NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label debtors' prisons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debtors' prisons. Show all posts

02 September 2016

Stanford Swimmer Brock Turner Released from Jail After Only 3 Months & Is an Arkansas Town Operating a "Hot Check" Court as an Illegal Debtors' Prison? & The Criminalization of Poverty: Woman Describes Fines & Arrests After $1.07 Check Bounces 2SEP16

Still not asking for it
IT is disgusting that "afflunza victim" brock turner is out of jail. Not only did this pig get away with rape, he didn't even serve the full term of his favorable sentence for raping a woman. brock turner is disgusting, aaron persky, the judge who sentenced him is also a disgusting pig, and they will, some day, be held accountable for their actions. Meanwhile people like Nikki Petree, struggling to live in Sherwood, Arkanas, has been repeatedly fined and has been jailed by for bouncing one check for $29.00, and she is not the only victim of "judge" milas 'butchie' hale and the illegal debtors' prison in Sherwood, Arkansas. Thank God for the ACLU,  the +Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the law firm of Morrison & Foerester, at least they have the moral fortitude to take on 'butchie' hale and his illegal court system. I have no doubt Nikki Petree and the other poor people who have been persecuted, prosecuted, fined and imprisoned illegally will get justice. If they had only used the "affluenza" defense!

Stanford Swimmer Brock Turner Released from Jail After Only 3 Months

SEPTEMBER 02, 2016
HEADLINES
H14brockturner
Meanwhile, Stanford swimmer Brock Turner is slated to leave a Santa Clara jail today, after serving only three months of a six-month sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. His short sentence has sparked massive outrage against the judge on the case, Aaron Persky. It’s also inspired California lawmakers to pass a new law requiring prison time for those convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious victim. In a widely read letter, Brock Turner’s victim wrote: "You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today."

Is an Arkansas Town Operating a "Hot Check" Court as an Illegal Debtors' Prison?

SEPTEMBER 02, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuDnCnGaLCg
A woman in Sherwood, Arkansas, just spent 35 days in a county jail after she accidentally bounced a $29 check five years ago. Nikki Petree was sentenced to jail last month by a judge accused of running a debtors’ prison. She had already been arrested at least seven times over the bounced check and paid at least $600 in court fines. Her release comes as the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the ACLU and an international law firm have filed a lawsuit to challenge the modern-day debtors’ prison in Sherwood. We speak with Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, who says Sherwood jails people in violation of a long-standing law that forbids the incarceration of people for their failure to pay debts.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Arkansas to look at the case of a mother who just spent 35 days in a county jail after she accidentally bounced a $29 check five years ago. Nikki Petree was sentenced to jail just last month by a judge accused of running a debtors’ prison. Petree had already been arrested at least seven times over the bounced check, and paid at least $600 in court fines—more than 20 times the original debt. Petree said, quote, "Every time I go to jail, they’d let me out immediately for $100. They’d turn around and add $600 or $700 more to my bond. I couldn’t afford to pay. They cornered me, and there was no way out from underneath it. I felt overwhelmed and hopeless," she said.
AMY GOODMAN: Nikki Petree’s release comes as the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the ACLU and the international law firm Morrison & Foerster have filed a class-action civil rights lawsuit challenging the modern-day debtors’ prison in Sherwood, Arkansas. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the city of Sherwood, Arkansas; Pulaski County, Arkansas; and Judge Milas Hale. Petree is one of four named plaintiffs in the suit who allege their constitutional rights were violated by the Hot Check Division of the Sherwood District Court when they were jailed for their inability to pay court fines and fees. The lawsuit alleges that Sherwood, Pulaski County, engages in a policy and custom of jailing poor people who owe court fines, fees and costs stemming from misdemeanor bad check convictions. It also says they jail people in violation of a long-standing law that forbids the incarceration of people for their failure to pay debts.
For more, we’re going to Washington, D.C., to Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the groups that filed this lawsuit.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you explain exactly what happened to Nikki Petree? She ends up in jail for a $28-and-change check, that she didn’t realize had bounced because her last paycheck hadn’t put in, and she ends up in jail five years later?
KRISTEN CLARKE: Yeah, Nikki Petree is not alone. This is a debtors’ court system that’s been in place in Sherwood that preys on the backs of poor people. Nikki Petree is one woman who exemplifies what happens if you’re poor in Sherwood. She wrote a check that was returned for insufficient funds about five years ago. That check amounted to about $28. And since that time, she’s spent more than 25 days in jail and has paid more than $600 in fines to the local court system. That is money that she did not have. She lives below the poverty line. She remains indebted by more than $2,500 to the local court system. And she was jailed at the time that we filed this suit last week. And there are so many people like her in Sherwood. We filed this lawsuit to bring an end to a court system that we believe preys on the backs of poor people.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Kristen Clarke, in that lawsuit, you raise the issue of why this is happening. You say that local courts and municipalities throughout Arkansas have used the threat and the reality of incarceration to trap their poorest citizens in a never-ending spiral of repetitive court proceedings and ever-increasing debt. But you say also that faced with opposition to increased taxes, municipalities have turned to creating a system of debtors’ prisons to fuel the demand for increased public revenue. How extensive is this in Arkansas that municipalities are using this as a new revenue source?
KRISTEN CLARKE: It’s not only the case in Arkansas, but all over the country we’re seeing the resurgence of debtors’ prisons. In Sherwood, this is a court that’s generated more than $12 million over the course of five years by imposing fines and fees over and over again on poor people who wrote checks to local merchants that were returned for insufficient funds. In Ferguson, Missouri, we saw a local court system that was built on this concept of entangling people in the court system for transit, for traffic offenses. That court generated $20 million off the backs of poor people in Ferguson. But we know that these are not isolated practices.
What’s happened is that in 1983 the Supreme Court made clear that this is unconstitutional, that you can’t lock people up merely because they are poor. But what we’ve seen is the resurgence of debtors’ prison, because there hasn’t been enough enforcement to put a check on court systems like the one in place in Sherwood. So we filed this lawsuit to bring an end to an era that’s been marked by a court system in which one judge presides, Judge Butch Hale, where he has disregarded the due process rights of poor people at every turn.
What happens in Sherwood is that people get on line outside his courtroom. They are forced to sign a waiver of their right to counsel. Nobody is allowed in that courtroom but the defendants. If you come with a family member, an advocate or friend, you’re not allowed in. There are no tapes or recordings of the proceedings, no transcripts of the proceedings. People appear without counsel by their side. No one explains their rights to them. And every time they stand up before Judge Butch Hale, he imposes fine, fee after fine and fee, and court costs on them, subjecting these people to a spiraling cycle of debt.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, it is an astounding story about Nikki Petree. Didn’t she end up owing something like $2,600 on this $28-and-change check?
KRISTEN CLARKE: That’s exactly right. She remains indebted by more than $2,500, $2,600. She spent more than 25 days in jail. She’s already come out of pocket more than $600. And that’s money that she doesn’t have, because she, like everybody who appears before this court, are poor people. This is a court that preys on the most vulnerable people in Sherwood. And they make a profit off of this.

The Criminalization of Poverty: Woman Describes Fines & Arrests After $1.07 Check Bounces

SEPTEMBER 02, 2016

We continue our look at what the ACLU calls an illegal debtors’ prison in Arkansas by speaking with a former resident who wrote a check for $1.07 for a loaf of bread. She describes how after her check bounced, her debt ballooned with fees and fines to nearly $400, and police officers twice came to her job to arrest her. Since then, she has been caught up in Sherwood’s Hot Checks Department. We are also joined by lawyer Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, who says the woman’s experience is common.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re also joined by Janice, who is a native of Little Rock, Arkansas, who’s been caught up in Sherwood’s Hot Checks Department for decades. One check she wrote for $1.07 for a loaf of bread bounced. The debt ballooned after fees and fines to nearly $400. She currently has a warrant in Sherwood’s Hot Checks Department and wishes to remain anonymous for fear of arrest.
So, Janice, you’re in profile; you don’t want to be seen. But explain what happened to you.
JANICE: On several occasions, I have been arrested by Sherwood Police Department for bounced checks, insufficient funds checks. I’ve even been arrested on my job—two different jobs, as a matter of fact, one—with two different hospitals. My checks has totaled, I would say, less than $1,000 worth of checks. And they’re little, small checks. I was a bad manager. I didn’t keep a good register, so, therefore, I had bounced checks. Some were $20. Hundred dollar may have been the highest number of checks that I wrote. But I have had accumulated fees up to thousands of dollars in fees and costs, on roughly less than $1,000 worth of checks.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when you go into the—before the judge on these cases, what’s the process? What happens there?
JANICE: He just bring you before him, and, like they say, you sign a waiver. You go up before the judge, and he assesses your fees and court costs, and give you a monthly payment amount, until you have to pay this monthly payment by such, such date. You have a 10-day grace period. If it’s not paid, then there’s another failure-to-pay warrant issued and additional costs and fines assessed to the amount you already have.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, part of your struggle is you have MS—is that right, Janice? And you’re trying to deal with medical costs, as well?
JANICE: Correct.
AMY GOODMAN: And is this Judge Hale that you’re going before, who Kristen Clarke just described?
JANICE: Yes, it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Are you allowed to bring in a friend, a family member, a lawyer at your side?
JANICE: Now, if you do retain an attorney, an attorney can be there, but family members and friends are not allowed in.
AMY GOODMAN: So what is your situation right now?
JANICE: Right now, I have not been there since somewhere around 2008. And I have an active warrant, because I could not afford to pay the monthly payment that he had assessed of $200, because I feel as if I have paid, you know, restitution on the checks that I’ve previously wrote, but these are all accumulated fines and court costs that has been assessed.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And they’ve come on several occasions to arrest you on your job? I find this hard—this is a civil issue. Why they would be coming to arrest you on your job?
JANICE: Because that’s what they do. Even though they know your address, your home address, they will come out to your job, opposed to your home. And this has caused me to lose two jobs because of that.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Kristen Clarke, what about that, this issue of—I mean, normally, if somebody writes a check that they don’t have funds for, the bank will send them and issue, you know, a charge, but having law enforcement come in and arrest you for this, especially on your job, is this—is this illegal?
KRISTEN CLARKE: This abusive debt collection practice is part of the scheme. The clients that we represent in this case have had the cops show up at their doorstep and insist that they pay money now, or they are threatened with arrest. I am heartbroken to hear the story of the woman who just spoke. But again, we know that these are not isolated cases. This is a systemic pattern that exists across Sherwood and across Pulaski County. This is a court that has made big business out of preying on the backs of poor people. And they have made the focus on the most marginalized people in this community the focus of this court. People who have written small checks that are returned for insufficient funds, that is the focus of this court. And I can’t tell you how many people we’ve talked to who have stories like the woman who just spoke. We represent a cancer patient in this case. You know, he was hospitalized and receiving chemotherapy. And two—you know, a few checks bounced for very small amounts, and this man has been jailed and remains indebted in thousands of dollars to a court. Every time someone appears before Judge Hale, he imposes more court costs, more fines, more fees. And there is no way out for the people who are entrapped in this system.
AMY GOODMAN: So where does the lawsuit go from here, Kristen?
KRISTEN CLARKE: Well, we filed a federal class-action lawsuit. The woman who just spoke may indeed be somebody who is a member of this class. We will fight. We believe that Sherwood is a poster child, if you will. This is a classic example of a debtors’ prison. And we believe we’ll be successful at the end of the day in securing relief for the poor people of Sherwood. We believe that when somebody faces criminal charges, that they should have a lawyer by their side. They should have a judge who warns them about their rights and who counsels them about their rights and respects their due process rights. We will—we will fight on.
And then we’re going to look elsewhere around the country, because we know that this is a nationwide problem that we face. All around the country, we’ve seen the resurgence of debtors’ prisons. We’ve seen the criminalization of poverty. So, we are going to fight until we end this practice and bring our courts in line with that 1983 ruling from the Supreme Court that says you cannot lock poor people up merely because of their inability to pay a fine or fee.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Kristen Clarke, with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. And, Janice, thank you for being with us—not her real name. She is in shadow, but that’s because of what she faces as a poor person who is a victim of Sherwood’s Hot Checks Department in Arkansas.

Democracy Now! Daily Digest 2SEP16


Democracy Now! Daily Digest

A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González

Friday, September 2, 2016

Stories


Could the signing of a historic peace accord in Colombia between the government and FARC rebels bring an end to Latin America's longest armed conflict? "There's a long way ... Read More →

A woman in Sherwood, Arkansas, just spent 35 days in a county jail after she accidentally bounced a $29 check five years ago. Nikki Petree was sentenced to jail last month by ... Read More →

A federal judge has denied a request from the former Black Panther and journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal for life-saving medication that could cure his hepatitis C. Last year, ... Read More →

We continue our look at what the ACLU calls an illegal debtors' prison in Arkansas by speaking with a former resident who wrote a check for $1.07 for a loaf of bread. ... Read More →

Headlines →

09 October 2010

ACLU ONLINE NEWSLETTER 9OKT10

INFORMATION and actions on DADT, govt online surveillance, poverty, religious freedom, terrorism trials, and Native Americans ....read, participate and share!




In This Issue

VICTORY! Judge Orders Air Force to Reinstate Maj. Margaret Witt

If You Care about Private Online Communications, You Should Read This

Giving 'Em Hope: The "It Gets Better Project"

When Being Poor Is a Crime

High Profile Terrorism Trial Starts in NYC

Civil Liberties Minute: Expelled for your religion?

American Indian Women Pressured To Induce Labor

Jail Policy Banning Books and Magazines Is Unconstitutional

Civil Liberties Minute: Expelled for your religion?

May a high school throw a student out of class-expel her from the school-for wearing a religious symbol?

>> Listen to the podcast.

back to top

American Indian Women Pressured To Induce Labor

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit last week against Indian Health Services (IHS) seeking information about reports that pregnant women on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation are being pressured into taking medication to induce labor against their wishes.

There is no obstetric care available on the reservation. Although plans to build such a facility have been pending since 2002, construction has not moved beyond its earliest stages. Since most women on the reservation depend on IHS for healthcare, they are forced to travel 90 miles to St. Mary's Healthcare Center in Pierre for labor and delivery—the nearest facility with an IHS contract.

Many women are simply told that they must have their labor induced on a particular day without being given any information about the risks and benefits of induction, any discussion of their options or any choice in the matter. Many of the women undergo the forced inductions because they are dependent on IHS for their healthcare and feel they have no option but to comply, creating an inherently coercive situation.

"A woman living on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation has the same rights as any other woman to make medical decisions during pregnancy," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "No woman should be compelled to undergo induced labor against her will."

>> Learn more.

back to top

Help fund us with just a click. Vote now at CREDO

Jail Policy Banning Books and Magazines Is Unconstitutional

This week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging an unconstitutional policy at the Berkeley County Detention Center in Moncks Corner, SC barring all books, magazines and newspapers—except for the Bible—from being sent to prisoners.

Filed on behalf of Prison Legal News, a monthly journal on prison law distributed across the nation to prisoners, attorneys, judges, law libraries and other subscribers, the lawsuit charges that jail officials violated the rights of Prison Legal News’ First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by refusing to deliver copies of the journal and other magazines and books to detainees.

The ACLU lawsuit charges that, since 2008, copies of Prison Legal News and other books sent to detainees at Berkeley County have been returned to sender, or simply discarded.

The books rejected by the jail's officials include "Protecting Your Health and Safety," which is designed to help prisoners not represented by an attorney and explains the legal rights inmates have regarding health and safety including the right to medical care and to be free from inhumane treatment.

There is no library at the Berkeley County Detention Center, meaning that some prisoners who are incarcerated for extended periods of time have been deprived of all access to magazines, newspapers and books—other than the Bible—for months or even years on end. There is also no process through which the unconstitutional policy can be challenged.

"This is nothing less than unjustified censorship," said David Shapiro, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project. "There is no legitimate justification for denying detainees access to periodicals and, in the process, shutting them off from the outside world in draconian ways."

>> Learn more about this lawsuit.

back to top

Send to a friend
Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.
October 9, 2010

VICTORY! Judge Orders Air Force to Reinstate Maj. Margaret Witt



ACLU Client and reinstated flight nurse Major Margaret Witt.

Urge Congress to act this year to finally end DADT once and for all.

Take Action

Great news! U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton ordered the Air Force to reinstate ACLU client and flight nurse Major Margaret Witt, who was discharged from the Air Force in 2006 under the military's unconstitutional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy.

Judge Leighton found, after a six-day trial, that Maj. Witt's sexual orientation did not negatively impact unit cohesion or morale. In fact, as several members of Maj. Witt's former unit testified at trial, her discharge was "devastating" and "negatively impacted the unit."

"I want to serve my country," Maj. Witt said. "I have loved being in the military—my fellow airmen have been my family. I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."

A decision by federal court Judge Virginia A. Phillips found that DADT had a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services. The combination of this and the decision in Maj. Witt's case demonstrates, yet again, the counterproductive and discriminatory nature of the DADT policy.

While the Senate failed to take up the Defense Authorization Act and DADT repeal before going on recess, the issue will be back in a matter of weeks, and it is critical to keep the pressure on.

>> Take action: Urge Congress to act this year to finally end DADT once and for all.

back to top

If You Care about Private Online Communications, You Should Read This


An outrageous proposal by the Obama administration would mandate that all online communications services use technologies that would make it easier for the government to collect private communications and decode encrypted messages that Americans send. This includes communications sent using texting platforms, BlackBerries, social networking sites, and other "peer to peer" communications software such as Skype.

There are a number of problems with this proposal. Instead of securing our online communications and protecting our privacy, the government wants to pave the road for more out-of-control government spying. Concern over cyber security is at an all-time high. This proposal will create even more security risks by mandating that our communications have a 'backdoor' for government use—making our online interactions even more vulnerable and easier to collect.

It's not only the government that will go through this 'door.' In 2004, hackers took advantage of a similar law in Greece to hack into mobile communications systems and listen to the calls of high government officials—including the Prime Minister.

The government has yet to make the case that encryption is actually hindering their investigations. According to the most recent Wiretap Report, law enforcement encountered only a single encrypted call last year, and they were able to learn the contents of that call in spite of the encryption.

There is no justification for this move to put our personal online communications within easy reach of the government's prying eyes.

>> Take a stand against this proposal. Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power.

Giving 'Em Hope: The "It Gets Better Project"




Watch the videos: "It Gets Better"

September was a hard month for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, especially for some of its youngest and most vulnerable members.

In Greensburg, Indiana, 15-year-old Billy Lucas was found by his mother in the family's barn after he had taken his own life. Asher Brown, of Houston, Texas, died after shooting himself. 13-year-old Seth Walsh of Tehachapi, California, passed away after spending nine days on life support after he hanged himself from a tree in his backyard. The body of 18-year-old Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi was pulled from the Hudson River in New York, days after he was allegedly humiliated and outed to other students by his roommate. And 19-year-old college student Raymond Chase hanged himself in his dorm room in Rhode Island.

Each of these preventable tragedies speaks to the need for our schools to do a much better job at protecting students who are (or are thought to be) LGBT from harassment and abuse—and teaching all students to treat each other with respect and dignity. But in addition to that, youth like Seth, Asher, Billy, Tyler, and Raymond need to know that they are not alone. They need to know that they will be okay and that people will love them for who they are.

In late September, Seattle writer, sex advice columnist, and activist Dan Savage announced he'd started a YouTube channel called the "It Gets Better Project" to reach out to young people like Seth, Asher, and Billy. The idea is simple: videos featuring LGBT adults sharing their personal experiences talk directly to LGBT youth to show them that life usually improves immensely for LGBT people as they get older. The message to these young people is also simple: "It gets better."

Staff at ACLU's national offices in New York and Washington, D.C. created videos to spread the message.

>> Watch the videos.

back to top

When Being Poor Is a Crime




Read the new report, In for a Penny: The Rise of Debtors' Prisons.
Gregory White could not pay a $339 fine. So, the City of New Orleans imprisoned him for 198 days, costing over $3,500.

A man in Washington State was jailed for two weeks for his legal debts. How much did he owe? $60.

In a time when states are laying off school teachers and firefighters, cities and counties are locking up people who can't pay legal fees—at costs that exceed the actual amount owed.

The aggressive pursuit of defendants who do not pay legal fees seems like a good idea to cash-strapped states, but when that defendant is poor, it's taxpayers who end up paying. The chances plummet for these people to successfully re-enter society, increasing the likelihood that they'll end up back in prison. Thus, a vicious cycle is born.

New reports released by the ACLU and the Brennan Center for Justice document this resurgence of debtors' prisons, despite the fact that the Supreme Court found that imprisoning someone because they are poor violates the 14th Amendment.

These debtors' prisons waste resources by attempting to extract payments from defendants who often are homeless, unemployed or simply too poor to pay.

A former chief judge in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court once wondered: "[H]ow can you describe a system where the City pays $23 a day to the Sheriff to house someone in the Jail for 30 days to collect $100 as anything other than crazy?"

"Crazy" is possibly the only way to describe it.

>> Read the report, "In for a Penny: The Rise of Debtors' Prisons."

back to top

High Profile Terrorism Trial Starts in NYC


A major terrorism trial is about to commence in New York City.

This week, jury selection began in a federal district court in lower Manhattan in the case against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a man accused of involvement in the August 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Tanzania. Ghailani is the first Guantánamo detainee to stand trial in U.S. federal court instead of the flawed military commissions.

Ghailani was captured in 2004, and while four of his co-conspirators were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to life without parole in U.S. federal court, Ghailani caught the eye of the CIA, which held him for two years and subjected him to its "enhanced interrogation techniques" at a secret CIA prison in Poland.

He was then sent to Guantánamo in 2006 and was arraigned in the military commissions in 2008. But then the case was kicked out of the military commissions and sent to federal criminal court—a move President Obama announced himself in his national security speech last May.

The government considers Ghailani a "high-value detainee." Groups like Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe have claimed that trying "high-value detainees" like Ghailani in federal court will invite more terrorist attacks.

But did NYC police commissioner Ray Kelly get that memo? Security at the downtown Manhattan courthouse where Ghailani's trial will take place has been pretty much business as usual—a far cry from the $200 million New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said would be needed to try the 9/11 defendants there.

So, high-profile terrorism detainee? Check. High-profile trial in New York? Check. End of the world? Not so much.

>> Take action: Tell President Obama to try the 9/11 suspects in federal criminal court.

back to top

Join us on...
facebook twitter YouTube
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004-2400
Geraldine Engel and Lisa Sock,
Editors

Privacy Statement
This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.

Click here to forward this message.

ACLU Liberty The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee