Appeals court blocks Albert Woodfox “Angola 3” prisoner's release

As of this week a federal judge (for the 3^rd time, has rules Albert Woodfox’s conviction is to be overturned due to lack of evidence and unfair jury selection. 

As he was set to walk out of that iron door solitary cell, the state of Louisiana put in an emergency appeal. Three days later the 5^th circuit court of appeals ruled in favor to keep in imprisoned until the appeal is decided.

Source.

15 June 2015

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Albert Woodfox, the last “Angola Three” prisoner still behind bars in Louisiana, must remain incarcerated for the time being. The decision came despite a district court judge’s ruling Tuesday that Woodfox be freed after more than four decades in solitary confinement.

In the earlier ruling, Judge James J. Brady of the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana also barred a third trial for Woodfox. He was convicted twice for the murder of a prison guard, but both convictions were overturned.

Woodfox, now 68, is one of a group of three prisoners at the notoriously brutal Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola who came to be known as the “Angola Three.” Members of the Black Panther Party, the three were targeted by prison and state authorities for their political beliefs and outspoken comments against conditions in the prison.

Angola, the oldest and largest maximum-security prison in the US, sits on the site of a former slave plantation turned into a prison at the end of the Civil War. It derives its name from slaves who once worked its fields, most of whom came from the African nation of Angola. Seventy-seven percent of inmates at the prison are African-American, and prison labor still works the fields.

Woodfox and Herman Wallace were convicted of the April 1972 killing of Brent Miller, a prison guard at Angola. They were tried and convicted by an all-white jury within two hours. Robert King, the third man, was convicted of the death of a fellow inmate in 1973. Combined, the three have spent more than 100 years in solitary confinement.

Wallace was set free October 1, 2013, at the age of 71, after a campaign waged by Amnesty International (AI) for his release on humanitarian grounds. A grand jury reindicted him two days later, but did not arrest him. He died the following day of advanced liver cancer.

King was released in 2001, after a court reversed his conviction. He has remained a tireless advocate for Wallace and Woodfox, writing on his web site, “I may be free from Angola, but Angola will never be free of me.”

In overturning Woodfox’s convictions, federal courts have ruled that his constitutional rights were violated through racial discrimination, prosecutorial misconduct, inadequate defense and suppression of exculpatory evidence.

A 2011 report by AI condemned the legal case against Woodfox and Wallace, stating: “No physical evidence linking the men to the guard’s murder has ever been found; potentially exculpatory DNA evidence has been lost; and the convictions were based on questionable inmate testimony.”

Despite the lack of physical evidence and Woodfox’s twice-overturned convictions, the state of Louisiana is demanding further retribution. A spokesman for Louisiana Attorney General James D. “Buddy” Caldwell said Judge Brady’s order Tuesday “arbitrarily sets aside jury decisions and gives a free pass to a murderer based on faulty procedural issues.”

According to Woodfox’s attorneys, he suffers from high blood pressure and health and kidney disease. Having been held for the vast majority of the last 43 years in solitary confinement, he is believed to have spent the most time of any US prisoner in what Angola authorities refer to as “closed cell restriction.”

He has been held alone for 23 hours a day in a six-foot by eight-foot cell with views through metal bars of only a concrete corridor. In the remaining hour, he is allowed to shower and walk up and down the corridor or to have an isolated walk in the exercise yard, weather permitting.

Woodfox’s attorney George Kendall told the Guardian last year, “There is no other American prisoner who has been as long in solitary. If you ask other prisoners who have spent time in solitary, they will tell you that it is the worst thing that can happen to you in prison—it’s as lonely and painful as it gets.”

In 2008, Woodfox described the bouts of claustrophobia he has suffered frequently in his cell: “When I have an attack I feel like I am being smothered, it is very difficult to breathe, and I sweat profusely. It seems like the cell walls close in and are just inches from my face. I try to cope by pacing, or by closing my eyes and rocking myself.”

Juan E. Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, in 2013 called for Woodfox’s immediate release from solitary confinement, stating: “Four decades in solitary confinement can only be described as torture.”

The horrific conditions of Albert Woodfox’s incarceration are an indictment of the US prison system, which houses an estimated 2.4 million inmates in its prisons and jails.

While there is no government reporting system to count the number of prisoners in solitary confinement nationwide, the Vera Institute for Justice estimates that more than 80,000 people are placed in isolation in state and federal prisons on any given day. This is likely an underestimation, as the figure does not include those in jails, military facilities, juvenile facilities or immigration detention centers.

The recent suicide of Kalief Browder has focused renewed attention on the barbaric practice. Browder, who was accused of stealing a backpack at age 16, was incarcerated for three years at New York’s Rikers Island prison, where he was tortured and starved in solitary confinement without ever having been convicted of a crime. He committed suicide after returning home, psychologically shattered by the experience.

A recent Human Rights Watch report exposed that mentally disabled prisoners in the U.S., including minors and the elderly, are frequently subjected to solitary confinement. These prisoners, who are incarcerated in record numbers due to the shutdown of mental health services, often spend months, years and even decades locked in solitary confinement, being allowed only three to five hours a week of “recreation” alone in caged enclosures.

Woodfox’s advocate, Angela Allen-Bell, a professor at the Southern University Law Center visited Woodfox after the 5th circuits ruling to keep him incarcerated. He is so strong after all he has been through. It breaks my heart this nightmare continues. Here Allen-Bell describes the effect being moved from a state prison to a parish prison has adversely effected him.

Source

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

Albert Woodfox, the Louisiana prisoner who has spent 43 years in solitary confinement, will not be set free today. A three-judge panel ruled this afternoon that Woodfox will remain behind bars while it considers whether he can be retried for the 1972 murder of a prison guard. His conviction has twice been thrown out. Earlier today, we spoke to Angela Allen-Bell, an advocate for Woodfox and a professor at the Southern University Law Center. She visited Albert Woodfox yesterday and said he was prepared for the judge's decision either way.

ANGELA ALLEN-BELL: He has been through litigating this case, now, consistently since 1972. And so he's developed an ability to sort of understand that, you know, he has control over only one set of things, which is the truth, and nothing more. And so he does not allow himself to become very optimistic. He's very cautious when it comes to the judicial system because his experience has taught him that that is best.

CORNISH: After these last 40-plus years in solitary confinement, how is his physical health? I mean, what evidence can you see of the effects of his isolation?

ALLEN-BELL: Well, one of the things that I can often notice is, in the letters that he writes, his handwriting differs when he is under the duress of this confinement. And so a lot of times, when you read the writing, it almost looks like a child learning to write, like a toddler's writing. And when I see that, I know that he's succumbing to those conditions. The other thing is, he has panic attacks regularly. He also has diabetes. He has high blood pressure. And, you know, he's 68, and he has all of the issues that goes along with living in the body of a 68-year-old. But many of those things are enhanced because of these extreme conditions that he's living under.

CORNISH: We know that his initial imprisonment was at Angola, and he's now at a separate detention center. But the conditions, it sounds like, have been the same. He's been kept away from the general population. He's been in solitary confinement. How does he describe that - the size of the cell, what he's allowed to do or not do?

ALLEN-BELL: In that cell, he has a small bunk, and there's a very thin mattress that would be akin to what you would send to preschool with your kid. He has a toilet, and he has a small desk area. And it measures about six-by-nine. For the larger part of the 43 years, he actually had bars on the outside of his cell so that he could actually hear the television or hear the guards as they move about and even hear other inmates, sometimes screaming in agony. But he had the pleasure of hearing other people up until about two months ago, when he was moved to West Feliciana. Now, he has a solid metal door on the outside of his cell, and he's sealed behind the metal door, and that seems to be taking a toll on him because he's having a lot more panic attacks and issues with anxiety as of these last few months.

CORNISH: Now, Albert Woodfox - his original crime was armed robbery. His solitary confinement came after now questionable convictions for the death of the prison guard, Brent Miller. But at the time, his advocates said that he also was being punished, in a way, for being an organizer within the prison of the first chapter of the Black Panthers. The group was organizing against inhumane conditions at the prison. Angela Allen-Bell, has Albert Woodfox ever expressed to you any regret or concern about his activity during that time?

ALLEN-BELL: Absolutely not, and it's odd that you ask that question because that was some of the conversation we had on yesterday, when he was telling me of some of the things that he would like to do when he's free. And one of the things that he says that he would love to spend time doing is mentoring young boys who grew up without a father, like himself. And I said to him, well, Albert, I said, do you think maybe you should not try to help other folks? You know, try to be a little selfish? I mean, actually, you trying to be a public servant is what got you in this. And he said, absolutely not, I'll never do that. He said, that's what I was called to do.

CORNISH: What are next steps?

ALLEN-BELL: Well, his steps have always been to trust the judicial system, but what I expect also will happen is the public will become more involved in this, and this is going to turn into a bigger movement. This is not going to quietly go away. The people are now invested in this case because of what has been done to Mr. Woodfox.

CORNISH: Angela Allen-Bell. She's a professor at the Southern University Law Center. She spoke to us about Albert Woodfox. Thank you so much for talking with us.

ALLEN-BELL: Thank you for having me.

Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. 

What can we all do? As Allen-Bell points out, the only way to push Louisiana Attorney General, Buddy Caldwell is for us to gain momentum on an international scale.

Please share this meme world wide! 

Please join the 1000s of people who support Albert Shaka Woodfox by contacting Gov. Bobby Jindal to NOT to waste anymore tax payer money in prosecuting this case. Consider yourself acting on behalf of a turning tide of justice, equality, dignity, & history.

Here are some ways you can contribute:

Sign Amnesty Petition Below: 

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-the-angola-3

Call Buddy Caldwell’s office and ask him to withdraw his appeal: 225-326-6079

The conditions where he is right now are the very worse he has been in. Anyone who wants to write him and show support to him directly, he can use your words of encouragement. 

His address is:

Albert Woodfox #72148

West Feliciana Parish Detention Center

PO Box 2727

St. Francisville, LA 70775

‪#‎StopSolitary ‪#‎FreeWoodfox

You will be shocked at how ignorant Americans are

You will be shocked at how ignorant Americans are

If you think the widening chasm between the rich and the rest spells
trouble for American democracy, have a look at the growing gulf between
the information-rich and-poor.

Earlier this year, a Harvard economist’s jaw-dropping study of American’s
beliefs about the distribution of American wealth became a viral video.  Now a new Pew study of the distribution of American news consumption is just as flabbergasting.

According to the Harvard study, most people believe that the top 20 percent ofthe country owns about half the nation’s wealth, and that the lower 60percent combined, including the 20 percent in the middle, have onlyabout 20 percent of the wealth.  A whopping 92 percent of Americansthink this is out of whack; in the ideal distribution, they said, the lower 60 percent would have about half of the wealth, with the middle 20 percent of the people owning 20 percent of the wealth.What’sastonishing about this is how wrong Americans are about reality.

In fact, the bottom 80 percent owns only 7 percent of the nation’s wealth,
and the top 1 percent hold more of the country’s wealth – 40 percent – than 9 out of 10 people think the top 20 percent should have.  The top 10 percent of earners take home half the income
of the country; in 2012, the top 1 percent earned more than a fifth of
U.S. income – the highest share since the government began collecting the data a century ago.

But America’s information inequality is at least as shocking as its economic inequality.

Pew sliced the TV news audience into thirds: heavy, medium and light.  In my Jeffersonian fantasy, that distribution would look like a bell curve; in fact, it looks like a cliff.  Heavy viewers watch a little over two hours of TV news a day, but medium viewers barely watch a quarter of an hour and light viewers average only two minutes a day.  The top third of the country does 88 percent of the day’s TV news viewing; the middle third watches only 10 percent of the total time; the bottom third sees
just 2 percent of the minutes of news consumed.  Two-thirds of Americans live in an information underclass as journalistically impoverished as the minuscule bazillionaire class is triumphant.This month, the Pew Research Journalism Project reported how Americans get their news at
home.  If you think it’s from the Internet, you’ll be surprised that the 38 percent of us who access news at home on a desktop or laptop spend an average of only 90 seconds a day getting news online.  America’s dominant news source is television, and the disparity between heavy viewers of TV news and everyone else is as startling as the gap betweenthe plutocrats and the people.

As for those heavy news viewers, says Pew, “There is no news junkie like a cable junkie.”  A
heavy local news viewer watches about 22 minutes of it a day at home,
and a heavy network news viewer watches about 32 minutes a day.  But a
heavy cable news consumer averages 72 minutes of it a day. The gap
between heavy, medium and light cable news viewers is especially stark.

If you’re reading this, you’re probably in that 72-minutes-of-cable-news-a-day class. 
But medium cable news viewers see barely more than three minutes of it a day, and
light cable news viewers see about 12 seconds of it a day.  In other words, either you
live in the country that watches more than an hour of Blitzer, O’Reilly,
Maddow, et al, a day – or in the country that watches virtually none of
them at all.

If you want to know where this is heading, consider another cheery piece of Pew research.
Americans 67 to 84 years old spend 84 minutes a day watching, reading
or listening to the news.  Boomers (48 to 66) are close behind, at 77
minutes a day.  But Gen Xers (33 to 47) spend 66 minutes, and
Millennials (18 to 31) spend only 46 minutes a day.  The kids are tuning
out.  I love it that 43 percent of “The Colbert Report” audience, and
39 percent of “The Daily Show” viewers, are 18 to 29 years old;
the young audiences of those fake news shows get real news from them. 
But fewer than a million and a half Americans under 50 are watching
them.

Much has been made of the ideological news bubbles we live
in, where we see the world exclusively through Fox-colored lenses, or
filters manufactured only by MSNBC or CNN.  The Pew study upends this
belief.  It’s true that about one-quarter of American adults watch only
Fox News, another quarter watch only CNN and 15 percent watch only
MSNBC.  But 28 percent of Fox News viewers also watch MSNBC, and 34
percent of MSNBC viewers watch Fox.  More than half of MSNBC viewers,
and nearly half of Fox viewers, watch CNN, and of CNN’s viewers, about 4
out of 10 also watch Fox, and 4 out of 10 also watch MSNBC.

It’s encouraging that our self-segregation into polarized news ghettos is a
bit of a myth.  But whatever joy there is in that finding is blunted by
the disparity between people who watch a lot of news and people who
watch almost none of it, and by the trend toward an even deeper division
ahead.  The danger democracy faces isn’t so much that different
segments of our country inhabit alternative realities constructed from
different data delivered by different news sources.  It’s that a
minority of the country watches a fair amount of news, and a majority
may as well be living on the moon.

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.  

Bobby Jindal - Please Release Herman Wallace of the Angola 3 to compassionate release

Herman Wallace shouldn't have to die behind bars.  

Herman is 71 years old and has advanced liver cancer. He and fellow prisoner Albert Woodfox have been held in solitary confinement longer than anyone else in modern U.S. history. The men have spent the past 41 years of their lives alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, deprived of any meaningful human interaction.

No human being deserves to live like this. Herman Wallace should not die alone.
Why wouldn't Louisiana officials simply release an elderly prisoner with advanced cancer on humanitarian grounds? Evidence suggests that it is in part because Herman, Albert, and King, 3 black panthers dared to organize and speak out against inhumane treatment and racial segregation inside one of United States' most brutal prisons, Angola.

Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox are the two imprisoned members of the ‘Angola 3', three young black men who were thrown in solitary confinement after working against continued segregation, systematic corruption, and grave abuses in the infamous Angola prison. Originally imprisoned for unrelated cases of armed robbery, Herman and Albert were later convicted for the murder of a prison guard in 1972. However, no physical evidence links either man to the murder. In fact, King was 150 miles away in another prison when the murder happened.

In the decades since Herman and Albert's conviction, numerous legal concerns have risen to the surface from the racially charged underbelly of the U.S. prison system. These are just a few glaring flaws we documented in our report ‘100 Years in Solitary: The 'Angola 3' and their Fight for Justice' :

• DNA evidence that might have established the men's innocence was somehow "lost"
• Outcomes were based on questionable inmate testimony
• Prison officials bribed the main eyewitness
• One witness later retracted his testimony
• The prison guards widow is convinced these men were set up and her husbands murderers were never identify. She as well has worked for years for their release.

Prison authorities have broken their own policies to justify Herman's continued incarceration in harsh and inhumane conditions. After decades in these conditions, a highly questionable conviction that continues to be challenged by the courts and the now a tragic prognosis of terminal cancer, the next step seems all too clear: Herman Wallace should be released.

Video here from msnbc just days ago (sorry I could not embed it)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46979745/vp/52407812#52407812

To quote from this clip filmed in New Orleans with Herman’s attorney
Herman Wallace, one of the remaining two imprisoned members of the Angola 3, has been diagnosed with liver cancer. Wallace’s attorney believes it is time for him to be let out of solitary confinement and more importantly receive a compassionate release.

Attorney Nick Trenticosta detailed his client’s condition on Saturday’s Melissa Harris-Perry. “He’s lost about 55 pounds in four months, and he is being treated completely negligently. I would say he’s being killed through intentional neglect.”

Currently 71 years old, Wallace has been in solitary confinement for more than 41 years for his 1972 conviction in the murder of prison guard Brent Miller. It is a conviction that he and the other members of the Angola 3 have fought because they have maintained their innocence in the brutal stabbing.
Given his critical diagnosis, his lawyers and organizations like Amnesty International are pushing for a compassionate release.

Asked whether he thought there was any chance that Wallace would receive a compassionate release, Trenticosta’s response was telling. “I don’t think so, and part of the reason is the state of Louisiana in the past six years has spent $6 million dollars in lawyer fees to keep a 71-year-old man in solitary confinement.”

PBS recently premiered “Herman’s House” about the relationship between Herman Wallace and artist Jackie Surell who learned about Herman from a class on solitary confinement where Robert King, the only release member of the Angola 3 was lecturing. Ironically, it was not premiered in north Louisiana with the rest of the country. You can stream this documentary here.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/hermanshouse/...p#.UdyJuW2tqJY

Here is the trailer

 http://hermanshousethefilm.com/


Buddy Caldwell, the attorney general involved in this case has stated he will not release Herman and Albert because, “If he releases these men, he will have to release the others” but in the same breath states they were never in solitary confinement.

Please help us contact the governor of Louisiana and ask him to release Herman on compassionate release. He doesn’t have much time left. You can use this form to do it.

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/sit...ce=W0000ACFACE

Or write to Jindal via the Louisiana state website
http://www.gov.la.gov/index.cfm?md=f...email_governor

We also need to follow this link and join the movement here
http://hermanshouse.org/get-involved/
http://www.nrcat.org/torture-in-us-p...tary-statement

Another documentary that tells the complete story to date on the Angola 3 is
"In the Land of the Free" narrated by Samual Jackson.  The trailer is here
http://youtu.be/Zkr03dYtlQQ

And Attorney General Caldwell is correct. If Albert and Herman are released from long term solitary confinement in Louisiana, it could set a precedent and hundreds of others in solitary will be released.

More information
One of the most comprehensive Angola 3 sites on the web
http://www.angola3.org/

Kings personal website
http://www.kingsfreelines.com/

In addition to concern for Herman Wallace, the worsening conditions of confinement for Albert Woodfox in David Wade Correctional Center, near the town of Homer in Louisiana.
For approximately two months, Woodfox has been subjected to additional punitive measures, including strip-searches each time he leaves or enters his cell, being escorted in ankle and wrist restraints, restricted phone access, and being limited to non-contact visits through a perforated metal screen. Temperatures in the cells are reportedly extremely high, regularly reaching up to 38 degrees Celsius, a serious health risk for inmates confined to their cells for up to 23 hours a day. These risks are even greater in the case of the elderly or infirm, as their bodies are unable to adjust to the heat as quickly as those of healthy, younger adults.

Peanut Butter Bar

No-Stick Cooking Spray

1 (18.25 ounce) package Butter Cake Cake Mix

1 cup organic Peanut Butter

1/2 cup water

1 large egg

Peanut Butter/Chocolate icing

1/3 cup butter, softened

1/3 cup creamy peanut butter

1-1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract

2-1/2 cups confectioners' sugar

1/3 cup baking cocoa

1/4 teaspoon salt

4 to 5 tablespoons almond milk

Directions

Peanut Butter Bar

Heat oven to 350 degrees F. Lightly spray 13 x 9-inch pan with no-stick cooking spray. In large bowl, combine cake mix, 1 cup peanut butter, water and egg on low speed, mixing 2 minutes on medium speed. Spread into prepared pan.

Bake at 350 degrees F for 20 to 25 minutes or until puffed and light golden brown. Cool completely.

Icing

Mix all ingredients together until blended. Spread over cooled bars

Key Lime cupcakes

Cupcakes
1 box Betty Crocker® SuperMoist® lemon cake mix
1 box (4-serving size) lime-flavored gelatin
3/4 cup water
1/3 cup Key lime juice
1/3 cup vegetable oil
3 eggs
2 or 3 drops green food color, if desired

Glaze
1 cup powdered sugar
2 to 2 1/2 tablespoons Key lime juice

Frosting
1 package (8 oz) cream cheese, softened
1/4 cup butter or margarine, softened
1 teaspoon vanilla
3 1/2 cups powdered sugar
Grated lime peel, if desired

Heat oven to 350°F (325°F for dark or nonstick pan). Place paper baking cup in each of 24 regular-size muffin cups. In large bowl, beat cupcake ingredients with electric mixer on low speed 30 seconds, then on medium speed 2 minutes, scraping bowl occasionally. Divide batter evenly among muffin cups, filling each about two-thirds full.

Bake 19 to 24 minutes or until toothpick inserted in center comes out clean. Cool in pan 10 minutes. Remove from pan to cooling rack. With toothpick or wooden skewer, pierce tops of cupcakes in several places.

In small bowl, mix 1 cup powdered sugar and enough of the 2 to 2 1/2 tablespoons lime juice until glaze is smooth and thin enough to drizzle. Drizzle and spread glaze over cupcakes. Cool completely, about 30 minutes.

In large bowl, beat cream cheese and butter on medium speed until light and fluffy. On low speed, beat in vanilla and 3 1/2 cups powdered sugar until mixed; beat on medium speed until fluffy. Frost cupcakes, mounding and swirling frosting in center. Garnish with lime peel. Store covered in refrigerator.

Makes 24 cupcakes

"8" at River City Repertory February 17th- 7:30pm

"8" premiered in L.A. with a star-studded cast that included supporters of marriage equality like Brad Pitt and George Clooney.  The Shreveport performance will feature local celebrities.On February 17th at 7:30 pm at the Karpeles Museum, River City Repertory Theatre will do a 1-night only performance of "8", the play based on the Prop 8 trial. 

 Tickets can be purchased by calling 318-868-5888 daily from 11-4. All seats are $30. Profits go to the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

AFER is the nonprofit that spearheaded the court challenge to Prop 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. This court challenge drew lots of attention because our side (proponents of marriage equality) had as its legal representation the dream team of liberal icon David Boies and conservative icon Ted Olson, who were on opposing sides in the landmark Bush v. Gore which decided the 2000 election. Boies and Olson were successful and Prop 8 was overturned. This court decision has been appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which has agreed to hear the appeal.

Why "8"

Uncover the truth about marriage for gay and lesbian Americans. "8"-a new play by Academy-award winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk, J. Edgar)-demystifies the debate around marriage equality by chronicling the landmark trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Hollingsworth v. Perry). Learn about the historical context of marriage from expert testimony. See the human cost of discrimination. Uncover the arguments used to justify bans on marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Using the actual court transcripts from the landmark federal trial of California's Prop. 8 and first-hand interviews, "8" shows both sides of the debate in a moving 90-minute play.

See video from the original play at AFER's web site:   http://www.8theplay.com/  and at River City Repertory Theatre's web site:  http://www.rivercityrep.org

The Rep is being supported by P.A.C.E. and the ACLU of Louisiana

RSVP for "8" on Facebook, and get more information.

Leadership Born From Collective Action

"AIDS is essentially a crisis of governance, of what governments do and do not do to and for their people – we have the drugs to treat HIV infection, we have the tools to confront the risks that drive HIV transmission and prevent infection itself – what we don’t have is national political will necessary to scale-up our response. We have demanded too little from our leaders, excused far too much." Gregg Gonsalves, speech at the 2006 Toronto AIDS Conference.

I became an HIV/AIDS activist in 1986 when I was in my twenties. Personal loss, anger, and a vow to see the end of HIV/AIDS has kept me moving towards this goal for twenty five years. To be young and idealistic and following a calling, so many have, it’s what young people do, but what happens when the stakeholders are so affected they continue into the years that follow? Strides are made along the way, small victories, with as many setbacks. There is nothing more compelling than losing a love one to a disease perceived as a moral justification to sin. It was the loss of one special person that moved me into the realization of what social injustice is. Up until that point, I had never been affected by anything so compelling as to be driven beyond my comfort zone and shake my fist at the status quo. 

The interesting part of my leadership is that it came from a collective action organization. Many of the leaders of ACT-UP Shreveport went on to become executive directors and project managers of HIV/AIDS resource centers. It was a tricky migrating from fighting the system to working to build a system. Leaders of a grassroots organizations experience major milestones as their organization builds their culture and history. Unfortunately, not every change process leads to permanent expected results. This is where leadership skills play at major role in how leaders and followers deal with setbacks and accomplishments. Change processes and change projects have become major milestones in many organizations’ history.

Due to the dynamics in the external environment, many organizations find themselves in continuous change. For those who are new to leadership, building skills to face crisis’ that many times involved life or death to those they serve can be extremely terrifying. The scope reaches from smaller change projects in each department of the organization, up to organization wide transformation processes but effects many individual lives the most. Our motto had become, “Change is the only constant.” This article will outline my first experience as a leader and an agent of change, describe who was affected, where it took place, the change model that was used, and how we rewarded failed policies and victories.

The Beginning

ACT-UP Shreveport at the Action on NIH

AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) is an international direct action advocacy group working to impact the lives of people living with AIDS, (PWAs) and the AIDS pandemic to bring about legislation, medical research and treatment and policies to ultimately bring an end to the disease by mitigating loss of health and lives.  ACT UP was organized as a leaderless and effectively anarchist network. This was intentional on the founder of the group, Larry Kramer's part;  he describes it as democratic to a fault. “We used a simple formula for recruitment, to a certain extent, this is how democratic politics is supposed to work in general. You convince people of the validity of your ideas. You have to go out there and convince people" (actupny.org, 1987).

My loss of a dear friend probably isn’t much different than every AIDS activist who is either infected or affected by HIV/AIDS. Those who are personally affected or traumatized, combined with a social environment, usually are people who will find themselves “answering the calling”.  I found myself as one of five founding members  of the newly formed ACTUP Shreveport, with the idealist notion that we would see the end of the AIDS epidemic.

ACT-UP Shreveport was considered one of the leading local branches of the national network. Quoting from the National Institute of Health’s history of HIV/AIDS website that features ACT-UP Shreveport, “The original ACT-UP group from New York inspired numerous other branches nationwide, as well as campaigning in their own states, local groups from across the country attended major rallies” (NIH.com). Hundreds of people locally responded to the call. Along with one sympathetic local physician, we were able to bring forth the first HIV/AIDS resource center, The Philadelphia Center (Philly) and clinic in north Louisiana, The Viral Disease Clinic at LSU Medical Center. It was an amazing accomplishment for those initial six people, two of which were diagnosed with AIDS, and three people who loved them dearly, and the very compassionate doctor, Marcus Spurlock (D-Demaree, 2011).

Part of ACT-UP Shreveport’s agenda was to assist in acquiring funding for an AIDS Resource Center. As we lobbied and protested at the state level, we eventually saw funding available for the center we envisioned. As many activists, I chose to work within the system and not protest against it. With funding available, lower income clients would receive their medication, housing, and other basic needs. It was a victory in our eyes. In the early years, HIV/AIDS took many lives due to the lack of antiviral medications, Social Security set up harsh restrictions disallowing those infected to receive disability income unless they were near death. More than often, people were too sick to work, therefore too sick to afford medication, food or housing. The need for ACT-UP Shreveport, The Viral Disease Clinic, and the Philadelphia Center in Shreveport, Louisiana, was growing expediently week by week and month by month.

The Organization

The Philadelphia Center’s mission is to provide supportive services for people who have AIDS and who have contracted HIV as well as prevent the spread of HIV with education and prevention programs. The center also works to improve the quality of life for those who have contracted HIV. Several of the ACTUP Shreveport members went on to help build the Philadelphia Center from the vision to a grassroots organization. In an era of stigma and fear, there were many obstacles to over come. We were determined as a grassroots organization to overcome the barriers before us and reach the mission of the organization.

People Centered Change

People centered change alters the behavior and skills. For there to be people centered processes, communicating, motivating, leading, and interaction within the group must be ongoing (Dougherty, 2002). As leaders, encountering answers to solve problems, and educate internal and external forces in order to build the organization. Open communication between the different entities .opened up many questions that would be addressed before making any steps towards building the structure of the organization.

Leading Strategic Change

      The first step was to research foundations and federal grants that would provide funding in these areas. Once national and community foundations were identified, the process of application submission and grant writing began. The Philadelphia Center was able to acquire the new Ryan White funding the federal government was issuing to assist those living with HIV/AIDS. With the Viral Disease Clinic newly formed, clients could be segregated from other patients at the hospital and not withstand further stigma and scrutiny. This was a major accomplishment for clients. Once someone tested positive for HIV antibodies, we could work together getting them into the clinic for follow up tests and then back to our case managers for other needs such as housing and basic needs.

The criteria in most grant applications are there has to be evidence of collaborative efforts with other community agencies. This ensures that the work of a nonprofit will have cross beneficially effect with more than just one agency’s demographic. This was a major instrument in bringing in other local agencies who were dependant on grant and foundation funds. Once other agencies realized they could document and profit from collaboration with the center, they publicly accepted the organization, and in turn public opinion began to shift. This is how we were able to motivate others to join us in acceptance within community agencies and with individuals and fostered collaboration and we were aspiring others to achieve. In the beginning, The Philly was looked at as a model HIV/AIDS organization because of the history we had established, building it from a vision into a grassroots HIV/AIDS organization.

Change Model

      There were two change models applied to achieving establishing the “Philly Center.” Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model was used initially. Midway through the change process the Tipping Change Theory was applied. The first discussion of the change model will be Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model and the steps taken.

Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model

The first step we took in the Eight Step Model was to create urgency for change. This began when the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and employees of the Philly tapped into the intellectual capital of the shareholders and employees by brain storming different paths to take when scouting out new income sources. We then went to external forces by inquiring from those affected by the disease, sister organizations, and other community agencies to assess and evaluate the needs. According to Kotter, for the change to be successful, 75 percent of the organization needs to buy into the change (Farris, et al, 2009).  We were able to become more accepted in the community, being invited to come and teach HIV transmission and prevention within the community and in return began to see community financial support, as well as forming a powerful coalition locally, regionally, and nationally.

            As we learned to lead in the community, we were able to understand what our vision should be. By creating a vision and urgency, those affected could internalize the change. Each time we went into the community, we would communicate our mission statement. We spoke of it often, internally and externally.

Removing obstacles

Once the vision buy in was complete, obstacles to the change became apparent. We were able to identify the change leaders and what their roles would be to deliver the change. We set up a system to recognize and reward people who were making change happen. Case managers were given bonuses if they exceeded their monthly quota in units billed to the Ryan White funding source. HIV testing counselors were rewarded bonuses based on the number of people they tested in the community. Once we identified those who were resisting, we worked to remove barriers to the change, which was establishing the resource center’s place in the community, the state, and the country.

Create Short-term Wins

 

          Nothing motivates more than watching the success of change. One way to do this is to create mini goals and short term wins. Some of the ways we created short term wins was to find full proof projects that were perceived as non-threatening to those involved. The organization grew slowly and did not jump into goal targets that were expensive. As funding came in, each department grew until other projects like the Mercy Center, a residential facility; The Mercy Center for homeless people living with HIV was acquired by a local hospital system.

Building confidence as Leaders

Kotter stated that change projects fail because victory is declared too early. Real change runs deep and there are no short cuts to lasting change (Farris, et al, 2009). As leaders of the Philly Center, we did this by analyzing what went right and how to improve the change. We continued to remove obstacles and set goals to a path of achievement. Once the achievements toward change were met, we engrained it as part of the organizations culture. We made sure constant efforts to ensure that the change permeated through every aspect of the  Philly Center. By doing this, it gave the change a solid hold in organization's culture.

The Role of the Leader

There are three leadership qualities of leadership; visionary, participant, and transactional, which produce effective organizational change (Manz, et al, 1991). When leaders act as advocates for change, they won’t allow the process of change to falter from lack of attention. They are willing to invest their political capital to rally those affected. They must be the role model for those in the organization. They must be the decision maker and take responsibility for those decisions. They must be the voice, motivator, and enforcer. Others in the organization need someone to look up to while processing the change they are going through. A good leader will be assessable to them making the process seem easy.

I am convinced because we came from a collective action activist background, we were instinctively grounded in these leadership qualities. We were visionary; we still are. We led by example; we had only ourselves to follow up with tasks. The day we heard Ryan White funding was granted a second funding cycle, we celebrated the victory and then went out and distributed condoms at truck stops and gay bars. We led by being followers and in return, rallied many volunteers and supporters.

Lessons of Leadership Learned

          I continue to learn many lessons as a leader, but in the early days of ACT-UP Shreveport and the Philadelphia Center, experiences that were new stuck with me the most. In the beginning many emotional components were the important characteristics of leadership. I was desperate for  knowledge about HIV/AIDS for effective decision making and relied on others to help me with it. I learned there was more than one right solution and learned to evaluate facts from various points of view. I learned to listen to clients, their needs came first, and I saw anti-gay and anti-AIDS policies as something to rebuke, not something to bow to.

            The most important thing I learned, the importance of transferring ownership to everyone I worked with and to proclaim everyone as hero. This in my opinion is the most important precondition for success; the buy in and involvement of others. I learned to hate the word subordinate and replaced it with co-hero. Everyone in this battle is a hero, the struggles are beyond belief, with the backdrop being the Deep South. Commitment can only be gained when others are given the opportunity to give. That leads me to the final lesson; “The Ask.” Asking for what you need to make others lives better. It is a gift to give and most people want to give, they just don’t know how. Everyone needs to know their contribution is important and valued. When they do, they own successes everyone has worked together to achieve.

Conclusion

As one of the leaders of  ACT-UP Shreveport and The Philly Center, I learned how to progress from one milestone to another by creating a plan to overcome barriers that mapped out structure and time restraints. There were many plans. Work plans that were subject to change based on whatever crisis happened that day. Service plans for clients to meet their needs, even though ultimately those needs were never met because they died too soon. Funeral plans and helping grieving families and partners through the months that followed. Plans were the only way we were going to meet the demands of so many variables.

Barriers to implementation were preoccupation with the day to day details, lack of teamwork, conflicting priorities, and funding issues. I learned that execution takes time, especially when grant requirements usually demand evidence based outcomes that must be documented over time. By implementing the “tipping point” theory of change, which was scribbled on our things to do chalk board, improvements that appeared to be small, functions that needed to empower consumers, were better executed to reach our mission; to serve more people with greater outcomes.

 Over thirty three million men, women, and children are thought to be living with HIV. Even with the strides made today, discrimination, stigma, ignorance and the lack of effective preventive measures are still huge barriers that stifle reaching the ultimate goal; the end of HIV/AIDS. We just can’t afford the enormous medical expense and the loss of life. Twenty five years and counting, and the battle is still as enormous. I always knew it wasn’t going to be easy. I always knew it was going to be worth it.

References

Against The Odds:A New Disease. (n.d.). Retrieved from

            http://apps.nlm.nih.gov/againsttheodds/exhibit/action_on_aids/new_disease.cfm

Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product

innovation. Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 13, 77-77. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/231179375?accountid=32521

Farris, K. B., PhD., Demb, A., Janke, K. K., PhD., Kelley, K., & Scott, S. A., PharmD.

(2009). Assessment to transform competency-based curricula.  American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(8), 1-158. Retrieved from

            http://search.proquest.com/docview/211313601?accountid=32521

Philadelphia Center: Northwest Louisiana HIV/AIDS Resource Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from

            http://philadelphiacenter.org/

The Siren's Call: Agent of Change- HIV/AIDS Activists Demand the End to the Madness.             (n.d.). The Siren's Call. Retrieved from http://d-demaree.blogspot.com/2011/12/agent-of-change-hivaids-hope-for-and.html

No Electorial Choices? Then Don't Vote.

To elect a master or many, for a long or short time, is to resign one's liberty. 

Call it an absolute monarch, a constitutional king, or a simple M.P., the candidate that you raise to the throne, to the seat, or to the easy chair, he will always be your master. They are persons that you put "above" the law, since they have the power of making the laws, and because it is their mission to see that they are obeyed.

For the first time in my life, my right wing conservative father and I have decided neither of us are voting for Obama or Romney. "Who should we vote for then," he asked. Never been asked that of my father, I had a suggestion, "Let's just not vote".

Bad Leaders or Bad System?

The Democratic party bemoaned the fact that Obama "immediately made huge concessions to forces to the right of him."  Rather than place this action  in an institutional context, the forces placed on the elected person by the  state machinery and pressures from big business, the Republicans portray these decisions are the failings of an individual. They argue we "need to keep up the pressure to demand Obama listens to ordinary workers and not to business."

As well as economic pressures from capitalists resulting from capital flight, withdrawal of support, and so on, representatives also face pressures within the state itself due to the bureaucracy that comes with centralism. There is a difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection of institutions that have entrenched power structures and interests. The government is made up of various politicians. It is the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence, not the representatives who come and go. We cannot expect different politicians to act in different ways to the same pressures. However, this is all ignored by the Democrats in favour of wishing Obama was more a liberal and could ignore the demands of the dominant class in society while in charge of one part of its protector and creation, the state.

They also argue that the low level of turn out in the elections indicate "a sign of deep alienation that millions of people feel from the whole political system, one which does not reflect their views or give them a voice."  Presumably, the Democrats seek to give these people "a voice," to involve them in the political system by getting them to vote on various social issues. They can only do that by overcoming the alienation people feel towards the capitalist system by ensuring that it does "reflect their views." If that is the case then surely this implies that the Democrats will be working within the capitalist system, trying to influence it from within and, by necessity, subject to the same institutional pressures that generated reformist, unless, of course, they argue that it is the ideas of the party leaders that are the decisive factor rather than the social environment in which they operate?

What is significant, however, than Lenin's arguments were fundamentally idealist in nature, looking to the intentions and will-power of the individuals involved rather than a materialist analysis based on the nature of the capitalist state, the way it is structured to protect and enforce bourgeois rule, the influences and pressures of the permanent state apparatus on the elected representatives, the economic pressure exerted by capital, and so on.

Parties and Power

The use of electioneering has a centralising effect on the movements that use it. Political actions become considered as parliamentary activities made for the population by their representatives, with the 'rank and file' left with no other role than that of passive support. Only the leaders are actively involved and the main emphasis falls upon the leaders. It soon becomes taken for granted that they should determine policy (even ignoring conference decisions when required -- how many times have politicians turned round and done the exact opposite of what they promised or introduced the exact opposite of party policy?). In the end, party conferences become simply like parliamentary elections, with party members supporting this leader against another.

Soon the party reflects the division between manual and mental labour so necessary for the capitalist system. Instead of working class self-activity and self-determination, there is a substitution and a non working class leadership acting for people replaces self-management in social struggle and within the party itself takes shape. Electioneering strengthens the leaders dominance over the party and the party over the people it claims to represent. And, of course, the real causes and solutions to the problems we face are mystified by the leadership and rarely discussed in order to concentrate on the popular issues that will get them elected.

Working in the state ensures a statist perspective becomes dominant. Everything is seen in terms of state intervention, following the decisions of the leaders and quickly results in radicals "instead of weakening the false and enslaving belief in law and government . . . actually work[ing] to strengthen the people's faith in forcible authority and government." [A. Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 84] Which has always proved deadly to encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help -- the very keys to creating change in a society.

Thus the 1870 resolution of the Spanish section of the First International seems to have been proven to be totally correct:

"Any participation of the working class in the middle class political government would merely consolidate the present state of affairs and necessarily paralyse the socialist revolutionary action of the proletariat. The Federation [of unions making up the Spanish section of the International] is the true representative of labour, and should work outside the political system." [quoted by Jose Pierats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 169]

Instead of trying to gain control of the state, for whatever reasons, anarchists try to promote a culture of resistance within society that makes the state subject to pressure from without. Or, to quote Proudhon, we see the"problem before the labouring classes . . . [as] consist[ing of] not in capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly, -- that is, in generating from the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a greater authority, a more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the state and subjugate them." For, "to combat and reduce power, to put it in its proper place in society, it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave."[System of Economical Contradictions, p. 398 and p. 397] Direct action is the key way of doing this and the means of creating such a "combination."

State and Structure

The simple fact is that the bourgeois state has been developed to enforce minority rule. Its structure is no more an accident than the structure of a bird's wing. The wing has evolved to enable flight. The state has evolved a structure based upon minority, top-down rule that ensures the continence and protection of that rule. And as Kropotkin argued, anarchists "maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to destroy these privileges." [Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 170]

The same means cannot be used to serve different ends as there is an intrinsic relationship between the instruments used and the results obtained -- that is why the bourgeoisie do not encourage participatory democracy in the state or the workplace! Just as the capitalist workplace is organised to produce proletarians and capital along with cloth and steel, the capitalist state is organised to protect and reinforce minority power. The state and the capitalist workplace are not simply means or neutral instruments. Rather they are social structures which generate, reinforce and protect specific social relations. These social relations are based on delegating power to others, letting leaders act for you, letting others fight for you. These have an impact on those who use these tactics, both the individuals and the organisations.

The "essence" of state is, to use Luigi Frabbi's words, "centralised power" and "hierarchical despotism." It is based on delegating power into the hands of a few -- in a democracy, elected representatives and the state bureaucracy. It should be a truism that elections empower the politicians and not the voters. Parliamentarianism focuses the fight for change into the hands of leaders by its very nature. Rather than those involved doing the fighting, the organising, the decision making, that power rests in the hands of the representative. The importance of the leaders is stressed, as it must be in a centralised system.

Not voting? Not Enough!

As part and parcel of anarchist support on direct action is abstentionism. This signifies the rejection of voting. However, there is more than one kind of abstentionism. There is passive and active abstentionism. Passive abstentionism is that associated with alienation, apathy and a-politicalism. The one which bases itself on a "cannot be bothered," cynical attitude and little else. This form of abstentionism easily leads to rejecting all forms of struggle and politics, including direct action and anarchism. Anarchists are against this just as much as any socialist voter.

Rather, anarchists see abstentionism as a positive statement, a means of turning the natural negative reaction to an unjust system into positive activity (i.e. direct action, solidarity, self-activity and self-organisation). So, anarchist opposition to electioneering has deep political implications which Luigi Galleani addressed when he wrote: "anarchists' electoral abstentionism implies not only a conception that is opposed to the principle of representation (which is totally rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute lack of confidence in the State. . . Furthermore, anarchist abstentionism has consequences which are much less superficial than the inert apathy ascribed to it by the sneering careerists of 'scientific socialism' [i.e. Marxism]. It strips the State of the constitutional fraud with which it presents itself to the gullible as the true representative of the whole nation, and, in so doing, exposes its essential character as representative, procurer and policeman of the ruling classes.

"Distrust off reforms, of public power and of delegated authority, can lead to direct action [in the class struggle]. . . It can determine the revolutionary character of this . . . action; and, accordingly, anarchists regard it as the best available means for preparing the masses to manage their own personal and collective interests; and, besides, anarchists feel that even now the working people are fully capable of handling their own political and administrative interests." [The End of Anarchism?, pp. 13-14]

I reject the view that society is static and that people's consciousness, values, ideas and ideals cannot be changed. Far from it and anarchists support direct action because it actively encourages the transformation of those who use it. Direct action is the means of creating a new consciousness, a means of self-liberation from the chains placed around our minds, emotions and spirits by hierarchy and oppression. Therefore, anarchists urge abstentionism in order to encourage activity, not apathy. The reasons why people abstain is more important than the act. The idea that the USA is closer to anarchy because around 50% of people do not vote is nonsense.

Abstentionism in this case is the product of apathy and cynicism, not political ideas. So anarchists recognise that apathetic abstentionism is not revolutionary or an indication of anarchist sympathies. It is produced by apathy and a general level of cynicism at all forms of political ideas and the possibility of change.

Not voting is not enough, and anarchists urge people to organise and resist as well. Abstentionism must be the political counterpart of class struggle, self-activity and self-management in order to be effective.

Source