From The Book: A Particular Line of Reasoning, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Book Cover Earthcolony13.5

SOFT GENOCIDE: THE BIRTH CONTROL LEAGUE, 1921

Governmental policies which defined the value of human life during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were wrought with contradictions. Running in inverse relation to the genocidal policies enacted against Native Americans and the lynching policies against African Americans as well as eugenics statutes aimed at maintaining the ‘purity’ of ‘White Anglo Saxon Protestant’ racial types were policies enacted into law to protect unborn fetuses by making it a felony for women to abort fetal development. Indeed, from 1850 to 1965 all fifty states of the United States made abortion a felony.[1]  All methods of birth control legislation aimed to protect the sanctity of human life, but on the other hand states could exercise police power to force castration or a hysterectomy on anyone it deemed to be genetically unfit whether or not their ‘unfitness’ was accidental, i.e., not attributable to any genetic predisposition.

The non-legislative prong of the institutional embedding of ‘degeneration’ theory would emerge at the popular level of society through the ‘Birth Control League’ which was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921.  Her leading supporters and board members were the leading eugenicists of the day. Lothrop Stoddart, Edward A. East, Havelock Ellis, Henry Pratt Fairchild, Clarence C. Little, as well as many others who studded her board of directors and conferences.  A very telling statement by Sanger was made in 1932: “f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”[2] Who would define ‘dysgenic’ groups? Would ‘they’ be the Congress of the United States? Maybe one person would decide, e.g., the President of the United States by executive order? Perhaps ‘they’ would be the Supreme Court justices by constitutional interpretation (Buck v. Bell, 1927)? Or would they be the Aristotelian ‘boule’ of a totalitarian plutocratic state? What is the political basis for the choice of a lesser of two evils, i.e., either ‘segregation or sterilization?

Perhaps it is simply a coincidence or perhaps not that since the enactment of desegregation laws such as the Supreme Court holding in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 74 S.Ct. 686 (1954), the civil rights legislation of 1965 as well as the land mark Supreme Court decision: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); that there have been over 70 million abortions in the United States the vast majority of which (32% or 22,400,000) have been done by African Americans.[3] Not debating the pros and cons of that Supreme Court decision and a women’s right to unilaterally decide life or death for developing fetuses, the statistical consequences compel us to conclude that the choices by African American women to sterilize themselves was and is the de facto price they have paid for civil desegregation and economic opportunities in the United States as alluded to by Margaret Sanger. And like the Harvard graduate and African American sociologist W.E.B. Dubois, hundreds if not thousands of African American proponents for birth control, including Christian ministers and newspaper businesses, were and are enlisted to promote abortion propaganda in the African American community once marshaled under the banner of ‘The Negro Project’.

So effective has been that effort  that over the last thirty years the number of African American children by households with no children has increased by 5%; the number of children by households with 1 child has decreased by 1.4%; and number of children by households with 2 children has decreased 3.3%.[4]  The bell curve pattern of decreasing fertility rate when overlaid with the bell curve pattern of an increasing African American baby boomer death rate portends a massive drop in the African American population by 2045 when the last of those 7,500,000 African baby boomers born between 1946 and 1965 are dead.[5]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1]   Abortion in Law, History, & Religion, Childbirth by Choice, Trust, Revised 1995, Toronto, Canada. Also, see the Comstock Act of 1873.

[2]   Margaret Sanger, A Plan for Peace, published by Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

[3]   African American Females who constitute about 3.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2000-2001 were 32% of all abortions. Patterns in Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women obtaining Abortions, by Rachel K. Jones, Jacqueline E. Darroch, and Stanley K. Henshaw; in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Volume 34, Number 5, Sept., Oct. 2002

[4]   U.S. Census Bureau

[5]   A bell curve pattern of decreasing African American marriages over the same 30 year period must also be factored into the analysis.

From The Book – The Syllabus of Malcolm X: Shanks Buried On The Yard, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Malcolm

An atmosphere of paranoia pervades all prison yards. Paranoia is in the air; it saturates the thoughts and etches itself onto the stone cold faces of everyone doing hard time. Dressed in gray, inmates walked mumbling to themselves or to each other; some just walked with cold silence.  Malcolm X must have walked the yard thousands of times over the course of seven years; he must have walked alone and sometimes with his Bimbi.  Just one cycle a day for seven years would have equaled 2,555 cycles. But be sure he walked many more cycles than that. Maybe he walked 3 or 4 or 5 or more times than that number.  Miles and miles he walked. But like everyone else, walking the yard would not make him free; it would only lead him back to that point on the yard where he had started. Like circumambulation of the yard, Malcolm’s life had been going in circles though he had thought he was really going somewhere. Malcolm’s life had been pathetic.

Neither would paranoia make Malcolm X free.  The medieval prison of Malcolm’s first years is an example. Paranoia for many prisoners was a mental defense mechanism to sudden and unexpected violence; it was like a shank buried in them. It was a shank which cut inside them shredding their inner life or what remained of it. Like every other feature of prison, paranoia made their inner life smaller; it served to confine them more deeply into an ever smaller and smaller mindscape. Their bodies however expansive belied an ever shrinking mental grasp of their situation until finally the sight of too many beatings, or suicides, or murders, or bouts of insanity swallowed them into unsalvageable soulless pieces of flesh. Some would maliciously be put back into society as dangerous ghouls to wreak havoc on whole communities.

Ghouls coagulate around and feed upon open sores; sores which are beyond the scope of healing treatment. That is the collateral effect of prison; prisons are state weapons the purpose of which is to cause pain and attendant sores on nieghborhoods; sores which are beyond the scope of healing treatment. They are sores which do not heal; they are stigmata open for all to see so that all will know the awesome power of prisons to destroy lives; so that they will live in fear.  Men and women, in bug eyed fear huddled together in defense against all others and in so doing adding paranoia onto paranoia until its picture of dread and doom envelop them all and make them do very evil things.  They foresee and act out imagined inevitable violence on others and would set the very air on fire to do so. Bit by bit Malcolm X saw that the world is a reflected image of a prison yard.

What thoughts he must have had as did Dante in the inferno. How he too must have sought out Virgil to guide him out and away from his own and other prisoners’ twisted and inverted instinct. He must have sought to avoid the end product of that instinct which is always the impulse to take and give pain for pleasure. But Malcolm must have realized that Dante Alighieri was being facetious when he entitled his poem ‘The Divine Comedy’. Such was in fact no comedy at all and certainly the drama is not divine in nature. What Malcolm faced was the tragic nature of humanity. He faced humanity confined in spaces so small that its usual masquerade was striped from it and so could not hide its stench. There it stood out in bare nakedness. There it was before him, raw as bleeding meat unsheathed from skin.

 

 

De Facto State Policy: Put African American Males into Concentration Camps, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

African American males are now de-facto enemies of the state. The de-facto California State parole policy for Oakland and all major cities throughout the nation is to put African American males in inner city concentration camps under the guise of ‘reentry’ into the community by parole and probation. The facts compel this conclusion. The distribution of parolees in Alameda County is incontrovertible proof of that conclusion.  It is a policy long in the undertaking. This is how millions of African American males were set up to be legally denied the exercise of their rights under the United States Constitution.  The justification for that policy rests upon the construction of violent crime within the city.

It is February 2013 and Oakland has already recorded 9 homicides. No doubt by the time this is published it will be higher. For over 37 years, Oakland has had a minimum of  sixty-six homicides in 1970 and a maximum of 165 in 1992. So, there has been no progress made in the reduction of the homicide rate in over thirty years despite an increase in the number of police, candle light vigils, and ‘get tough on crime’ policies out of Sacramento.

The felony assault figures in the city of Oakland are even more descriptive of what ails the city. The average annual number of felony assaults is 3,219 for a thirty-eight year period. Many of those assaults are for attempted murder. That figure should be taken as seriously as the murder rate.

It is no denigration to say that Oakland is a violent city. It has been a violent city for a long time. The ripple effect of such a violent environment spreads far and wide. I know that personally because six of my friends and relatives including my brother and a sister in law have been murdered in Oakland. So, aside from the immediate death of the victims of murder, over four thousand since 1969 through 2007, there are tens of thousands of traumatized family members living in the same geographical location where the murders have occurred and who are nagged by the constant memory of tragedy. The city of Oakland by the gravity of their aggregate sadness is cast with a visage of constant mourning.

The highest incidences of murder during the past 30 years are concentrated along a narrow strip of the city. It stretches from the border of Emeryville through North and West Oakland Acorn community down through 105th   avenue between the 580 and 880 freeways. It overlays the old blue collar industrial sectors of Oakland; it is a corridor wherein for most of the 20th century thousands of Oakland residents and their decedents found employment in the city’s many factories.

Oakland’s industrial base started to decline after World War II; that corridor where industries were once situated is today concentrated with people having the highest poverty rate, lowest education levels, respiratory health problems, and highest  unemployment rate in the city. It also has an ex-felon to non-ex-felon ratio of one to three for African American males aged 25 to 34. Like any concentrate, those socio-economic characteristics in combination with the parolee characteristics (2,493 on any given day according to the Urban Strategies Council) are conducive to greater sociopathic solidarity across all age categories, especially over decades of time.  What makes such sociopathic solidarity inevitable is the fact that it is a high population density area into which the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation releases most of its parolees. It thus follows that violence has become to that narrow corridor what salt is to sea water.  It is almost a given.

The best example of increased sociopathic solidarity is gang membership and affiliation.  Though gangs have always plagued inner cities, rarely have they had power beyond the power of local peer pressure.  However, in Oakland and cities like it, there is a growing disproportionate amount of power welded by gangs in local nieghborhoods. Their power is measured against a decline in the influence of local institutions that had historically been able to maintain social solidarity as opposed to the increase in intimidation against local citizens. The influence once maintained by a faith based culture is now overshadowed by the growing influence of gang intimidation and sociopathic solidarity.

Nature abhors a vacuum of any kind. The local economic infrastructure has been collapsed for thirty-years because of the exodus of capital and thus it has no significant influence on the perpetuation of economic hope by people in the community. The 2008 banking scandal and the consequent skyrocketing home foreclosure rate acerbated an already existing crisis.  Therefore, the economic carrying capacity of Oakland cannot meet the demands upon it by the high number of unskilled unemployed persons in the city because manufacturing jobs which have been relocated to Asia are never coming back to the east bay or the United States.

The church and the family are in decline as well.  Their decline is evidenced by the high number of single parent never married households particularly in the African American nieghborhoods; secondly, because there has been a 9% to 20% decrease in number of children aged 5 to 17 in the city of Oakland, and thirdly, because such decline is evidenced by the increased church dependence on federal and state government money grants to prop them up.  That monetary dependence underscores the severity of economic depression in African American nieghborhoods and the need of governments to control poor people through pacification programs.

Much has been said about the historic benchmark when there were more African American males in prison, jail, on parole or probation than in college. The same, however, can be said about church attendance. The church is less influential than gangs in most local inner city neighborhoods today because gangs don’t tithe they take; taking is a forceful and assertive act. Gang activity doesn’t inspire but it does make for an intense adrenaline rush. Forty percent of African American males will spend more time in jail, prison, and on parole than they will spend time in a church in a life-time. The loss of economic hope and a faith based culture insuring the legal status of marriage has made way for gangs and ever weakening family structure to fill the vacuum.

The parole policy of the CDCR is directly antagonistic to traditional cultures in the above described urban area. It is an antagonistic parole policy because during the past thirty-seven years that parole policy has caused significant cultural dysfunction that has brought about: 1) a shift in local power distribution, 2) a demographic concentration of marginalized ex-felons, and 3) it has concentrated and perpetuated a prison yard ethos in neighborhoods.

Neither the County of Alameda nor the City of Oakland shares jurisdiction over parolees with the CDCR.  What that translates to is an indirect conversion of city and county resources to do CDCR work investigating crimes by people under the jurisdiction of the CDCR. Hiring more police officers and sheriffs to round up parolees who commit crimes is a direct monetary drain for the city of Oakland and the county of Alameda. Furthermore, it means that the CDCR has superlative life quality determination for the citizens of Oakland over and above the city council, the county board of supervisors, and voters.  It makes the city a de-facto appendage of the state prison corporate-enterprise complex.

That superlative CDCR power is exercised when it paroles persons where there is either a high probability of parolees to do a successful parole or conversely where there exists a low probability of doing a successful parole, but not both. Given the facts, the CDCR has obviously chosen the latter alternative.  That is exactly what the construction of violent crime means. That is why there is a higher than lesser rate of violence in Oakland. The same pattern is discernable in other large cities in California. If the CDCR developed a new parole strategy which de-concentrated parolees in high volatility areas, there would be a substantial drop in homicide within one to two years in Oakland and other cities. That is solution number one. But the CDCR will not opt for that solution because of institutionalized racism.

The fact that the CDCR has continued to concentrate parolees in high population density areas is evidenced in that narrowly described corridor of Oakland.  It is bad policy to continue to do so.  It is illogical to release more parolees into such areas because after thirty-seven years the arithmetic just does not support it. State wide there is a positive correlation between crime rates of all kinds and high population density. For example, in Oakland there are approximately 7,476 persons per square mile in a 76 mile area; analogously in the city Stockton there are 5,273 persons per square mile living in a 60 square mile area. The total number of felony arrests for the year 2007 was 2,238 in Stockton.  In Oakland it was 6,672.  Though Stockton is only 33% of Oakland’s arrest rate for the same year, Oakland’s population is nearly twice that of Stockton. The fact is that population density coupled with an increasing parolee population is predictive of an increase in felony arrests.  Therefore, a strategic parole policy which factors population density in cities into inmate parole plans can cause a reduction in all crimes and parole violations committed by parolees.

There is no CDCR condition of parole which denies parole to locations with characteristics like the one I’ve described here. Parolees merely must tell their agents were they live or before they move to a new location or pursuant to California Penal Code Section 3003(b) parolees can be paroled to a community that is in the best interest of the parolee and the community. But given the average parolees’ socio-economic status they are of necessity weighted to the very urban situations where they have a long history of social dysfunction and virtually no family support. Therefore, high incidences of violence are symptomatic of a dysfunctional CDCR parole policy in conjunction with dysfunctional social environments. Thus, the CDCR policy should be altered because if it is not altered the violence in Oakland will only worsen with an increased ex-felon population. That is solution number 2.  Here’s why.

There are approximately 480 cities and towns in California.  If under the Federal court order, the CDCR is compelled to release 40,000 inmates on parole within two years, then wouldn’t it be more rational to distribute them evenly across the state?  Given those figures, that would amount to 83 inmates per city.  That would put less strain on large cities while at the same time preventing an increase in the concentration in cities with high rates of violent crimes.

Can we tell prison inmates that they cannot parole to high population density areas?  Absolutely and categorically, ‘yes we can’.  The CDCR must balance its interests in meeting judicial sentencing requirements and Federal court orders against the interests that inner-city communities have in preserving their traditional integrity.

I have argued that such a pattern of parole has effected a massive cultural transplantation in the city of Oakland. It is impossible for cities like Oakland to avoid taking on the characteristics of a prison yard culture over time given the illogical policies of the CDCR. Fault for such a cultural transplantation cannot be found with mayor Quan nor any other mayor, for this has been a persistent pattern for over thirty-seven years and has grown under the tenure of every mayor during that period.

My criticism is that there is fault to be shared with criminals. The CDCR lacks rational creativity; its administrators continue to roll the same old parole policy ball down the court even though that ball is flat. But why continue a policy that is so destructive to local communities? I posit that most of the administrators of the CDCR graduate from the lower ranks of the correctional officers and so they inherit the same policy ball and do not question the direction in which they are rolling it. However, if we assume that some do see the illogic of CDCR policies yet persist in the application of them then the real motive is to make the African America neighborhoods de-facto concentration camps under the guise of  ‘reentry’ back into the community.

 

Suing The Police In Federal Court, by Wayne Johnson, Attorney at Law, Oakland, California

Suing The Police, by Wayne Johnson (2)Wayne Johnson, Attorney at Law

                                                        Foreword

Maybe you have a close relative who was injured or killed by the police. Maybe you have been the victim of excessive police force. Maybe you, or a family member have been arrested, searched, or merely detained for no apparent reason, and you would like to consider your options.

This book is written by Wayne Johnson, who some consider an expert in excessive force. He is a civil rights attorney in Oakland, California, a city where you may have as much to fear from the police as you may from an extremely violent criminal, particularly if you are a man of color.
Continue reading

All people of color should consider reading this book, whether you intend to work in law enforcement or just intend to live in a society where you may be targeted with racial profiling. This is true despite the fact that your city may have a Black Police Officer’s Association and may have had more than one Black police chief. An encounter with the police may cost you your reputation… or your life.   ……………

Suing The Police In Federal Court

Too often you may face a rogue police officer or maybe even a gang of them. You may be a victim of improperly trained police who believe an unnecessary punch, kick, wrist lock, baton, pepper spray, bean bag round, canine attack, is a way to control a situation or simply to command respect.

What many people do not realize is that when it is not necessary for the police to use force, any force they use against you can be unreasonable or excessive. The critical question is not to determine when force is necessary, what the appropriate degree of force is, and when you may sue the officers or municipalities for exceeding the appropriate degree.

You may not resist even an unlawful arrest; however, you may use reasonable force to ward off an attack of unreasonable force, but do not count on it. If you run from the police or fight back, you may end up seriously injured or dead, even if you have a right to defend yourself. 

Disclaimer 

Nothing in this book is designed to assist you in representing any person, or entity, other that yourself. In fact, it is unlawful for a layperson to represent anyone, except himself in court. This means you may not represent family members, estates, businesses in which others own interests or shares, unless you are an attorney licensed in the state where the incident took place. If the incident took place in California you must be a licensed California attorney to assist others in California. Business and Professions Code §6126 prohibits the unauthorized practice of law. The unauthorized practice of law can be a misdemeanor or a felony.

This book is designed to assist you in pursuing your rights against a municipality. That includes a city, a county, a district, or transit authorities.

This book is not designed to assist you in filling claims against any federal or state agencies. Federal claims are pursued under the federal tort claims statue and/or under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

The procedures for suing state police, including the California highway patrol, are similar, but the differences are significant. You should not rely upon this book to assist you.

You should also not rely upon this book for assistance I suing the county or state for injuries received while a pretrial detainee or a convict.

Pre-trial  detainees need to use the Fourteenth Amendment. See Neely v. Feinstein, 50 F.3d 1502, 1508  (9th Cir. 1995)  (“[0]ur Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence has never required officials to have a subjective awareness of the risk of harm in order to be deemed ‘deliberately indifferent.’”); Redman v. Country of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435,1443 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (holding that “deliberate indifference is the level of culpability that pretrial detainees must establish for a violation of their personal security interests under the fourteenth amendment.”).

Convicted persons need to use the Eighth Amendment strict standard. The Eighth Amendment requires a showing that the force was used “maliciously ad sadistically to cause harm” Helling v. Mckinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (deliberate indifference means “malicious, sadistic, or wanton intent to harm” rather than good faith effort to restore order).  To the extent that the plaintiff must prove a due process or cruel and unusual punishment violation, the immunity defense would be inappropriate, Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 ,111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991), Hudson v McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992).

In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 1976- 77 (1994) the court discusses prisoner safety from other prisoners. See Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.2005).

With regard to medical treatment after  a conviction, the Supreme Court has stated that “deliberate indifference” to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” and amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment,” prohibited by the 8th Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976). Under this standard, the plaintiff must prove both an objective and a subjective component. Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S 1 (1992); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992).

It is rare; however, negligence is sometimes sufficient to meet the standard. A pattern of “repeated examples of negligent acts” by prison officials may constitute deliberate indifference. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980).

Finally, the law is frequently changed ad reinterpreted by the courts. You should re-read and research all the statutes and cases for accuracy and updates before attempting to apply them.

States claims are sometimes pursued under the state tort claims statue or sometimes completely barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States constitution provides as follows: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” There is a filling fee for filling a state claim, against the State of California. See Form VCGCB- GC- 002 (Rev. 8/04).

It is also possible to sue an individual who is employed by a state; however if you are relying on Title 42 U.S.C  § 1983 , you will have to allege the individual  was working in his individual capacity while he or she violated your United States Constitutional rights.

This book does not emphasize strategies for suing individuals or states. If you are planning to sue a state or the federal government, it is best you consult another treatise.

Filling lawsuits against the police can be confusing because of over lapping state and federal laws.  For certain state law claims you must first lodge a claim pursuant to the Gov’t Code. That is not required for federal claims.

If you would like to purchase this book that includes forms and examples, please contact Wayne Johnson, at johnsonlawfirm007@sbcglobal.net.  The book price is affordable.  It is only $14.95, plus shipping and handling.