Our federal government is dithering on immigration reform. The recently created NJ group, Latino Action Network, is rightly despairing of any action this year. However, such does not stop NJ from instituting reform of its own.
Local NJ counties and the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can only be viewed as shameful in their treatment of incarcerated immigrants. It is time for NJ to end the cruel and inhumane practices in its detention centers.
These counties, including Union, Bergen, Hudson, Essex and Monmouth, have reaped big money - blood money - for their coffers by renting out over-priced, under-serviced, and over- crowded jail space to ICE for locking up immigrants. Conditions are often squalid. Medical care has been limited and sometimes non-existent. The food is often so bad that there have been hunger strikes. Visitation rights are cumbersome and hours are limited. Nationally documented cases of deaths resulting from negligence and abuse have been reported. Should our counties be in the business of generating extra income through mistreatment of immigrants?
ICE, a unit of Homeland Security, not only countenances such practices but aggravates them. They make it difficult for concerned family and relatives to find out where immigrants are incarcerated. They frequently move immigrants from one facility to another. No sooner does a public advocate begin to help a detainee than the person may be moved to another location. So bad were some of the practices in the NYC Varick facility that ICE recently began transferring its detainees to a Hudson County jail in Kearny and to other NJ centers. Will they be better off in NJ? The NJ and NY ACLU recently wrote to Homeland Security expressing grave concern.
Congratulations to those individuals who staged a ten-mile walk last week from the foot bridge for Ellis Island to the Elizabeth Detention Center to highlight the plight of immigrant detainees. "America's greatness is represented by the Statue of Liberty over there, not the Elizabeth Detention Center," said Shai Goldstein, spokesman for the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network.
The problems regarding ICE's deportation system, of course are broader. As the NY and NJ ACLU group indicated in their letter, "Detention itself is a relatively new, costly, and inappropriate response to other problems within the deportation system that are better addressed by true alternatives to detention aimed at reducing rather than expanding the detention system as a whole." The Ellis Island organizers seek an overhaul of immigration policy and want to see "community-based alternatives to detention as well as judicial discretion in the deportation."
In the meantime local immigrant detention continues to be characterized by inhumanity, secrecy and greed. NJ should undertake its own reform and assure that humane standards are being met in our detainee jails.
So far local jails have made only token improvements. In his budget address to the legislature Governor Christie said, "For those who stay in the corner defending parochial interests, please be on notice - people will band together and drag you to the center of the room to make our state the place we know it can be." Go for it Governor! Or else the courts should intervene.
Today is the day that the NJ Senate finally votes on marriage equality. This is hardly a news flash for regular readers of this blog, but it's still feels kinda surreal that it's finally show time.
If anyone reading has pics, video or updates to add, please feel free to share here. If you're on site in Trenton, grab a snack cuz it's gonna be a long day....... I estimate the marriage vote to go down sometime around 5:30pm.
Jay Lassiter planned all along to go down to the statehouse yesterday and blog for us. But then, something happened in his hometown, that made him stay there, to capture for you today what the people of Cherry Hill did when the fools came to town. Great job, Jay - promoted by Rosi
Today the NJ Senate Judiciary voted on gay marriage equality. And what a long strange trip it's been clearing the first hurdle.
Hell yes, it's on. And if any of you Blue Jersey readers are down there advocating for parity in our marriage laws, by all means chime in with your own comments, pictures or a diary of your own. - - Promoted from the diaries by Rosi
Update 12:01pm 300 pro-equality lobbyists - gay and straight - showed up on our side, with people still coming. Fewer than 75 people showed up to tell your state legislators to keep marriage only for us straight folks. 300 is 4 times 75, babies. Fierce turnout!
Update! 11:44am Our press conference begins at noon. Video to follow.
Update! 11:08am. Senator Cardinale just arrived. He's at his irrepressible best which means all is well with the world. One thing I've noticed about our opponents is their thinking is a generation behond for a good reason: They tend to be older. I'm thirty-seven and I'm an elder statesman on my side. On their team, I'd be the youngest buck.
Update! 10:20 am and the pro-equality crowd is so massive that we're still filing through security. In fact the progressive coalition's now filled yet another committee room to capacity. The pro-marriage crowd looks young and vital while the haters have a look that says "time is NOT on our side."
It's 9:20 am and it's officially on. If juicy lame duck is you're thing, the State house is the place for you.
The Senate Judiciary hearing room is packed to max with marriage equality friend and foe.
But little do they know, we have reinforcements. See below.
If you can't make it personally, maybe you can make some phone calls. You guys know the drill: Sweeney and Sarlo need to hear from you. Every day.
There's been a lot of buzz about the progressive coalition headed to Trenton Monday to lobby towards Marriage Equality. (details below, hat tip Alison Pelzman)
I'll be there. Lots of my friends and allies will be there too. Will you? Consider this a pre-lobby day open thread.
Rally with the Garden State Equality/BlueJerseyACLU-NJ/DFA in Trenton Monday, November 23.
We're meeting at:
Garden State Equality's New Jersey Office
110 W. State Street, Trenton
Monday, November 23, 2009
8:30 a.m.
If there's a day to take off work for a cause, it's Monday. Your day off could mean a lifetime of equality for families in New Jersey.
If you live in another state, just promise to help us raise hell, deal? If we win, we'll celebrate at the Atlantic City boardwalk. If we lose, we'll go to the casinos and take bets on what we'll see first: civil rights for New Jersey's gay families or a lesbian Miss America.
Allison looks at Mad Men and sees New Jersey. Hell-o? Then sews it all up with a shout out to her ACLU-NJ friends to join her Monday in Trenton for marriage equality. By the way, this is Allison's first-ever post at Blue Jersey. Beat that with a stick! Thanks, Allison - - promoted from the diaries by Rosi
"Maybe it's not the time for civil rights."
It was shocking when Betty Draper said that to her black housekeeper Carla upon hearing the now-infamous news that a bomb in a Birmingham church had killed four little girls in 1963 Alabama.
Mad Men has become an American pop-culture sweetheart partly because the anachronistic, chauvinistic, homophobic, racist, politically incorrect sentiments sound absurd today. Characters toss back bigotry as easily as a glass of Jameson at the beginning of their workday. It seems just as wrong, and there's about as much slurring in both.
If only the prejudice on the show were actually anachronistic. Earlier this week, New Jersey's Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney told the press that civil rights for New Jersey couples should wait. And we say to him, if not now, then when?
If New Jersey doesn't pass marriage legislation now, any possibility in the near future is as good as gone. We have just a few weeks until Governor Corzine, who supports the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, officially hands over the reins to Governor-elect Chris Christie, who vocally does not.
We have a state whose majority supports equal rights for gay couples, we have a legislature whose majority supports equal rights for gay couples and we have a governor - for now - who also supports equal rights for gay couples.
But we don't have a leader in the state senate brave enough to say, "That's enough. New Jersey is going to do the right thing."
Instead of taking up the responsibility to do what they know is right, they're taking cover behind the economy. We have four years ahead of us to fix New Jersey's withering finances. We have less than two months to make sure that people aren't forced to live with the indignity of discrimination brought on by civil unions, affecting every corner of their lives, every day of their lives.
I wasn't shocked that Betty Draper wavered on civil rights in front of Carla. Coldness is Betty's signature characteristic; callousness isn't surprising. I was shocked because, from the vantage point of the 21st Century, after this country fought against the legacy of some of the darkest episodes of human history - the middle passage, hundreds of years of slavery, a brutal war that killed more Americans than any other, the failure of reconstruction, the nadir of American race relations, Jim Crow laws, unending injustices - I could not imagine what the world would look like if the leaders of the 60s had thrown their hands up and said, "You know, maybe it's not the time for civil rights."
Americans made it the time for civil rights. They didn't politely ask politicians to pencil them into their schedules - they left the politicians without a choice, and they changed the world. Segregation came to an end, miscegenation laws were repealed, American soldiers protected the rights of African Americans in America's schools and streets, and people across the country rode buses for days to march for miles in some of the most dangerous places in the world for a black person or a Jew. The equality they all hungered for eclipsed their fear of taking personal risks. And those sacrifices make politicians' political fears look like a farce.
Mr. Smith has never lived in Washington, and he certainly doesn't go to Trenton. It usually takes an extraordinary leader to take bold action, even to do the right thing - with one exception. Politicians take bold action when the chorus of Americans together becomes too loud to ignore.
Can you imagine what the world would look like if the people concerned about civil rights in 1963 decided that it wasn't the time for civil rights? Would Loving v. Virginia be a 2009 case instead of one from 1967? Even if we're constantly fighting against backslides in our voting rights, at least we have the Voting Rights Act to hold our government to. We don't have poll-tax free-for-alls.
"But gay rights. That's so new and radical."
It's not, though. We've been in the same place for decades. The Stonewall raids, the assassination of Harvey Milk, the panicked response to AIDS. It was never the time for civil rights back then. So why not now?
January Jones, the actress behind the Betty Draper mask, lampooned her character's cheerful bigotry in a Saturday Night Live sketch that told housewives how to host the perfect party. "Homosexuals should be addressed by Ms. or Mrs., depending on their age. If a black person arrives ... just kidding. A black person won't arrive. That's an example of party humor."
It's tongue in cheek, sure, but it's still the same mindset that declared, "Now isn't the time for civil rights." It's a mindset of exclusion, and it's rooted in the belief that only some people deserve to have their constitutional promises kept. That's not who we are as Americans, and that's not who we want to be in New Jersey.
We've come too far to retreat. The "economy" excuse is a red herring, a false dichotomy, an easy way out, and just plainly and simply wrong. Marriage would bring money into New Jersey, and it would solve the financial straits of gay couples who struggle because their civil unions deprive them of health benefits.
It is the time for civil rights, because our momentum as a country pulls us toward the expansion of rights, not their restriction. I want to be shocked in 40 years because a character on a retro TV show about the early 21st century suggests that now isn't the time for marriage equality. I don't want to live in a world in 40 years where I have to tell myself, "Well, maybe this time we'll succeed."
It's up to New Jersey legislators, who know that marriage equality is the right thing, to secure the civil rights of our state's gay and lesbian families. But it's up to us, the rest of New Jersey, to pressure our state's legislators into not having a choice.
If you live in New Jersey, there are ways you can take immediate action. We need you to e-mail your state senator, call the senate majority leader at 856-251-9801 -- urge him to take up marriage legislation -- and rally with the ACLU-NJ in Trenton Monday, November 23.
We're meeting at: Garden State Equality's New Jersey Office
110 W. State Street, Trenton
Monday, November 23, 2009
8:30 a.m.
If there's a day to take off work for a cause, it's Monday. Your day off could mean a lifetime of equality for families in New Jersey.
If you live in another state, just promise to help us raise hell, deal? If we win, we'll celebrate at the Atlantic City boardwalk. If we lose, we'll go to the casinos and take bets on what we'll see first: civil rights for New Jersey's gay families or a lesbian Miss America.
Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey contributed this piece. - - promoted from the diaries by Rosi Efthim
In his six months in office, President Obama has disappointed social justice advocates with his positions on issues like gay rights, warrantless wiretapping and, most recently, indefinite detention. We all want to see our President succeed; he generates hope and excitement, and embodies long-awaited change. But we also feel conflicted - while we're sympathetic to the many obstacles he faces to creating meaningful change, the president still needs a resolute front to hold his feet to the fire.
Newark, NJ, a microcosm of Obama's plight, is a petri dish of a place with a visionary leader who inspires hope. When Mayor Cory Booker took office three years ago, he promised long-suffering Newarkers that he would capitalize on untapped resources, restore public trust in government and honor the civil liberties he has always held close to his heart. He also implored us to hold him accountable, knowing that government depends on citizens to keep it in line.
Mayor Booker has a full plate: reducing crime, confronting poverty and educating students whose schools have for too long failed them. But, in Newark, every plate needs a big scoop of civil liberties. After all, few cities have as extensive histories of civil liberties abuses against its citizens - the 1967 rebellion and riots were fueled in large part by police brutality. The mayor personally experienced violations of free speech and other rights under the prior leadership of the city, as the acclaimed film Street Fight documented.
This week, the ACLU of New Jersey issued Mayor Booker's junior-year report card on civil liberties; he earned a disappointing C-average. When it comes to civil liberties, the mayor hasn't reached his potential.
The mayor earned his best grades - B's - in two subjects: open government and immigrant rights. In open government, the mayor swiftly corrected problems, such as his administration's practice of having corporation counsel scrutinize each response to public records requests.
In immigrants' rights, the mayor has set the right tone and backed up his words, working closely with community advocates to address tensions over day laborers waiting for work in Newark's Portuguese district. He recognizes Newark's diversity and the importance of defusing tensions between different communities and has demonstrated exceptional grace in discouraging anti-immigrant sentiment, even in the face of political consequences.
However, the Mayor earned unacceptably low grades on two essential subjects: a C- in free speech, and a D in police practices.
Mayor Booker has yet to resolve basic free-speech failures. For seven years, the ACLU-NJ has grappled with the city to stop it from illegally requiring people to purchase million-dollar liability insurance policies before holding public demonstrations. The ACLU-NJ won a lawsuit ordering the city to end this practice and helped the city formulate its free speech policy, but City Hall workers still misinformed people that they needed insurance to exercise free speech in Newark.
The Mayor received his lowest grade, a D, in police practices, the subject that has most direct impact on citizens. The ACLU-NJ has received an unprecedented number of complaints against the Newark Police during the Booker Administration. We represent teenagers treated abusively by the Newark police, as well as a newspaper publisher illegally held in custody in an attempt to suppress his First Amendment rights.
Most recently, the ACLU-NJ took on the case of a woman stopped by two Newark officers who apparently had made a bet about her gender. The officers demeaned, harassed and arrested her on false charges.
Our clients who contacted internal affairs for help only encountered further rights violations, including having their complaints lost, misdirected, ignored and even refused, a grave situation given internal affairs' status as one of the mayor's top priorities.
At the end of the day, our report card is more than just handing out a grade. We're looking at the real lives of people in this city and adding up the costs to their rights. While many of the civil liberties problems originated long before Mayor Booker arrived on the scene and some are perpetuated by the culture of the city, the mayor should have made more progress on civil liberties by now.
We recognize that, as with President Obama, the mayor has countless political and economic obstacles. But when it comes to taking decisive action to protect freedom of speech or stop abusive police practices, the citizenry is 100 percent on the side of the mayor's success. We need him on our side in return. He has tremendous power to better protect civil liberties in Newark, provided he has the will to dig in and take charge.
We hope that the mayor will make civil liberties a higher priority in his "senior" year. Newark can't have public safety without public trust, and Mayor Booker must earn that trust by respecting the rights of the people. Idealism and soaring rhetoric are inspiring in a politician, but bold actions must follow bold words.
The ACLU released their report card yesterday grading Mayor Booker and the city of Newark on four criteria: Immigrant rights, Open Government, Free Speech and Police Practices. The report card is the first prepared by the ACLU on a specific city, and focused on Newark, because it is the state's largest city.
They were very critical of the police practices in Newark and also tough on the city regarding the free speech analysis. You can see the whole report for their concerns and analysis.
Booker last week said he welcomed, "constructive input on how to get better," but said the report card failed to recognize progress that was being made in addressing ACLU concerns. He noted that ACLU had been given a level of access to city officials the agency never had under his predecessor, former Mayor Sharpe James.
"We think we've made some pretty incredible strides," Booker said.
[snip]
Booker said a B grade for open government was "outrageous," after he pushed for reinstatement of a citizen's right to speak at city council meetings.
The city, also under the Booker administration, the mayor said, created a constituent concerns office, has heard residents at open-office-hour events around the city, established the state's first "4311," information line, for non-emergency citizen issues, and even has used the social networking website, Twitter.com, to communicate with residents.
And there was additional criticism of the report:
Julian Neals, Newark's Corporation Counsel, said the low grade on police practices alone was unwarranted because the lawsuits remain unresolved.
"It's like giving somebody a final grade during mid-term season," he said. "I think it's a little bit premature."
I've seen him talk about many of these issues, but the ACLU doesn't feel like the actions have backed up all of his words. Even the Mayor himself acknowledges regularly that there is more work to do, but he seemed pretty disappointed by this report as not giving credit for the strides they have already made. He just doesn't seem to see some of the points as constructive criticism.
We've all been huddled inside all the winter, but that doesn't mean we weren't all busy improving the community. The ACLU-NJ is hosting our Young Professionals Mixer at the Coffee Cave in Newark, and it's a chance to share what you've been up to and to learn what the ACLU-NJ, as well as groups of do-gooder types in the community, has been up to.
We'll have good drinks, good conversation, and a chance for you to meet other interesting like-minded young professionals working to improve our community, both with the ACLU and independently.
Entrance also pays for a year membership in the ACLU-NJ if you're not a member. And everyone gets a goody bag full of swag.
I hope to see you there Tuesday.
WHAT:
Young Professionals Mixer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Food, drinks, and music.
WHERE: The Coffee Cave
45 Halsey Street
Newark, NJ
COST: $15 for ACLU-NJ Members
$20 for Non-members (an ACLU-NJ membership is included in your entrance fee!)
If you haven't been following the eerie and interesting developments regarding Chris Christie's warrantless monitoring program while he was US Attorney, you've been missing out on how Christie's office was following the Bush Justice Department's "Big Brother is watching you" mantra.
And last night on Blue Jersey radio, Catherine Crump, lead ACLU attorney on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit which brought to light the government's warrantless tracking of New Jerseyans - using their own cell phones - under then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie dropped a few more bombshells about the case.
I strongly recommend you take a listen to the show, especially the last 10 minutes, which was kicked off by a question by one of the Blue Jersey radio listeners (thanks much, Frank) about whether Christie's office lied about this program while he was still US Attorney.
Ms. Crump's first comment provided a timeline of events that culminated in the release of a letter indicating that not only was there a widespread use of warrantless monitoring of cell phones by US Attorneys' offices around the country, but Chris Christie's office utilized this warrantless monitoring program far in excess of any other US Attorney office.
But that wasn't all she divulged. When asked about the timing of the release of this letter (as some Christie supporters have hinted at due to the Republican primary in a few weeks), she indicated that the initial request in 2005 resulted in the ACLU being told by Christie's US Attorney office that there were NO instances they could find of warrantless monitoring of cell phones, only to have his successor provide this information after Christie's office was sued for this information AND Christie left office.
Oh yeah, the Court ordered the information be provided not once, but twice, in September 2007 and again in October 2008. And just to repeat, Christie's office was sued while he was US Attorney, and only provided the information after he left office.
Let's review this timeline again:
December 2005: ACLU submits Freedom of Information Act request for records from the Justice Department, the FBI and the National Security Agency;
2007 (per Ms. Crump): Additional Freedom of Information Act request to Chris Christie's office to release information related to warrantless monitoring of cellphones;
2008 (per Ms. Crump): ACLU received response from Chris Christie's office that it had "no records or documents related to warrantless monitoring of cell phones";
July 2008: The ACLU files suit to obtain records about the federal government's tracking of cell phones;
December 31, 2008: US Department of Justice letter issued indicating the depth and breadth of NJ's US Attorney's office warrantless monitoring program. Per Ms. Crump, "NJ is being more aggressive than essentially any other state we could find in using this tracking technology"
Why is this such a big deal? Well, according to Ms. Crump (link to DOJ Reply to ACLU request here as well):
"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," Crump said. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."
On the show last night, Crump also revealed that the warrantless monitoring of cell phones can provide information related to when someone leaves for work, what time they get home, what friends they are visiting as well as other habits and associations.
Why was Christie stonewalling the ACLU on their Freedom of Information Act request, even after his office was sued? Why was this information still withheld even after there was a court order to provide such information? And why did Christie's office indicate that there was absolutely no documentation about a program that Christie revealed just recently to be something that he not only knew about, but gave conflicting answers on what groups or individuals he was monitoring without a warrant?
And how can Chris Christie still claim to be taking the high road and having respect for the rule of law when time after time after time shows how he has used his connections and office to step right up to the line of stretching the law. There are too many coincidences - whether it is this, the no-bid contracts, the way he was on and off the US Attorney firing list or his brother's non-indictment - and a clear pattern of abuse has developed.
Was he lying then, or is he lying now? And if he wasn't (or isn't) lying, then how does he explain his knowledge of this widespread practice going on within his office at a time when his office was denying that any record of this widely utilized program even existed?
Each week, Blue Jersey Radio streams LIVE with New Jersey's latest political buzz, interviews with newsmakers, and your stimulating calls.
Special heads up: Tomorrow night, Tuesday, at 8:00 p.m., we're LIVE with a very special guest: ACLU attorney Catherine Crump, talking about the government's warrantless tracking of cell phones, including here in New Jersey under then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. As chief counsel in the ACLU's challenge to the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program, Crump has worked extensively on protecting individuals' civil liberties, and will help us delve deeper into an issue we started discussing during last week's show.
Just give us a call, and share what's on your mind. Remember, it's all LIVE, so while you listen to us, remember that the government may be watching you listen, and tracking where you are. Sound like freedom? Chris Christie apparently thinks so.
Last week, we learned that former US Attorney and Republican Gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie oversaw a vast warrantless monitoring program to track in real time dozens of Americans' cell phones. In the past few days, Christie has come under attack from both the left and right on this important privacy issue. Christie has defended himself against these attacks by claiming that warrantless monitoring is "lawful." This assertion, which has gone largely unchallenged by the media, is incorrect. Indeed, warrantless monitoring cannot be lawful, because violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
Christie and other government officials who claim that warrantless cell phone monitoring program is "lawful" rely on two statutes to support this assertion. Both the Pen Register Act and the Stored Communications Act establish a standard less demanding than "probable cause" for the state to obtain a court order forcing cell phone companies, ISPs, and other entities to give up electronic records. Both of these acts were intended to extend privacy protections to certain communications that were previously completely unprotected by affording them some measure of protection. US Attorney Christie, however, blatantly disregarded Congress's intent, interpreting the acts as expanding, rather than limiting law enforcement surveillance powers.
While his disregard for the legislative intent of the two acts weakens Christie's position, his interpretation of the federal law ultimately fails because it runs afoul of the highest law in the land, namely the United States Constitution. There is a principle in constitutional law, called the Avoidance Canon, that states that given two reasonable constructions of a statute, if one conflicts with the Constitution and the other does not, the one that conflicts with the Constitution is always incorrect. Christie's overzealous reading of federal statutes is therefore not valid, and his claim that warrantless monitoring is "lawful" is false.
While neither the Supreme Court nor any US Circuit Court has yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking, a majority of federal district court judges who have considered the issue have found such searches to be unconstitutional. The judges who did rule in favor of the government endorsed only the least precise and invasive methods of tracking. While US Attorney, Christie used the most precise and invasive technology available-GPS tracking that can pinpoint the location of a cell phone to within 20 feet. The US Attorney's office continued their warrantless monitoring program even though it could be effectively thrown out when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers New Jersey) rules on a pending case (an Electronic Frontier Foundation amicus brief on the case can be found here).
Below the fold, I present the most compelling Consitutional argument against warrantless cell phone tracking. I contend that tracking the precise (to within 20 feet) location of a cell phone without a warrant is, in general, an unreasonable search, and thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Blue Jersey readers who are interested in preserving privacy and free speech and promoting innovation in new media should visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website. Despite being less than 20 years old, the EFF has become the preeminent advocacy group for civil liberties online. The EFF is, in a sense, the ACLU of the 21st century.
While he was U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Chris Christie gave approval to track people's precise whereabouts through their cell phones, and he did this without a first obtaining a warrant, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
This is just the newest example of our privacy rights careening over the edge with federal officials drunk at the wheel. Big Brother is tucked away in our cell phones, and the man behind the curtain is Chris Christie.
If this accusation is true, Chris Christie grossly overstepped the authority of his office while serving in New Jersey as the federal government's point-man for the U.S. Justice Department. And it makes it ever more clear that what he was really serving were the interests of a paranoid president of his party, George Bush, who thought little of using his authority to spy on the citizens of his country. And that would make Chris Christie New Jersey's spy on the ground for George Bush.
ACLU's accusations are based on Justice Department documents made public today following a July, 2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). EFF is a civil rights organization dealing with digital-age issues.The documents reveal show that the government is actively taking advantage of GPS or other similarly precise technology to monitor people's coming and goings, specifically in New Jersey as well as Florida, and that it does not always obtain a search warrant beforehand, according to ACLU-NJ.
"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."
The just-released documents show that federal prosecutors in both New Jersey and Florida are obtaining court orders merely by showing the tracking information gathered is "relevant and material" to a criminal investigation. That is a much lower burden than the "probable cause" standard required by the Constitution.
The documents released by the ACLU say the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey identified 79 such cases on or after Sept. 12, 2001 -- 66 of which resulted in a criminal prosecution.
"This search also found that nineteen applications were granted after November 16, 2007, to permit the government to obtain GPS or similarly precise location data on target cell phones without a judicial determination of probable cause," the document by the Department of Justice states. "Seventeen of these cases resulted in a criminal prosecution."
Christie was the U.S.Attorney for New Jersey Jan 17, 2002 - November 2008. The documents don't make clear how many of the applications were made during that time.
EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston:
Many people aren't aware that they can be tracked using the GPS chip in their cell phones, even when the phone is not in use. It's time for Congress to step in and make clear that federal law requires the government to get a warrant before tracking your cell phone.
This story is being filed, quickly, and ACLU is still hunting some of this information - specifically, the names of people who were under this warrantless surveillance, using their own cell phones to track them. Who was tracked? How many? We're going to stay on top of this story.
Officer Anthony Cavallo of Union Police is a liar and a serial exaggerator for concocting a story about the Defendant that he jumped Red Light out of whole cloth. Under oath he repeatedly said he was Parked on the other side of the intersection by the Chase Bank and at the same time kept on denying he was not parked in the Handicapped Parking!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3...
Second time Officer Cavallo followed the Defendant for more than 15 minutes and gave him a parking ticket with his blinkers still on without issuing any Summons to other vehicles belonging to Whites parked there for hours eating inside the bakery. Defendant was still outside the Blue Ribbon Bakery holding its door to get in just to pick up a big pie kept ready for him. When the Defendant took pictures of other parked vehicles in loading zone Cavallo made a obscene gesture to the Defendant F*** You
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3...
Judge Stuart Piem of Superior Court of Union County & Judge Jeffery Angelo of Roselle Park both found Officer Cavallo very credible who had all the help of a Racist Prosecutor Robert Donovan who made the remarks inside the Court room, ""It is a free country you can raise the issue of Racial Profiling or Racial Bias at any place but not in my Court. Every one with traffic violation ticket raises these questions. I am not concerned what happened to you or in the case in the last 1 year.
This Prosecutor Donovan intentionally created commotion and havoc in the Court of Judge Angelo by taking away his Copy of Motion & Photographs as well as of the Defendant despite the fact he had his own copy of the Motion and Photographs. The Court Transcripts are proof of this commotion & havoc by Racist Robert Donovan.
Under Home Rule of NJ rather Gang Rule Judge Stuart Piem also denied oral arguments to the defendant. Judge Piem & Angelo both found the testimony of a liar Anthony Cavallo credible and found nothing wrong in his making F*** You gesture to the victim of Racial Profiling & Selective Enforcement of Law.
It looks like Judge Piem, Judge Angelo and Prosecutor Donovan are still living in the past and do not understood the meaning of the comments made by our first African American Attorney General Eric Holder, "We are a nation of cowards when it comes to race matters". Judge Piem & Angelo have failed in their legal duties in addressing the issue of Racial Discrimination and illegal Traffic Summons Quota practiced by Union Police initiated by Union Twp & legalized by Union Municipal Court.
Home Rule=GANG RULE County Superior Court in cahoots with Municipal Courts in legalizing Traffic Summons Quota, Racial Profiling & Selective Enforcement of Law initiated by Politicians to raise revenue for the comforts of largest elected more than 1 scoundrel & over 50 employees per square mile in the world in Banana Republic of New Jersey. To protect them there are more than 10 Attorneys per square miles majority of the times with Tax Payers money.
Important Statements made by Union PD, Twp Officers
Officer Rad Sangster while parked illegally outside Marina News he made a remark, "they are under pressure to write Summons because they have to fill their Traffic Summons Quota".
Sgt. Fenton of Springfield PD while processing Bail Papers for arrest warrants issued & executed in 5 days by Union MC on fictitious grounds, "Although we are not supposed to have it but Springfield also has a Traffic Summons Quota."
www.flickr.com/photos/28501071@N07/3022944855/
Sgt. Elliott: it has been a long time since any Cultural or Racial Sensitivity Training has been conducted for Union PD. Officer Cavallo who is in the force for last 31/2 yrs only never had any such training!
Officer Jovic's unprovoked voluntary statement after writing a Summons on the intersection knowingly that NJDOT has made it unsafe & inconvenient, "Do not pay the fine, make sure you come to court on Oct. 23rd & talk to the prosecutor. If you send the fine you will have 1 point on your license. We hate to do what we are doing but we are being forced by our Bosses to do it."
Town Administrator James Bradley: "it has been the position of the township since reconfiguration of the intersection, that the State of New Jersey returns the intersection to its original design." The complainant should take up this matter with NJDOT. He further added, "We will forward a copy of your letter and concerns to NJDOT so that they may take your recommendations into considerations."
www.flickr.com/photos/28501071@N07/3023752464/
Sgt. Rego of Union PD while conducting a sham internal affair investigation without any complaint, "I know that it is a bad system and traffic is backing up to Springfield . City was against it and still the State implemented it. State can do whatever they want to do. NJDOT I believe is going to make changes to this pattern. You know how the State works; it will take a while for them to do any thing."
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey says a state directive banning the group from distributing voter information cards at polling places violates free speech and voter rights.
The Attorney General's Office says it is needed to give voters a politics-free haven as they make their way to the polls.
The dispute will land in the state Supreme Court on Tuesday when it hears the ACLU's challenge to the 2007 Attorney General directive banning the distribution of leaflets or any other materials within 100 feet of polling places. The edict also required media outlets to provide two weeks notice for permission to conduct exit polling.
This is the sample voting rights palm card the ACLU provides on their websiteIt's not necessarily what's there that poses the problem, but what might be apparently:
The three appellate judges found no reason to doubt the sincere intentions of the ACLU in providing voters with information, but concluded the Legislature wanted no materials distributed to voters around polling places.
The court worried that "less scrupulous individuals might attempt to secretly place within an otherwise innocuous pamphlet material urging a vote for or against a particular candidate."
So the argument is to prohibit legal action because illegal actions might occur? I guess the state worries about the potential lawsuits that could occur should they open the door. Maybe they should just require that voting rights be printed on the sample ballots that are mailed out before each election.
I would think the legitimate organizations actually face a pretty heavy incentive not to make illegal use of the access. Could you imagine if an organization lost their tax exempt status because they were electioneering? They would lose millions. The decision of the court will certainly have ramifications outside of the specific issue.
"This is an English speaking school and classroom -- any other [sic] language other than English will not be tolerated," the document states. It also informs students that they had to sign the paper -- that their signatures would count as a test grade.
Officials actually got no complaints from parents before the letter arrived from the ACLU. The school said it's not their policy. The substitute was supposed to be a special education math teacher. Imagine what she would have done as a full-time teacher - or if she actually taught English.
Last night, after having become a voice in the recent dialogue over Newark's crime statistics, I was slated to appear on WBGO-FM's weekly call-in show Newark Today with Mayor Booker and Newark Police Director McCarthy. Unfortunately, the Mayor and Director nixed my appearance, and WBGO allowed it happen.
Here's the background. The ACLU-NJ represents three young Newarkers who suffered abuse at the hands of the Newark Police and then had their complaints mishandled by Internal Affairs. When we met with city officials in September about the case, we discussed some of the problems and shortcomings with Internal Affairs (IA), and provided a list of reforms we believe will make the Internal Affairs system more accessible. The city's representatives expressed concern and promised to look into the possibility of implementing our reforms, and the dialogue is ongoing.
So when I received an email saying that the Mayor and Police Director would hold a press conference on Wednesday to tout both their very impressive reduction in murders and the reduction in citizen complaints to IA, I was surprised. I couldn't quite believe that they felt it was appropriate to tout the reduced IA stats with some many flaws left in the system. A reduction in complaints filed with Internal Affairs does not necessarily mean a reduction in police misconduct.
This is part two of a situational series about the city of Newark's blockades to free speech. (Part one is here.)
Last night on WBGO, Mayor Cory Booker assured listeners that free speech rights are safe and sound in Newark and that the recently passed city ordinance affecting free speech rights in the city explicitly excepts First Amendment activities from the burdens of permits and fees.
The town newsletter for Lebanon Borough [Hunterdon County, population 1,065] is called the "Lebanon Lantern". But the local government attitude towards free speech in this tiny densely populated borough is anything but 'enlightening'.
Recently, Mayor Mark Paradis and July 4th Parade Chairwoman Debbie Masco declared that non-partisan voter registration in their town was too much of an "un-patriotic" and "political" activity to be held in Lebanon Borough in their public park after the July 4th parade. Unbelievably, they even went as far as to threaten to have the sheriff's department arrest anyone who attempted to register voters. Can you say Bull Connor?
Also, Ms. Masco went as far to declare that voter registration in the public park after the parade would so offend her volunteers, that they would all up and quit and that would destroy the 61 year old Lebanon Parade forever. Ms. Masco, you need to keep things in perspective.
In my capacity as Hunterdon County Democratic Chair from 1996-2000, I oversaw the County Party's voter registration efforts at local town events all over the County. We registered voters in just about every town from Lambertville to Readington ----from Union to Raritan Township. We registered anyone and everyone ----anytime there was a township community day or street fair or Flemington Fair.
Therefore, when I was asked by a group of young volunteers from the Democratic Party to assist them in organizing a non-partisan voter registration table at the public park in Lebanon Borough, I said I would help.
So, I called Mayor Paradis to make the arrangements for a small voter registration table, in a reasonable and legal location in or near the public park. That was when the pre-July 4th fireworks started.
Right off the bat, the Mayor denied my request, calling voter registration not within the "spirit of July 4th" or within the parade event theme of "America's Moments in History". Ironic, isn't it?
The Lebanon Borough Park is a 'public forum'---where it is completely within constitutional bounds to register voters, given reasonable 'time, place and manner' restrictions. A small unobtrusive voter registration table in a corner somewhere is all we asked for, and were constitutionally entitled to.
There is no activity more civic, more non-partisan, and more purely American than providing an opportunity for those who are eligible to vote to register. Voting is the basis of our democracy.
Just what about voter registration do Mayor Paradis and Ms. Masco find so offensive?
This was the first time in all my years in Hunterdon County that a seated Mayor declared that there would be "no voter registration" in his town. Throughout our conversation Mr. Paradis was never able to provide the authority he had to make such a declaration, either.
After more than an hour of a heated conference call, Mayor Paradis and Ms. Masco finally relented ---but only after I was compelled to invoke the ACLU of NJ. Go figure.
Where is the line between public and private. That which is accessible to the taxpayer because of the position they hold, but not to the public at large because they still have a right to privacy.
Superior Court Judge John Sweeney rejected a request by the school board to determine at this time if home computer of board members is a public record. The judge said the New Jersey Government Records Council and not the courts have primary jurisdiction in determining what documents are public.
"The government records council is uniquely qualified to examine the question and a court should not exercise concurrent action," said Sweeney, who postponed further review pending a government decision.
The judge denied the request for jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, saying it would be subversive and that would have a "chilling effect" on the public. He said it would encourage public agencies to rush to a courthouse and cause unnecessary litigation expenses.
I do see the concern that many good people will leave public office and further more will seek not to run because of this further intrusion in their life. I know others will say, if they're not doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide.
People have a right, even public people, to the privacy of their homes and their communications. If there is a reasonable thought that there has been a crime committed, then aren't there already procedures in place for getting at the communications?
As far as public records go, it's not the government's job to do the investigating for you. Through the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), the ACLU will have to know that the document -- in this case e-mail messages -- exist prior to asking for them. It would seem that suspecting that the emails exist is not enough to prove that they are in fact real. But if you can't see the document, how can you prove it exists. Seems like a catch 22, unless you're carrying a big subpoena with you. The Judge has said he won't take a concurrent look, choosing to wait for the Government Records Council to rule. Unless the ACLU has specific examples, past rulings would point to denying the request putting the issue back in the hands of the court.
I think this is a great discussion waiting to happen so that's why I ask you, where is the line?
