We reprint with permission the text of a post-hearing press conference between Attorney Joey Mogul of the People’s Law Office of Chicago, IL and supporters of victims of the Chicago Police Department’s infamous torture squads led by former Chicago Police Commander (now jailbird) Jon Burge.
The People’s Law Office, acting on behalf of approximately 100 known victims of the Chicago Police Department’s torture squads, was in court on November 14 to ask the court to allow them to defend the dozens of victims of Burge’s torture crew in a class-action format rather than having each case adjudicated individually. As is often the case in these legal proceedings, the effort to obtain class-action status is moving ahead at a slow, but steady pace.
The Independent Workers Party of Chicago sent a reporter to the hearing to obtain a first-person account of the day’s events. Their article is available on their website here.
We are reproducing just a few of the IWP’s pithy comments as well as the account of the press conference which appears at the end of their article. – FoWL Chicago
“In today’s hearing, the issue at stake was whether or not the Cook County Prosecutor’s office, led now by Anita Alvarez, can be allowed to represent the state in this case, or whether the manifest and multifold conflicts of interest that exist between the wholly interpenetrated Chicago Police Department and Cook County Prosecutors’ office have created a situation in which it is impossible for the Cook County Prosecutor to fairly and equitably administer even the rough semblance of “justice” in this case. [SPOILER ALERT: The “Crook” County Prosecutor’s Office is so completely compromised by every conceivable level of corruption that could exist between two branches of government that there “ain’t no way” they can be considered impartial in this case or any case involving the Chicago Police Department. – IWPCHI]
So, when the case was called, the judge immediately ruled that it would be much more convenient for everyone involved if they retired to his chambers to discuss the finer points of law, undistracted by the eyes and ears of the very interested citizenry assembled in the gallery. Into the judge’s chambers they all went – lawyers for the torture victims and prosecutors, special prosecutors and all – and we waited in the gallery for the outcome of this “meeting of the minds” so to speak.
In about 15 minutes, they re-emerged into the light of public observation, and the judge blurted out a series of court dates that would be upcoming, in which both sides could make their cases as to whether or not, and why or why not it was right and proper for the “Crook” County Prosecutors’ office, long “in bed” with the Chicago Police Department, to exercise legal jurisdiction over this case, or whether a special prosecutor should be appointed in their place [SPOILER ALERT: This is something like arguing that the Titanic would still be sailing across the Atlantic today if it had a different captain in 1912. In the capitalist courts, workers can never expect to find “justice”, even on a good day, in front of a “decent” judge and a “fair” prosecutor. And in hugely political cases like this one, “the fix”, as they say, almost certainly already “is in”. And that goes double when the court in question sits in the County of Cook, in the State of Illinois, in the Untied Snakes of America. – IWPCHI]
Thank god that the People’s Law Office brought an interpreter along with them to explain to us mere workers the strange signs and figures we had just seen described in impenetrable legalese by “the Honorable” Judge Biebel. Her name was (and is) Joey L. Mogul – she is an Attorney at Law. And she concisely and quite nicely laid out the situation for us in 5 minutes. We used our “cleverphone” to record her remarks, and somehow managed to get almost all of them even though the “cleverphone”, we discovered too late, makes voice notes of a maximum duration of 60 seconds at a time [DAMN YOU, RICHARD BRANSON!! (1) – IWPCHI]. Ms. Mogul’s remarks are reproduced here. All errors are ours, but we were very careful to reduce them to a reasonably small number below around five but definitely probably above zero. (See (1), above.
REMARKS OF JOEY L. MOGUL, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, PEOPLE’S LAW OFFICE:
JM: “Hi, everybody – hi. Sorry to make you wait in the cold. First of all, thank you for coming today. I think it’s really important to show support for the guys behind bars, so we really appreciate you coming here and being outside in the cold.
O.K.: so you know this was about our class-action petition, right? Seeking hearings for all of the torture survivors who are behind bars who have never gotten an evidentiary hearing, O.K.? So these have to be… to be individuals who were tortured or physically coerced under Burge’s supervision at Area 2 or Area 3, right? So we filed that petition; and at the same time we know that the “Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission” – TIRC [pronounced: “turk” – IWP] – has made findings in 5 cases that individuals should get evidentiary hearings. One of those cases – Shawn Whirl – was up today with the class-action petition.
[Switching to recording number 2, we lost a bit of Ms. Mogul’s remarks. She said that the primary question being raised in today’s in-camera proceeding in the judge’s chamber was… – IWPCHI]
JM: “… Who is gonna respond in behalf of the state? Because – just as a reminder – back in 2002 the State’s Attorney’s Office when run by Dick Devine was found to have a [per se? – IWP] conflict [of interest – IWP] because Dick Devine, when leaving the State’s Attorney’s Office [in the 80s? – IWP] went into private [law – IWP] practice; and while in private practice, he and his law firm represented Jon Burge and the other white detectives, in Andrew Wilson’s civil rights case. And as a result of that conflict, that is how we had special prosecutors [appointed – IWP] to investigate the crimes of Burge and others; and that’s later why we had Lisa Madigan’s offices to be appointed in representing various torture survivors who had post-conviction petitions, right?
Later, in 2009, what happened is that the A.G.’s [Attorney General’s – IWP] office said that they didn’t have enough resources in which to represent all of the existing [unintelligible – IWP] in all these cases; and that is why Judge [Engelman’s ? – IWP] office was appointed as a special prosecutor.
The state is being… the State’s Attorney’s Office, they have said… Alvarez’ office says they want to represent the State’s interest with respect to our class-action petition, and with respect to the Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission cases. So they [Alvarez’ office] are now responding, on December 12th, as to whether they are ‘conflicted out’ from representing the state on these cases. We will then file a reply in January – on January 7th – saying what our position is. And our position is that State’s Attorney Alvarez’ office has a conflict; that conflict remains from the Devine era; and that that [conflict – IWP] prevents them from taking – representing the state in this case. There will be a hearing on January 15th. So that’s a status hearing; and eventually we will probably have arguments before Judge Biebel, O.K.? Does that make sense?”
[We switch again to the next recording, missing 10 seconds of audio – IWP]
JM: “Well, we certainly are disappointed… [at this point, State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez walked by, attracting the attention of Mark Clements of the ‘Campaign to End Torture’. As she walked by, Mr. Clements shouted: “FREE THE TORTURE VICTIMS!” This completely justified outburst predictably discomfited Ms. Mogul… – IWP]
JM: “Mark, don’t… Mark… please don’t do that.”
Mark Clements: “That’s Alvarez.”
JM: “But, Mark, don’t. That’s just… you know? We don’t need it.
We believe there’s a conflict [of interest – IWP]; we believe that conflict’s been found; we think that conflict remains, O.K.? Yes, we are anxious to get to the merits; yes we want hearings for these individuals; we would like to get through this quickly so that we can actually get to the issues of the fact that there are potential torture survivors who are still behind bars, who’ve never been given any due process and have never been given a fair opportunity to have their torture allegations heard. We will move with as quick speed as possible. We would like… we would like the State’s Attorney’s office to acknowledge their conflicts […] and step aside so we can get to the merits. That said, we are prepared to fight this; we are prepared to argue it in court; and we are going to prepare to proceed, because we look forward to having our day in court…”
[We switch again to the next recording, again missing around 10 seconds of dialogue. Ms. Mogul has ended her presentation, and a question and answer session begins. – IWPCHI]
Q. [by unknown person]: “Those are five individual cases?”
JM: [affirming – IWP] “Those are five individual cases.”
Q: “Was [Javon? unintelligible name – IWP] one of them?”
JM: “No, he was not.”
JM: “I don’t know if he was [unintelligible – IWP]… if he filed a claim to the Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission or not, or if it’s an issue about…”
Q: “Did he file a claim?”
JM: “… Let me say this: whether he did or did not, the Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission was only able to get to a small number of cases. They have now been funded to investigate further cases, O.K.? That said, Javon Deloney [phonetic spelling – IWP] is one of the… in the putative class members; he’s one of the people [who we’ve looked at recently – IWP] under our class-action petition, O.K.?”
Q. [Mark Clements? – IWP]: “And I think that’s the route that he should go.”
JM: “That’s something that should be discussed privately, O.K.? Any other questions?”
Independent Workers Party: “Yes. What do you feel is the advantage of having a class-action suit in this kind of a case?”
JM: “We think… because we think what has happened has been insufficient. Individual cases fought here and there has not resolved this systemic issue…”
[Here the recording ends. Ms. Mogul went on to say that in major cases of police misconduct or brutality involving, as the Burge cases do, dozens of individuals, such as the many cases in Oakland and Los Angeles, California; in Philadelphia and in other jurisdictions, class-action proceedings have been repeatedly adopted as the most efficient way to handle such large numbers of similar cases, but that this has never been done before [SPOILER ALERT: Surprise, surprise! – IWP] in Illinois or Chicago. – IWP]