly, to make Carrera ride below. INS officers testified that Gonzales said, "Let’s Mace the f*cker, see if he budges."

The three defendants dragged Carrera onto the bus. Because the bus had tinted windows, no one outside of it saw what happened next, but after a few minutes all three defendants ran off the bus choking and laughing. With a smirk, Gonzales claimed that he had an "accidental discharge" of pepper spray. A nurse was on duty at the Brazos County Jail, and a hospital just four miles away, but the defendants left Carrera by himself on the floor of the bus, handcuffed, eyes swollen shut, and foaming at the mouth. At around 11:30 AM, three hours after Carrera’s neck
was broken, the bus left for New Braunfels. Carrera rode on the
floor of the bus for three more hours until he reached the Comal
County Jail. Upon his arrival, the intake nurse refused to take
custody of Carrera without a medical evaluation. He was taken
by ambulance to a nearby hospital and then airlifted to a trauma
center in San Antonio. Eleven months later, Carrera died.

The next day, the cover-up began. Gonzales called everyone into his office and assured them, "we’re going to get through this." When Gonzales found out that a bus driver had already written a memo about the incident, he called the bus driver into his office and said, "who the f*ck told [you] to write a memo . .
. nobody told you to write any memos . . . I’m the one that’s
going to take care of the memos." Gonzales demanded that the bus driver change his account to say that Carrera had assaulted them. The driver refused.

"Fighting for human and constitutional rights is a theme, and a strategy, that could keep Democrats together for the next fifty years, election after election. It’s time to begin a lofty fight to add the right to vote to the Constitution–and paint a truer picture of most Republicans as undemocratic. It’s time to stand up and insure every American’s right to vote to have that vote fully protected and to have it fairly counted."

Jesse Jackson, Jr. in The Nation