ona move! peace everyone....... please help spread the word (Mumia's LIFE depends on it!)..... WHO: Mumia Abu-Jamal International Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal WHAT: IMMEDIATE ACTION on the denial of the AMICUS BRIEFS filed in Mumia's case WHEN: NOW! (as in start today.......) WHERE: Reach out to EVERYONE! Just as we have educated our communities about Mumia's case and prepared ourselves to be in Philadelphia for Mumia's day in federal court, we MUST EDUCATE ourselves and our communities with the LIFE-SAVING information contained in those amicus briefs! WHY: TO SAVE MUMIA! This is Mumia's LAST CHANCE in the court system. If the information contained in those briefs was not critical to Mumia's case this government would not have denied them! We CANNOT trust Yohn to do what is right! HOW: Use the information in those briefs to create flyers, write newspaper articles and editorials, make stickers for bumpers and subway walls! Wheat-paste and poster these words EVERYWHERE! spread the word.......... you know how we do! We are presenting a series of "Necessary and Helpful" Hints to help you comb through the briefs. The information in these hints is being taken directly out of the two amicus briefs involved in the appeal (citations will be included). Use this information in whatever way you can to show the PEOPLE that, based on the violation of Mumia's constitutional rights by Sabo, District Attorney McGill, and court-appointed defense attorney Anthony Jackson, NOT that Mumia did not have a fair trial, BUT that in 1982--when faced with life or death for a crime he did not commit--Mumia had NO TRIAL! "Necessary and Helpful" Hint #1 (taken from the Chicana/Chicano amicus curiae petition) Mumia was DENIED the personal and fundamental right to represent himself. On May 13, 1982, Mumia requested, and was granted, the right to represent himself. Thereafter, Mumia (acting as his own attorney or pro se) argued several pre-trial motions, and questioned 23 potential jurors before Sabo took over the voir dire (jury selection process) WITHOUT removing Mumia's pro se status. On June 17, 1982, when the trial began, Sabo first threatened to remove Mumia as his own attorney because he wanted a microphone at counsel table. Mumia then renewed a request for John Africa, Founder of the MOVE Organization, to assist him with his defense--expressing dissatisfaction with his court-appointed counsel, Anthony Jackson. This is the interesting part. This discussion about John Africa's participation in Mumia's trial continued throughout the morning session (the jury was excused), and then after the noon recess. During the course of this discussion between Mumia, Sabo, District Attorney McGill, and Jackson, Mumia continued to express that he did not want Jackson as his lawyer. Neither Sabo, McGill, or Jackson knew the law regarding whether or not a non-lawyer (John Africa) could serve as back-up counsel. So they decided that Mumia's request for John Africa's assistance needed to be decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Sabo suggested that Jackson go before the PA Supreme Court. Sabo then REMOVED Mumia as his own counsel so that Jackson would have the "standing" he needed to ask about John Africa. Courts require that the parties who come before them have a "case or controversy." Meaning that if you do not have a real and present problem, the courts do not want to hear your story. The courts don't just give advice. They allegedly decide and solve real problems. So Sabo figured that in order to get resolution of Mumia's request for John Africa, he needed Jackson to be a party before the PA Supreme Court. For Jackson to be a party, he had to have standing--he had to be Mumia's attorney. At that point, Mumia was representing himself. So Sabo appointed Jackson as Mumia's lawyer, despite having NO justification to strip Mumia of his pro se status. In other words, Sabo took away Mumia's right to represent himself so that Jackson could find out the law on non-lawyers serving as back-up counsel. We have been hearing for several years through numerous sources of MISINFORMATION that Mumia was removed as his own counsel because he was "disruptive" in the proceedings. Apparently, asking for a microphone so that you can be heard by all in a trial for your life is disruptive. (And I will add that in every Common Pleas courtroom I've been in in the Philadelphia Criminal "Justice" Center, there IS a microphone at counsel tables, so was Mumia's request outlandish?) BUT if Mumia's behavior so warranted his removal as his own attorney, why then did prosecutor McGill specifically say to Sabo that once the back-up attorney question is clarified "and we are again before this Court in this trial that Your Honor consider moving Mr. Jackson and reappointing or for that matter allowing Mr. Jamal to represent himself again." (6/17/82 Tr. 1.120) Would the procesutor have suggested that Mumia be allowed to represent himself if Mumia had been as "disruptive" as we have always been told in the mainstream press? During the four days Mumia argued several motions, cross-examining several witnesses, Sabo made no note of any disruptive behavior on Mumia's part. (6/1/82 Tr. 1.1-1.149; 6/2/82 Tr. 2.1-2.135; 6/3/82 Tr. 3.1-3.104; 6/4/82 Tr. 4.1-4.147) For the first two days of the voir dire (jury selection process), June 7th & 8th, Mumia questioned 23 potential jurors--successfully challenged two for cause, DEFEATED a prosecution challenge for cause, and exercised two premeptory challenges. Nonetheless, Sabo took over questioning the potential jurors himself, claiming that the process was taking too long and that some of the potential jurors were not comfortable with Mumia questioning them. Since when are our constitutional rights to a jury of our peers about a potential juror's comfort level? This sounds like the same "concerned neighbor complaints" used to justify dropping a C-4 exposive device on MOVE's West Philadelphia home May 13, 1985, which KILLED 11 MOVE men women and children! Furthermore, if potential juror comfort levels were the gauge for deciding whether or not a pro se defendant could conduct voir dire, then what purpose does the Sixth Amendment serve? Mumia WAS NOT disruptive! Sabo removed Mumia as his own counsel IN VIOLATION of Mumia's Sixth Amendment rights! According to the United States Supreme Court, denial of the right to self-representation is NEVER harmless error, and can ONLY be remedied by granting the defendant a NEW TRIAL. (Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1990), citing McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984); accord Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993)) the story gets better.......... stay tuned for "Necessary and Helpful" Hint #2 in the meantime.......... READ THE BRIEFS! www.mumia.org or www.mumia2000.org To SAVE MUMIA we MUST take this information to the streets! Just as we have presented Mumia's case around the world, we now have to likewise EXPOSE what this government would rather keep secret! Judge Yohn denied four amicus briefs filed in Mumia's case. We are APPEALING that decision. But we CANNOT rely on the courts to do what is right! You can also SIGN ON to the APPEAL of Yohn's decision denying these critical briefs! We need you to use the language INSIDE two of the briefs (Chicana/Chicano Studies and the British Parliament briefs) to state WHY these briefs MUST be filed in this case. For more information on HOW you/your organization can sign on to the appeal, contact: The International Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal P. O. Box 19709 Philadelphia, PA 19143 (phone) 215-476-8812, 215-476-5416 (fax) 215-476-6160 icffmaj@aol.com take care & stay on the move! FREE MUMIA! FREE LEONARD PELTIER! FREE THE MOVE 9! LONG LIVE JOHN AFRICA! LONG LIVE REVOLUTION! _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Stop the execution! New trial for Mumia! Youth & Students for Mumia http://www.mumia2000.org