The Planet has been contacted by the family of the King Middle School student whose experience with bullying precipitated an uproar yesterday on the school site. Before it was over, it brought numerous Berkeley police with drawn guns to a locked down campus, responding to a report that a suspect with a gun had been sighted. This turned out not to be true, according to a family member familiar with the situation (who asked that her name not be used because of fear of reprisals) who called the Planet on the family’s behalf this morning. 

She told us that the child in question, an 11-year-old boy, had recently moved to this area. He is a small special needs student, with problems including seizures and tics which he can’t control. He has experienced several episodes of being beaten up by fellow students since he entered King, which have been reported to school administrators, but, as reported by his relative, “there were no consequences”. She says that these instances have been recorded on video. 

By her account, yet another such incident was reported on Thursday, which prompted the boy’s mother, accompanied by two other family friends, to go to the school to see if he needed their help, since school administrators had not been able to stop the bullying. One of these friends, an African-American young man with dreadlocks, was the person reported—it’s not clear by whom—to be in possession of a gun, which turned out not to be true, despite reports in local media to the contrary. 

Yesterday’s Berkeley Police Department press release, reprinted in the Planet, described “a report of a man armed with a handgun” and said that “the suspect… appears to be a parent or caregiver of a student.” 

The Police Department release said that “ witnesses described the suspect as a 20- to 30-year-old black male, 5’7” tall, with a medium build and long “twisty” braids. He was reportedly wearing a white hooded top, and blue jeans.” 

Our contact said that when the family friend who matched that description learned that he’d been accused of carrying a gun onto a school site, he voluntarily went to the Berkeley Police and told them what had actually happened. As a result, no charges of any kind have been filed about the incident. 

It’s possible that the panicky response of students and administrators might have been caused by stereotypical views of a young Black man with dreads and a hoodie, ironic in that recent school shooters have overwhelmingly been White. 

Family members of the 11-year-old bullying victim are still not satisfied with the school’s lack of success in ending the attacks.  

“We want to see some consequences for these kids,” our source said.  

She said that she was a 35-year Berkeley citizen, and another relative was a recently retired longtime BUSD employee, and that they’d encouraged the child’s immediate family to move here from another state because they hoped he’d get more help from the Berkeley schools.  

The Planet has not been able to contact school authorities for comment. 

Calls to Berkeley Police Officer Byron White, supposed to be BPD’s press contact, have not been returned. 

 

Berkeley Police quickly responded earlier today to a report of a man armed with a handgun at King Middle School at 3:20pm, shortly after school was let out. While officers, including all on-duty members of the Special Response team, confirmed that the suspect had already left school grounds, several officers remained at the North Berkeley scene to secure the area. Others are now coordinating with outside agencies to look for the suspect. 

Berkeley Police are interviewing witnesses and working with Berkeley Unified School District to gather more information about the suspect, who appears to be a parent or caregiver of a student. Witnesses described the suspect as a 20- to 30-year-old black male, 5’7” tall, with a medium build and long “twisty” braids. He was reportedly wearing a white hooded top, and blue jeans. 

We are encouraging students, families or others who might have other information to please contact the Berkeley Police Department at (510) 981-5900. 

We don’t expect any further updates today.

Berkeley Unified School District's Board of Education voted unanimously Wednesday to appoint Brent Stephens as the district's next superintendent. 

Stephens earned his doctorate from Harvard University's Graduate School of Education. He began his teaching career as a Spanish bilingual teacher in Oakland, helping immigrant students and their families adjust to life in the U.S. 

Early in his career, he served as a special education paraprofessional and as both an elementary and secondary school principal. While working in Boston, he achieved National Board certification, which is the country's highest professional distinction for educators. 

Currently, he serves as the chief academic officer of the San Francisco Unified School District. Before he took on his current role, he served as assistant superintendent. 

"In Berkeley, I see a community committed to the full promise of desegregation, a fearless and public reflection on progress towards true equity, and strong, results-oriented community partnerships," Stephens said in a news release. 

"I am a public educator to my core, and I look forward to working with Berkeley Unified students, staff, and community to provide every one of our students with the opportunity to grow, learn, and thrive," he said. 

Stephens will assume the new position officially on July 1, according to the school district.

Dear Councilmember Davila and Members of the Police Review Commission,

While I am grateful for having had the opportunity to serve my community and to influence police policy, I am resigning from the Police Review Commission. I want to thank you, the other PRC Commissioners and staff for their assistance as I learned how the system does and doesn’t work.

It is my conclusion that the PRC, as it is presently constituted, is completely ineffective at addressing the concerns of the marginalized people in our city who are most vulnerable and most likely to be in need of assistance. The current PRC bears little resemblance to the scrappy agency that once challenged police practices and engaged the community in creating and revising policies, identifying when actual misconduct occurred and monitoring the functioning of the department. This was possible because of the access that the PRC had to information as well as the determination of city officials to guard against violations of the constitutional rights of our citizens.

In the current situation, the PRC has almost no access to data, information, reports or any source documents that could be used to evaluate police work in this city and so we are unable to provide actual oversight. The commission relies almost exclusively on anecdotal information and oral reports provided by BPD. Either BPD is not employing data based methods with which to evaluate their effectiveness or they are simply refusing to share this information with the PRC. In either case, without the cooperation of the department, the PRC cannot actually provide credible oversight. The Commission even wrote a letter to the City Attorney asking what information they believed we COULD look at and never even got a response. The situation is so extreme that the PRC Officer told me that I had faster and easier access to information as a citizen than as a commissioner on the PRC. 

The lack of access to evaluative information is downright perilous. The PRC is often provided with opportunities to hear from the police perspectives. However, the PRC has no metrics by which to actually evaluate police effectiveness. We have yet to receive information that could help us to identify a) how much force is being used, b) how many cases are being closed or referred for prosecution, c) how effectively the budget is being maintained d) whether these allocations are actually helping the people of Berkeley e) what the (data informed) goals of the department even are from year to year. We have no data that would allow us to substantiate the often stated claim that our police are among “the best in the nation”. We are supposed to take it on blind faith that the police would “never do such a thing”. To be clear: I am not saying that the police are not doing a good job. I am saying that none of the commissioners can honestly answer the question because we simply don’t have the information to support or refute that claim. 

Making any kind of fair determination of whether an officer engaged in misconduct is also not really possible. The standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for complaints is unreasonably high, especially for a process that supposedly does not require that complainants have or be attorneys in order to stand a chance of winning. The lopsided complaint procedures currently in place greatly favor the officer and anyone with a serious allegation of misconduct would be better off going directly to a courtroom to seek redress than to use this very flawed and demoralizing process. 

From the lack of accommodation and assistance when filing a complaint to the insensitivity of some commissioners when it comes to consideration of issues of disability, trauma, mental illness and homelessness, there is no good reason to use this complaint process. What was once a relatively accessible agency that welcomed those with the courage to follow through on a complaint is now a place where complaints go to die. The PRC record of sustained complaints in recent years is abysmal and there has been a huge decline in recent years of people even trying to use the process. It seems that people with mental health disabilities or who are homeless stand virtually no chance of making a successful complaint and are therefore quite vulnerable to potential abuse. 

Knowing some of the challenges when I joined the commission two years ago, I decided that I would focus on the policy side of things. Sadly, that function has also been greatly diminished. With the city’s subscription to the Lexipol service, the entire binder of General Orders for the BPD is being rewritten in order to reduce the chances of liability and to further insulate police from accountability. With this massive revision, whole groups of General Orders are being approved by the PRC with almost no chance of citizen input or public participation. With NO communication with the general public, policies on the use of spit hoods, canines, tasers, and other dramatic changes are being considered and rubber-stamped. These policies are remaking the culture of the BPD while disregarding previous decades of collaborations with outside experts and community members in the shaping of BPD General Orders. 

Finally, the inaction, lack of responsiveness and disregard by city leadership to concerns raised by the PRC is the final nail in the coffin of Berkeley’s efforts at civilian oversight. It seems that those who could require the chief to comply with requests for information, who could implement some evaluation and controls on the department, who could fight for the independence of the commission and the most basic principles of good governance have turned a blind eye to the ways in which the power of the PRC has and continues to be eroded. I believe that the PRC must fight harder for basic access to information. It must stop simply accepting the delays and diversions of the Chief and demand some answers. Sadly, the PRC has become more of an obstacle to real reform because it provides the mistaken illusion that some form of police oversight exists, while it most certainly does not. 

Councilmember, I will continue to advocate for the rights of the people and community control of police. I will work to support a charter amendment that would remake how our city monitors and controls police functioning so that it functions at the pleasure of the people and is held accountable for what it does and does not do. I look forward to the day when our praise for the men and women of the department is not merely some hollow, obligatory refrain, but is a well-established and genuine acknowledgement of their commitment and excellence. 

Sincerely, 

Andrea Prichett

UPDATE: UC took out the freebox early this morning despite the unanimous resolution of support for it by the ASUC.

---

The Association Students of the University of California (ASUC) voted unanimously Wednesday, May 1, 2019, to support the freshly built freebox recreated at the April 28th concert in celebration of People's Park's 50th Anniversary by passing both a letter of support and a unanimous resolution to "affirm the establishment and continued existence of the People's Park Freebox." 

 

The new freebox is about twelve feet tall and stands between the driveway and the basketball court. It was designed by park volunteers who included shelves so that articles of clothing can be neatly folded in stacks of pants, shirts, etc. A volunteer painting crew was planning murals on the back and touching up designs on the front and sides on a sunny Friday. 

"We're calling it the Freeshack," said one volunteer. "It's a little bigger than the old boxes." The Berkeley City Council will have a resolution supporting People's Park on its agenda from the Peace and Justice Commission coming up on Tuesday, May 14th, 2019.

On April 29, the Goldman Environmental Prize marked its 30^th anniversary with a stellar event that included an extraordinary demonstration of "projection mapping" artistry (courtesy of Immersive) that turned the interior of San Francisco's Opera House into a cathedral of moving imagery with huge butterflies appearing to drop through the roof and flutter over the proscenium, only to dissolve into the next episode of eye-popping imagery—twin waterfalls that suddenly appeared to thunder down the stage walls to the floor. 

The event was hosted by Alexandra Cousteau (Jacques-Yves Cousteau's grand-daughter). The featured speaker was former VP Al Gore. Musical entertainment was provide by Michael Franti and Oakland's Vocal Rush choir. And, as usual, Robert Redford was the voice behind the inspiring mini-docs that introduced each of the year's six eco-heroes. 

Each winner was memorable and their victories inspirational. Some had colleagues who were murdered. Some were forced to flee their homes and seek asylum abroad. One winner, Chilean Mapuche land activist Alberto Curamil, was arrested and jailed in November 2018. His award was accepted by his daughter. (The Goldman's are activists as well as philanthropists, so, if you want to help free Alberto Curamil, you can go to goldmanprize.org/alberto.) 

Defending the Earth from plunder can be a dangerous business that requires an exceptional degree of commitment. During his speech, Alfred Brownell (forced to flee his native Liberia after successfully challenging the palm oil plantations that are destroying Indigenous lands) paused to admonish the audience for applauding. He suggested a better response: "Don't clap! Act!" 

You can watch the entire event below: 

 

The Internet age has made “I told you so” a lot easier to say.

Case in point: the whiney, self-serving op-ed by James Comey which appeared in my Thursday New York Times.

Title and subtitle: “James Comey: How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Bill Barr: Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive this president.”

The piece, published just in time to pile on with the Democrats’ fully justified disgust at Barr’s mendacious performance before a Senate committee the previous day, is a wordy description of how virtuous men like Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein [and Jim Comey?] are gradually compromised by sucking up [he uses fancier words] to Donald Trump. The ending is especially stirring:

“…to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values.

“And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.”

There’s just one problem. If you look back on the public history of both Barr and Comey, you’ll discover that they deserve each other. People who’ve known them before have predicted what they’re doing now. They’re not exactly cut from the same cloth: Barr has always been an unprincipled schemer, whereas Comey has specialized in self-deceptive self-aggrandizement. But both of their souls have long since been off the menu. 

You can find all the evidence online if you look around. 

First, has Barr recently been co-opted? Has he undergone a mystical transmogrification from virtuous leader to sycophantic shill for Trump? 

Not exactly. He’s sung the same sort of tune before, when he engineered the cover-up and eventual 1992 pardon of six in-process prosecutions of participants in the Iran-Contra affair, including Caspar Weinberger. 

The independent counsel assembling the case against Weinberger was Berkeley’s own Jim Brosnahan, and he still remembers how it went down. 

“If you want a presidential cover-up, Barr is your guy,” Brosnahan, now 85, told VICE News in April. “And I think we’ve already seen that.” 

Comey’s good-man-gone-wrong theory is just a myth. Barr’s been a black hat for most of his career. 

Watch the Vice video for a quick take on who he’s always been: 

 

And then if you want to get to know what makes Comey himself tick, you should read Kurt Eichenwald’s November 7, 2016, Newsweek piece which thoroughly deconstructs him: FBI Director James Comey Is Unfit For Public Service 

Here’s how it starts: 

“James Comey should not simply be fired as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He must be barred forever from any form of public service.”

And it goes on from there, expressing in lengthy and graphic terms Eichenwald’s outrage at Comey’s wink-wink-nudge-nudge expose of the email server in Hillary Clinton’s basement: 

“In the last 10 days, Comey has whipsawed the election for president of the United States. Now we know he did it for no reason. When his agents found information that suggested there were emails on a laptop that might have relevance to the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her email servers, Comey did not wait until he knew even a scintilla of information before announcing it to the world. Reasonably, lots of voters assumed there must be a there there—who could imagine a person with the power of the FBI director would turn the election on its head for no particular reason, on the basis of nothing?

Then, Sunday, Comey handed down another missive from on high: Never mind. His agents had looked through the emails and decided they were piffle. His majesty, the FBI director, has not yet deigned to officially inform his subjects—the American people—whether the emails related to the Clinton case or what they were. (However, people involved in the case tell Newsweek that almost all of them were duplicates of what the bureau already had or were personal.) He just said “nothing to see here” and waived us on our way. “Well, forget it, Jim. We’re not moving on. America has just witnessed one of the most—if not the most—egregious abuses of power in the service of one man’s ego in its history. Joseph McCarthy and A. Mitchell Palmer at least believed they were fighting a Communist threat. Richard Nixon, in Watergate, at least had the motive of retaining power and covering up wrongdoing. But Comey—who I do not believe did this for partisan reasons—has no such motive. This was about him, about preserving his now forever-destroyed reputation, about preening with his self-satisfied standing as a maverick who acts based on what he thinks is right, regardless of others’ opinion. But there is a very thin line between being independent and being reckless. And Comey has demonstrated he does not know the difference.” 

That’s just the beginning of a lengthy and outraged essay which Eichenwald himself called ”a full Comey tear-down”. Do remember, November 7 was the day before the disastrous election, so the piece accurately anticipated the pivotal role which Comey’s stupid grandstanding would play in creating the Trump victory. 

(The role of the New York Times, where Eichenwald once worked, and especially of Maureen Dowd, in propagating this nonsense should not be forgotten either.) 

More: “Plenty of people in Washington knew of Comey’s self-infatuation and predicted it would lead to the exact kind of problem born of his arrogance that has convulsed the country for more than a week. In fact, shortly after he was nominated for FBI director, the Daily Beast quoted an unidentified Justice Department official saying these frighteningly prescient words:’If past is prologue, something will happen in the context of a legal, policy, or operational disagreement where Jim may get on the high horse and threaten to resign or take some other action unless things go the way he believes they should.’ “

Far be it from me to make excuses for Donald Trump, but it’s just possible that “the Russia thing” was not the only reason he fired Comey. 

In any event, it’s more than a little scary to think that this country is now in the hands of a cast of characters who wouldn’t have been credible in a ‘40s B movie. Neither Comey, nor Barr, sadly, will be “barred forever from any form of public service”, though they both should be. 

And neither is a valiant leader co-opted by the evil Mr. T. Anyone who remembers history or at least knows how to do a Google search might have predicted the pickle we’d be in with these two jerks right about now. We were warned, weren’t we? 

In fact, when you think about it, it’s not a B movie these two belong in, it’s an opera, a genre where the malign underlying nature of the principal villain is established early on and leads to the inevitable disastrous outcome.  

John Adams, are you watching? This could be your next big hit.

On Friday, April 12, 2019, attorney Jason Bezis, representing Livable California and Community Venture Partners, Inc., filed a cease and desist demand letter with the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors (BART) to “cure or correct Brown Act Violations” at the BART Board’s March 14, 2019 special meeting to endorse Senate Bill 50. 

In that letter, CVP and Livable CA alleged that the BART Board took part in substantial violations of central provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution, because BART failed to provide adequate notice to the public, and there was no finding of fact by the BART Board to support their decision to call for a special meeting. 

In response, on Friday May 3rd, Matt Burrows, general counsel for BART issued a letter to the BART Board recommending that 

“the action taken under item 3 of the Board's Special Meeting agenda of March 14, 2019” [the board’s endorsement of SB-50] be “vacated.” (Emphasis added) 

In advising the Board, Mr. Burrows adds the caveat that 

“Generally, the Act bars a lawsuit if the Board cures the complained of act by providing notice of a new meeting in public session within 30 days of notice of a complaint. The Act expressly provides that taking such action shall not constitute an admission of wrongdoing.” 

While this is technically correct, as detailed at length in our complaint to the BART Board, we continue to maintain that “wrongdoing” did in fact occur and that the lack of public notice and more importantly a lack of transparency and good faith dealings are apparent in the record and the other documents and evidence we have received under a separate Public Records Act request. 

However, in addition to recommending that the BART Board cure the violation, Mr. Burrows is also recommending that at its upcoming May 9th hearing, 

“the Board takes a position of Support on Senate Bill 50 (Wiener)” 

That recommendation includes a staff report, SB 50 (Wiener) Analysis and Recommendation, which will be considered at the May 9^th hearing, in order to facilitate a discussion and a new vote on endorsement by the BART Board. 

Senate Bill 50 is the most serious challenge by the State Legislature to locally elected government control of planning and zoning in California’s history. And although recent amendments and “compromises” among state senators have watered down some of its provisions, the precedent it sets undermines the very foundations of the sovereignty of locally elected government and the sanctity of the General Plans of local government, which are protected in our State’s Constitution. 

The actions taken by CVP and Livable CA have now provided the public another chance to express its concerns about SB 50 and to oppose its endorsement by BART. 

BART's mission does not include real estate development 

Taxpayers need to remind BART that they are not in the housing or real estate development business. BART was founded as a community-serving transportation agency. As their website proudly proclaims, "For more than 45 years BART has provided fast, reliable transportation to downtown offices, shopping centers, tourist attractions, entertainment venues, universities and other destinations for Bay Area residents and visitors alike." 

As such, BART has no place getting involved in politics or regional housing planning, particularly in supporting a state mandate that usurps locally elected government's authority over local zoning and planning. 

It should also be noted that at present, BART already has the authority to build housing on its surplus land and in fact, in many locations its unused land is already zoned for housing and zoned in existing general plan documents for housing and mixed use development. 

Therefore, there is no necessity for the BART Board to endorse SB 50 or any similar legislation. Let's also bear in mind that many of the duly elected bodies, who are responsible for planning and zoning, such as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Marin Board of Supervisors, have not endorsed SB 50. 

Call to Action 

CVP and Livable CA recommend that SF Bay Area residents make their voices heard and contact the BART Board to express their opposition to SB 50. 

E-mails should be submitted before May 9th to this address: 

boardofdirectors@bart.gov and also to the individual BART e-mail address of the BART director who serves the writer's area, if available. 

There are nine BART directors, listed on this BART webpage: 

https://www.bart.gov/about/bod 

Livable California, Inc., a San Francisco-based California nonprofit corporation, is a statewide coalition of elected officials and community leaders who work together to educate, network and advocate for community interests around land use, zoning, transportation, and housing issues. Its mission is: (1) to empower communities to take action to support local community planning and decision making with the goal of an equitable and sustainable future for California; and (2) to grow and sustain communities that meet the needs of individuals and families, governed by locally elected City Councils and Boards of Supervisors, in collaboration with regional agencies, and free from undue influence of big business and Sacramento. 

Community Venture Partners, Inc. is a Bay Area-based California nonprofit organization that facilitates and assists community-based projects, programs and initiatives that demonstrate the highest principles of economic, social and environmental sustainability. CVP is committed to the need for a transparent, "bottom up" public process that incorporates under-served community voices into government decision-making. The projects, events, programs and services offered by Community Venture Partners address a variety of community, local and regional issues related to city, county and regional planning, community involvement, affordable housing, sustainable development, and social and environmental impacts of development. CVP takes every opportunity to promote community voices on these issues.

Introduction

Rights, in an exploitative and impoverishing society such as ours in the US, are the front line against police arbitrarily and a police state.

There are two kinds of rights. There are individual rights, those understood as "inalienable" or "natural" rights that persons have as human. The main ones are listed in the First Amendment.

And there are social rights, those that provide for necessary equalization between individuals and the institutionalities of government. They are granted constitutionally, and can be withheld (wrongly) by institutions. The most essential of these social rights is due process. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (Fifth Amendment). 

There are two major aspects of “due process.” The first is that it occurs before there is deprivation of life, liberty, or property. What might occur after such deprivation would not be due process, but rather appeal, made against having already been deprived. To grasp the seriousness of the priority of due process, consider the deprivation of life. After a person has been shot and killed by a cop, there is no possibility of appeal. Therefore, any due process concerning deprivation of life, and thus also liberty and property, must occur before there is a process of deprivation. 

Secondly, “due process” constitutes an equalization between individuals and social institutions. Social institutions, like the police, or bureaucracies, or corporations, etc., because they wield greater power than individuals, and can thus act arbitrarily toward persons, must be reduced to a level in which individuals can have equity in the event of any dispute. That is, there must be a process wherein an individual to be deprived of anything would have equal power and standing as the institution that would commit the deprivation. “Due process” is what provides for an individual having the right, and the equal power, to enter into dialogue or debate or argument with an institution on the justice or injustice of a proposed or impending deprivation. 

All democratic ethics and procedures depend on the right to due process. To withhold due process is to violate the sanctity of the individual (against institutional power), which is inimical to democracy. 

Today, in the US, “due process” is almost universally withheld. In other words, a democratic ethics is almost universally ignored or violated in the US.  

Examples: A cop stops a person on the street, and the person asks why he is being stopped. If the cop then handcuffs the person, as happens often to people who question a cop (especially black people), that cop is depriving the individual of liberty without due process. Though the cop represents governmental power, while the person is exercising his right to question, the cop is creating a dispute in which there is deprivation of liberty, and for which due process is required. 

When a cop, pursuant to a city ordinance against sitting on the sidewalk, approaches a homeless person, commands the person to move, and seizes the person’s property, that cop is depriving the person of liberty and property without due process. Should a store-owner complain about a homeless person blocking access to the store, a cop could have the store-owner and the homeless person present arguments for their respective sides, and make a decision according to law. In such a case, there would have been due process with respect to the person moving himself and his belongings to another place. 

We are not speaking of criminality here, but only of offenses, the possible violation of rules, or disobedience to police commands. Under criminal law, if a cop sees a crime in progress, he can stop it by arresting the criminal. 

If the cop commits a crime, such as shooting a person, or depriving a homeless person of the property he needs to withstand and survive the elements, individual civilians have no recourse to the extent due process is withheld. Only after the cop had committed such a crime would the civilian have the right to appeal. Should the elements make the homeless person fatally sick, appeal would be too late. 

Appeal is not due process. Due process is designed to prevent unwarranted or illegal deprivation. Appeal only occurs after an unwarranted or illegal deprivation has occurred.  

The nature and structure of due process  

Due process is the existence of a procedure in which a person has an opportunity to speak for themselves when threatened with deprivation of life, liberty, or property. In jurisprudent tradition, this opportunity to speak would occur before a neutral third party who had the ability to decide whether the threatened deprivation was legitimate or not, taking into account the immediate circumstances of the person and the law ostensibly in question. In general, the third party need not be a judge or legally licensed individual, but only someone agreeable to both parties. 

There are 5 structural elements to due process. 1) There is an institution (governmental or otherwise, represented by an agent) who seeks to deprive a person of their liberty or property for whatever reason (a statute, a complaint by another person, the agent’s gratuitous or arbitrary desire, etc.). 2) There is a person who opposes the commands of the institutional agent as unwarranted, illegitimate, or arbitrary. 3) A third neutral party agreeable to both sides is found who can hear both sides and decide what is just on the basis of the immediate situation and the law. 4) There is an opportunity for the two parties to enter into dialogue with each other on the basis of their social interests, their knowledge, and their social situations. 5) There is a willingness by the third party to decide on the basis of fairness, justice, and equity between the individual and the institutional agent. 

In short, due process reduces institutional power to the level of the individual human, and places the individual’s position and interests on an equal footing and in dialogue, with that of the institution. Due process constitutes, in effect, the ability of an individual to argue for their social existence, and for the properness of their actions or comportment, against any institutional demand that they act differently, or that they exist in a different way. 

“Due process” is guaranteed by Constitutional amendment (the 5^th and the 14^th). Any deprivation of liberty that occurs without due process is unconstitutional. If a person is commanded to do something by a cop, pursuant to a rule passed by city council, that person is constitutionally authorized to demand due process before doing it, because otherwise there would be a deprivation of liberty incurred by institutionally requiring the person to do something they did not wish to do (again, we are not talking about the commission of felonies here.)  

The nature and structure of police commands  

The police, in most cities, take it upon themselves to actively enforce city ordinances concerning resident comportment. That means, the cop tells a person what he must do (for instance, packing up and getting off a piece of public land), or else the cop will act forcefully against the person. 

If a cop gives a person a command (for instance, to fold up a tent that the person, because homeless, is living in), and forces the person to obey that command by threatening to injure the person (with a nightstick or a stun gun, etc.), or by threatening to arrest the person, or to seize their property, then the cop is establishing a particular kind of relation between himself and the person. The cop is establishing himself as a commanding officer with respect to the person who he then treats as a subordinate, as if an enlisted person in the army that gives the cop commanding officer status. 

In other words, the legitimacy of such policing actions is based on a fallacy, an assumption that the police and the person belong to a form of military organization. The fallacy does not inhabit the ordinance the cop enforces. It inhabits the nature of the commands that the cop uses to make a person obey a rule (which might be at most an offense, not a misdemeanor or a crime, but rather something for which a ticket could be issued). 

A military form of organization is at odds with traditional "civilized" relations between people in civil society. What mainly characterizes a military form of organization is that disobedience to a commanding officer’s command can be punished immediately through the use of force. When this form of relation is transferred to civil society, it is out of place. 

Civil society is not a form of military organization. To command a person to do something they are not doing voluntarily (stand up, sit down, move out of the street, fold up that tent, etc.), the cop is forcing the person to do something they had not freely decided to do. It changes the social status of the person because it changes (by assumption) the form of organization in which the person is then placed. When a cop assumes a “commanding officer” status with respect to a person, he is not only assuming a power he is not given constitutionally, but he is placing the person commanded in a form of organization in which that individual had not enlisted, and is thus placed by the cop against his wishes. 

By this act, and by the change in social organization this assumes for the person, the cop deprives the individual of liberty without due process. The cop is there to stop felonies, not to change the form of social organization in which civilians live. 

The right to “due process” is a right established by the Constitution that allows individuals to resist and oppose being placed in a military form of organization while still in civil society because it allows individuals to resist the imposition of institutional power. It is the imposition of power that is the deprivation of liberty. A "command," which constitutes a deprivation of liberty based upon the imposition of a military form of organization without due process, means that a cop’s insistence on obedience in a civil situation (which includes notification of an offense) is in violation of the Constitution. 

The military form of organization is inherently and imminently anti-democratic. Any pro-democratic stance or movement or desire must stand in opposition to the military form of organization for civil society. 

In short, in a democracy, a cop can only tell a person (not involved in a felony) what to do, but cannot follow it up with a threat of force without depriving the person of their liberty without due process, and without being destructive of the democracy that cop may think he is upholding.  

How could due process be facilitated in a fair and Constitutional manner?  

Suppose a cop sees a person living in a tent on public land at the border of an industrial and a residential area, and decides the tent violates a city ordinance. How would due process be facilitated in such a situation? 

1- The institutional agent (cop) would have to have in hand both a statement of the rule that he thought he was enforcing and the rationale for applying that rule to the particular situation. And the person would have the right to argue against the cop and for remaining where he was, in the presence of others. 

2- If there was a complainant (for instance, a store-owner in the vicinity of the homeless person’s tent), then that complainant could be substituted for the institutional agent in addressing the homeless person about his tent. 

3- In both cases, a neutral third party would have to be found, acceptable to both the homeless person and the institutional agent (or complainant), who could then hear both sides. The institutional agent (cop) could only play the role of neutral party is that were acceptable to both parties to a complaint. 

4- A dialogue would then ensue, presided over by the neutral third party, in which each side – complainant or cop on one side, and homeless person on the other – would then be able to offer reasons why the homeless person should or need not move his tent and belongings – subject to a decision made by the neutral third party.  

This process would bring democracy to the enforcement of laws and rules, to insure that no injustice is committed in the name of the law. It would bring about involvement of proximate communities in the problems that arise between neighborhood residents and the homeless. It would overcome some of the isolation and alienation that we all feel to some extent in being separated from each other by the law. 

In general, in all of its attacks and harassments against the homeless, the city of Berkeley has been in violation of the US Constitution because they have withheld due process.  

President Trump’s initial response to the appointment of special prosecutor Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion with Russia. . “I am f . . . up, this is the end of my presidency” is the reaction of a man consumed with guilt. It is a pity Mueller didn’t continue his investigation to uncover the missing pieces of the puzzle. But the chickens may be coming home to roost with Trump’s efforts to block revelation of his shady dealings with Deutsche Bank.  

By inflating the value of his assets he was able to commit massive bank fraud obtaining credit from US banks for decades. But following their refusal to advance additional credit, Trump sought help from Deutsche Bank who advanced him $2B allegedly from Russian oligarchs’ laundered money in a high stakes quid pro quo for political favors orchestrated by the wily Vladimir Putin. In 2016 Trump jnr. admitted “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia from Trump Organization properties.” Jared Kushner seems to be following in the footsteps of his father-in-law’s seeking Saudi money to stop the hemorrhaging of his businesses teetering on bankruptcy using a top security clearance to facilitate his dubious activities. 

Let us hope Congress discharge their oversight duties under Article 1 of the US Constitution, issue subpoenas, follow the money to get to the bottom of the monstrous malfeasance, self-dealing and criminal abrogation’s of duty of this President and his family.

We are at it once again, orchestrating regime change in Venezuela.

We have learned nothing from our historical attempts at regime change creatingmayhem and destruction wherever we have unleashed our economic and military power. Our interventions in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, sent millions to their early graves; Iraq with bogus claims of WMD’s has torn the country apart and given birth to ISIS; Libya is mired in civil conflict; Afghanistan with no end in sight squandering trillions of dollars and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians including thousands of American soldiers suffering from horrific injuries many choosing to end their lives. Buoyed by our impeccable record of failures, we have now set our sights on Venezuela.  

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research at (CEPR) least 40,000 have died since 2017 as a result of U.S. sanctions. These sanctions reduced the availability of food and medicine and increased disease and mortality. CEPR argues “American sanctions are deliberately aiming to wreck Venezuela’s economy and thereby force regime change. It’s a fruitless, heartless, illegal, and failed policy, causing grave harm to the Venezuelan people. The sanctions blocked international capital markets and the oil company from restructuring its loans, oil earnings plummeted contributing to hyper-inflation and social and humanitarian disintegration.” 

There is little doubt that President Madura and his predecessor Hugo Chavez mismanaged the economy but the US under the misguided leadership Citizen 1, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton have hugely contributed to Venezuela’ misery.

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

Here on the Left Coast, most voters I talk to are disgusted with Donald Trump and want him impeached. Nonetheless, our leader, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urges Dems to be cautious and to hold hearings rather than rush into an impeachment process. That's sound advice because a majority of Americans don't want Trump impeached. 

The latest Washington Post / ABC News Poll (https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2019/04/26/National-Politics/Polling/question_21366.xml? ) indicates that only 39 percent of Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job as President. 

With regard to Special Counsel Mueller's report, most poll respondents felt the report was fair (51 percent) and most felt that "it did not clear Trump of wrongdoing" (53 percent). (47 percent felt that "Trump tried to interfere with the Russia investigation in a way that amounts to obstruction of justice;" versus 41 percent that did not feel this way.) Most tellingly, 58 percent believe that Trump "lied to the American public about the matters under investigation by Mueller." 

To summarize, most American believe the Mueller report was fair and Trump has engaged in wrongdoing. 58 percent believe that Trump lied about this. 

Nonetheless, a strong majority (56 percent) of Washington Post / ABC News poll respondents do not feel that Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump. 

What explains this somewhat contradictory finding? 

The Washington Post / ABC News poll indicates that opinions about impeachment are split by Party affiliation: 62 percent of Democrats are in favor of beginning impeachment proceedings versus only 10 percent of Republicans (87 percent oppose impeachment). Most telling, only 36 percent of Independents are in favor of beginning impeachment proceedings. (The Washington Post / ABC News poll doesn't provide much demographic information to help us interpret this polarization on impeachment; however, non-white voters are much more inclined towards impeachment (59 percent) than are white non-Hispanic voters (25 percent).) 

However, another Washington Post / ABC News poll item illustrates how unpopular Trump is. The survey asks: In 2020, if Trump is the Republican candidate would you vote for him? 55 percent of respondents said they would "definitely not vote for him." (Only 28 percent would definitely vote for Trump.) It's possible that many voters -- particularly Independents -- decided: "We're going to vote Trump out of office in 2020 so why go to all the effort to impeach him if he will be gone in 17 months." 

Finally, the final Washington Post / ABC News poll question is: "Do you think the political system in this country mainly works to benefit (all people) or mainly works to benefit (those in power)?" Interestingly, 72 percent of respondents feel the political system works to benefit those in power. Once again, response divides by political affiliation, with Democrats and Independents overwhelmingly agreeing that the system is biased towards those in power. It's possible that some voters -- those who do not like Trump -- have lost confidence in the political process and do not think anything would be accomplished by impeaching Trump. 

Whatever the reason, most Americans don't want the House to initiate impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. That means that House Dems are right to listen to Speaker Pelosi and pursue a five-part plan. 

1.Democrats need to constantly remind Americans that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and is likely to do this again. This is key because question 11 of the Washington Post / ABC News poll indicates that many Americans aren't convinced of this. "Given what you've heard or read, do you think interference by Russia undermined the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election, or did it not rise to that level?" 51 percent of respondents felt "It did not rise to that level." 

On April 26th, the FBI issued a new warning about Russian interference in the 2020 election (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/politics/fbi-russian-election-interference.html ). 

2.Democrats need to lead the effort to protect the integrity of the 2020 elections. On the first day of the new congress -- January 3rd -- Democrats introduced HR 1 ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1) which, among other subjects, addresses election integrity and security, 

3.Democrats need to pursue the investigations they have started. Four Democratically controlled House committees are pursuing information relevant to the Mueller Report. The primary committees are the Intelligence Committee, lead by Adam Schiff, and the Judiciary Committee, led by Jerry Nagler. Both want to see the unredacted Mueller report. Schiff is also interested in the question of whether Trump is is being financially compromised when he makes foreign-policy decisions. 

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform is interested in Trump-related financial documents to see if he committed fraud in recent financial dealings. (they are also looking into his handling of security clearances.) The House Ways and Means committee is studying Trump's tax returns to see if he committed fraud. 

4.Democrats need to call out Trump on Obstruction of Justice. Just as he did during the conduct of the Mueller report, Trump is using various tactics to keep the truth from the American people. Now he and his minions are blocking release of the undredacted report and refusing to appear before House committees. Democrats need to call out the attempts to obstruct justice and initiate the appropriate court proceedings. 

The sheer amount of White House obstruction may force impeachment to commence but we are several months from that point. 

5.In the meantime, Democrats need to demonstrate they can "walk and chew gum at the same time." Americans are troubled; they are concerned about issues such as jobs, immigration, gun violence, healthcare, clean air and water, etcetera. They want Democrats to pursue meaningful legislation on these subjects. In other words, they don't want House Democrats to solely focus on impeaching Trump. 

Therefore, House Democrats have to work doubly hard: get after Trump and, at the same time, generate meaningful legislation. 

---

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and activist. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net