In 1998 Gilbert Amezquita, an Army Reserve soldier with a clean criminal record, was arrested for the vicious beating of a co-worker, who identified her assailant as 'Gilbert', and picked his photo out of a line-up. Although when the police questioned him he provided evidence that another man, Gilbert Guerrero, had comitted the assault, it was ignored. At the trial, the victim identified him as her attacker. DNA from beneath the victim's fingernails was collected, but never tested.
"At trial, requests from Amezquita's lawyer and prosecutors to test DNA evidence from the crime scene were rejected by state District Judge Belinda Hill, leaving Bingham's(the victim) testimony as crucial."
The defendant was denied the use of exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence, and Amezquita was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
The HCDA must have been patting itself on the back when that sentence was handed down. What a neat, cut-and-dried case! Gilbert did it, now Gilbert's going to prison. Who cared that Gilbert Guerrero had inexplicably come into posession of the victim's cell phone and made several calls directly after the assault, before trading it for drugs?
Why worry about the fact that Guerrero had a noisy argument with the victims's brother just before the assault? (The argument was about how he had been harassing the victim.) No, Guerrero, a parolee with a history of violent assaults could not possibly have been the assailant. After all, the victim identified the other Gilbert, the soldier with the impeccable record.
Amezquita appealed his case from prison. For five years. He "asserted a number of claims, including allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel."
Finally the Appeals court denied his appeal, then two weeks after that, reversed itself and granted the appeal. Earlier that month, the appeals court had refused Amezquita's request for a new trial even though the original trial judge reccomended it.
There was no DNA evidence produced at the appeal. It went against the testimony of the victim who continued to insist that it was Amezquita who attacked her, even when all the actual, physical evidence pointed to Guerrero.
But somehow, Amezquita gained his freedom. And a 'Pardon based on actual innocence'.
Yes, they generously pardoned him for a crime there was no proof he comitted. Altogether it took him 9 years to clear his name, eight of which were spent in prison.
The victim insists to this day that Amezquita attacked her, despite the evidence indicating it was Guerrero.
So what did the DA's office say? Did they apologize? Promise not to let it happen again?
"Rosenthal...wrote that "an adequate investigation by the defense (trial) counsel'' would have revealed that Guerrero had Bingham's phone shortly after the assault."
Do you hear that, defense lawyers of Harris county? Not only is it your job to defend your clients, now you also have to do the job of the police investigators and forensics experts! Thanks, Rosenthal!
If this man, convicted with no evidence and exonerated with none can make it out of prison, so can Carlos Coy. We just need to continue taking an interest in his case. Expand his fan base, write letters, don't give up!
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinionInfo.asp?OpinionID=14720
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4770606.html#ixzz1QLEqSHfd
http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2006/11/gilbert_amezqui.html
http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2006/11/more_on_amezqui.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5064226.html
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
New Logo
An artist that contacted the blog has designed an amazing new logo for us.
It's clean, and straightforward, and very recognizable! Please feel to spread it around. I wanted something different because 'SPM Aftermath' is a little different from 'Free SPM'. We're trying to take a look at the circumstances of the system responsible for incarcerating Carlos Coy, not necessarily at the facts of his case. Because of this, I think the new logo will help us get our point across. A key can bring imprisonment or freedom, conveying the situation in a single glance.
I'll be re-tooling the flyers to display it, and I'm going to try making a stencil template. If you have any ideas for it's use, let me know!
Thanks to M. Martinez for the amazing graphic, you did an outstanding job!
It's clean, and straightforward, and very recognizable! Please feel to spread it around. I wanted something different because 'SPM Aftermath' is a little different from 'Free SPM'. We're trying to take a look at the circumstances of the system responsible for incarcerating Carlos Coy, not necessarily at the facts of his case. Because of this, I think the new logo will help us get our point across. A key can bring imprisonment or freedom, conveying the situation in a single glance.
I'll be re-tooling the flyers to display it, and I'm going to try making a stencil template. If you have any ideas for it's use, let me know!
Thanks to M. Martinez for the amazing graphic, you did an outstanding job!
Monday, June 27, 2011
Strickland 2
Prong 2: Proving that deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
This is a tough one. How do you prove that someone's vote was influenced by a particular action, unless that person says "My vote was directly influenced by X"?
The jury is already prejudiced by the fact that the defendant has been charged with sexual assault of a child. It's that whole mindset of "They wouldn't have charged him if they didn't have a good reason!"
If the defense lawyer had brought up the mother's intentions to squeeze as much cash as possible out of Coy with a civil suit, that *might* have given the jury pause to think that maybe the 'good reason' was greed. But we know that Mr. lewis didn't do that. This would also have established Mommy Dearest as a liar, since she swore in an affidavit that she didn't intend to sue.
An Affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the author, who is called the affiant or deponent, and witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. -Wikipedia
So if she'll lie in an affidavit, on paper, how much easier would it be to lie in court? This could have been the one thing that would have established doubt in the minds of the jury. But as I said, Coy's lawyer didn't even touch on it. I wonder if that's not why SPM decided to take the stand at the end of the trial, because his lawyer failed to tell the whole story.
Lewis' strategy was this: "to cast O.S.(the child) as a “truth teller” who was manipulated by various state actors, especially the prosecutors, for the sole purpose of convicting Coy at all costs..."
So his strategy is to paint those behind the plaintiff as the liars...don't you think the fact that he ignored evidence as to their motives to be a little ineffective? If this evidence had been presented, it would have raised doubts in the mind of any sane person. Add that to the proof that Mom is already lying to the state, and it paints a pretty clear picture of the reasons for the case, as well as the lack of all physical evidence. I'd say that argument satisfies both prongs of Strickland to anyone who is reasonably objective.
In the 2007 appeal, the court says "The state court found that O.S.’s parents did not decide to file a civil lawsuit against Coy until after the criminal trial was over and that, therefore, Coy failed to establish both prongs of the Strickland test."
But the facts say otherwise.
"Coy argues that the state court’s decision is unreasonable in light of the facts presented at the habeas hearing because he filed the affidavit of Carey Wellmaker, a private investigator, which states:
"I [Wellmaker] have been informed that Maryvel Ramirez denied in an affidavit that she told me that she spoke with Ed Hennessey before the criminal trial; that he said that if he filed a civil lawsuit at that time, it would hurt the criminal case; and that he agreed to file a civil lawsuit after the criminal trial was over.
I reiterate and can substantiate the contents of my previous affidavit, as I recorded the conversation.""
So good news, there's proof! Mom was lying, someone else can substantiate that fact, so we can get an appeal in, right? Wrong.
"The state court was entitled to make a credibility determination between the two affidavits."
Really? When making this determination, how did they end up NOT choosing the affidavit with evidence to support it? Ramirez DID sue for money, which any idiot would have expected.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit
This is a tough one. How do you prove that someone's vote was influenced by a particular action, unless that person says "My vote was directly influenced by X"?
The jury is already prejudiced by the fact that the defendant has been charged with sexual assault of a child. It's that whole mindset of "They wouldn't have charged him if they didn't have a good reason!"
If the defense lawyer had brought up the mother's intentions to squeeze as much cash as possible out of Coy with a civil suit, that *might* have given the jury pause to think that maybe the 'good reason' was greed. But we know that Mr. lewis didn't do that. This would also have established Mommy Dearest as a liar, since she swore in an affidavit that she didn't intend to sue.
An Affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the author, who is called the affiant or deponent, and witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. -Wikipedia
So if she'll lie in an affidavit, on paper, how much easier would it be to lie in court? This could have been the one thing that would have established doubt in the minds of the jury. But as I said, Coy's lawyer didn't even touch on it. I wonder if that's not why SPM decided to take the stand at the end of the trial, because his lawyer failed to tell the whole story.
Lewis' strategy was this: "to cast O.S.(the child) as a “truth teller” who was manipulated by various state actors, especially the prosecutors, for the sole purpose of convicting Coy at all costs..."
So his strategy is to paint those behind the plaintiff as the liars...don't you think the fact that he ignored evidence as to their motives to be a little ineffective? If this evidence had been presented, it would have raised doubts in the mind of any sane person. Add that to the proof that Mom is already lying to the state, and it paints a pretty clear picture of the reasons for the case, as well as the lack of all physical evidence. I'd say that argument satisfies both prongs of Strickland to anyone who is reasonably objective.
In the 2007 appeal, the court says "The state court found that O.S.’s parents did not decide to file a civil lawsuit against Coy until after the criminal trial was over and that, therefore, Coy failed to establish both prongs of the Strickland test."
But the facts say otherwise.
"Coy argues that the state court’s decision is unreasonable in light of the facts presented at the habeas hearing because he filed the affidavit of Carey Wellmaker, a private investigator, which states:
"I [Wellmaker] have been informed that Maryvel Ramirez denied in an affidavit that she told me that she spoke with Ed Hennessey before the criminal trial; that he said that if he filed a civil lawsuit at that time, it would hurt the criminal case; and that he agreed to file a civil lawsuit after the criminal trial was over.
I reiterate and can substantiate the contents of my previous affidavit, as I recorded the conversation.""
So good news, there's proof! Mom was lying, someone else can substantiate that fact, so we can get an appeal in, right? Wrong.
"The state court was entitled to make a credibility determination between the two affidavits."
Really? When making this determination, how did they end up NOT choosing the affidavit with evidence to support it? Ramirez DID sue for money, which any idiot would have expected.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit
Friday, June 24, 2011
Weekend Reading
If you're interested in the workings of the Harris County Criminal Justice System, check out this blog:
Defending People
It's written by a defense attorney and details a lot of the crap they have to go through, even today, when dealing with the DA's office. There is a ton of good information there.
Defending People
It's written by a defense attorney and details a lot of the crap they have to go through, even today, when dealing with the DA's office. There is a ton of good information there.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
What is Strickland?
Strickland is the legal standard under which Carlos Coy's appeals have been denied. Under Strickland, an appeal based on bad defense must meet two prongs.
"(1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and
(2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense."
Since Strickland has two prongs, so will this post! Prong 2 will be up Monday.
Today we'll deal with prong 1; what does a defense lawyer have to do to prove himself unreasonably ineffective? First of all, what's an objective standard of reasonableness? For the purposes of this post, anything that makes you go "Now that's FUCKED UP!" is unreasonable.
Carlos Coy's 2003 Appeal (Denied)
Points of error 1, 2, & 3
Coy argues that it was wrong of the court to overrule these three objections by his lawyer:
"Your Honor, I'm going to object. My job is the same as theirs."
"I'm going to object, Your Honor, the State of Texas gets paid just like I do. Improper argument."
"Your Honor, I'm going to object. [The prosecutor's] personal feelings are improper."
The Appeals court ruled:
"Appellant's objections to the prosecutor's argument during trial do not conform to his argument on appeal."
Let me see if I have this right. It doesn't matter if the prosecutor's statements were permissable or prejudicial, what matters is that the defense lawyer couldn't think of the proper terms to use while objecting. How ineffective of him...One might even say incompetent.
Point of error 4
Coy argues that the court should have sustained(accepted) his lawyer's objection to hearsay testimony offered by Officer Ruiz.
The appeals Court ruled:
"The State does not dispute that the requirements of Article 38.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were not satisfied. It argues that admission of the statements was harmless because the State had previously, without objection, introduced evidence that [*6] proved the same facts."
So the defense lawyer allowed unsatisfactory, hearsay testimony TWICE? And the appeals court uses the first instance to justify the second? Are they smoking crack? I know Coy used to be a slinger, maybe he was doing deals during the recess. 10 points for style, -2 for bad judgement.
Point of error 5
Coy argues that the defense lawyer should have objected to testimony by Susan Szczygielski, the prosecution's expert, about coaching because she was not necessarily an expert.
This one is all on the defense counsel. Instead of asking her prove that she was an expert at recognizing kids that had been 'coached' to make false accusations, the defense counsel asked the court to be brief about her qualifications. The judge proved her expertise like this:
"Okay. she's an expert."
That's it. Boom, she's an expert, and can, using the magical powers bestowed upon her, expertly tell you whether or not a child has been manipulated into giving false testimony. I wonder, was she counseling any of Collen Taft's 800 patients at this time? Was she able to tell if any of them had been coached? The appeals Court denied this appeal because he accepted her as an expert. But hey, at least Mr. Lewis didn't have to sit in court for an extra ten minutes that day.
Point of error 6
"The State contends that appellant waived error with respect to appellant's sixth point of error because defense counsel failed to object at the earliest opportunity...We agree."
"To preserve error, appellant must object at the earliest opportunity and continue to object each time the objectionable evidence is offered"
So, in order to appeal because of lawyerly ineffectiveness, your ineffective lawyer has to effectively object to objectionable evidence? Well, if he did that, he wouldn't be so fucking INEFFECTIVE, now would he?
Does all this prove that Chip Lewis was ineffective as defense counsel? I don't know. I do believe it proves that our appeals process is completely ridiculous, forcing convicts to move metaphorical mountains to prove that their lawyers were ineffective, even if the lawyer was actually, visibly sleeping in court. Don't laugh, it happened.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/06/03/scotus-sleeping-lawyer.htm
That's right; the TDCJ apparently believed that this snoozing lawyer was fully capable of defending his client effectively. Interestingly enough the other defendant in this case, Douglas McCreight, was sentenced to 45 years...and paroled after 8. If Coy had killed somebody, he'd be out by now.
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=eCai.dgWa.aadj.eeOb&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=In TXCO 20110615595.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
"(1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and
(2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense."
Since Strickland has two prongs, so will this post! Prong 2 will be up Monday.
Today we'll deal with prong 1; what does a defense lawyer have to do to prove himself unreasonably ineffective? First of all, what's an objective standard of reasonableness? For the purposes of this post, anything that makes you go "Now that's FUCKED UP!" is unreasonable.
Carlos Coy's 2003 Appeal (Denied)
Points of error 1, 2, & 3
Coy argues that it was wrong of the court to overrule these three objections by his lawyer:
"Your Honor, I'm going to object. My job is the same as theirs."
"I'm going to object, Your Honor, the State of Texas gets paid just like I do. Improper argument."
"Your Honor, I'm going to object. [The prosecutor's] personal feelings are improper."
The Appeals court ruled:
"Appellant's objections to the prosecutor's argument during trial do not conform to his argument on appeal."
Let me see if I have this right. It doesn't matter if the prosecutor's statements were permissable or prejudicial, what matters is that the defense lawyer couldn't think of the proper terms to use while objecting. How ineffective of him...One might even say incompetent.
Point of error 4
Coy argues that the court should have sustained(accepted) his lawyer's objection to hearsay testimony offered by Officer Ruiz.
The appeals Court ruled:
"The State does not dispute that the requirements of Article 38.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were not satisfied. It argues that admission of the statements was harmless because the State had previously, without objection, introduced evidence that [*6] proved the same facts."
So the defense lawyer allowed unsatisfactory, hearsay testimony TWICE? And the appeals court uses the first instance to justify the second? Are they smoking crack? I know Coy used to be a slinger, maybe he was doing deals during the recess. 10 points for style, -2 for bad judgement.
Point of error 5
Coy argues that the defense lawyer should have objected to testimony by Susan Szczygielski, the prosecution's expert, about coaching because she was not necessarily an expert.
This one is all on the defense counsel. Instead of asking her prove that she was an expert at recognizing kids that had been 'coached' to make false accusations, the defense counsel asked the court to be brief about her qualifications. The judge proved her expertise like this:
"Okay. she's an expert."
That's it. Boom, she's an expert, and can, using the magical powers bestowed upon her, expertly tell you whether or not a child has been manipulated into giving false testimony. I wonder, was she counseling any of Collen Taft's 800 patients at this time? Was she able to tell if any of them had been coached? The appeals Court denied this appeal because he accepted her as an expert. But hey, at least Mr. Lewis didn't have to sit in court for an extra ten minutes that day.
Point of error 6
"The State contends that appellant waived error with respect to appellant's sixth point of error because defense counsel failed to object at the earliest opportunity...We agree."
"To preserve error, appellant must object at the earliest opportunity and continue to object each time the objectionable evidence is offered"
So, in order to appeal because of lawyerly ineffectiveness, your ineffective lawyer has to effectively object to objectionable evidence? Well, if he did that, he wouldn't be so fucking INEFFECTIVE, now would he?
Does all this prove that Chip Lewis was ineffective as defense counsel? I don't know. I do believe it proves that our appeals process is completely ridiculous, forcing convicts to move metaphorical mountains to prove that their lawyers were ineffective, even if the lawyer was actually, visibly sleeping in court. Don't laugh, it happened.
2002 - Testimony from those present at the trial in 1984 revealed that Cannon(defense attorney), who has since died, slept as the prosecutor was questioning witnesses and presenting evidence. A court clerk said Cannon would doze for several minutes at a time. "I saw his head going backward and forward the way people do when they fall asleep," the clerk said.
In its appeal, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice complained that the 5th Circuit wrongly equated a sleeping attorney with an absent one and incorrectly drew a line between sleeping and other attorney impairments that do not automatically compromise the defense.
That decision last year by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed a ruling by a 5th Circuit panel that had sided with Texas against Burdine.
That's right; the TDCJ apparently believed that this snoozing lawyer was fully capable of defending his client effectively. Interestingly enough the other defendant in this case, Douglas McCreight, was sentenced to 45 years...and paroled after 8. If Coy had killed somebody, he'd be out by now.
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=eCai.dgWa.aadj.eeOb&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=In TXCO 20110615595.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Dope City: Purest in Tha Game is here!
Let's run this compilation CD up the charts! Call your local radio station and request it. Show your support for upcoming local artists like Hook, featured on track 9, For My People with Slow and Juan Gotti. He's been working with Jaime 'Pain' Ortiz to bring you what you need. The Dope House is still involved in the community, bringing up artists and giving them well-deserved exposure.
I was lucky enough to run into Hook on www.dopespace.com, and here's what he had to say.
How long have you been rapping?
I started rappin 12 years ago when I was 12. About 16 I wrote my first
"hit" called 'dopefiends'...the whole hood loved it..niggas had it on
they ringtones. People would pass by bangin' it in they cars and I
didn't even know them, so that's when I knew I had a gift. See, what I
realized is that we forget how good we are sometimes..so when someone
says "Man, you wreck" I'd be like "You like that?"
What's the feel of this album? What would you say it's about?
"Well, I'd say it's about reviving the whole DopeHouse brand....most
would agree that a lot of people were giving up on DopeHouse as a
brand thats drops consistant good music.
Why should people buy Dope City?
"You mean why should they buy 2 copies..lol...People should buy it
because it has great production, great songs, but more importantly
people should buy it to show DopeHouse is not dead...reigniting the
flame that almost went out. DopeHouse 4 life."
DopeHouse Records is still an important part of Houston's undergound music
scene; somehow they've survived the storm of Coy vs Texas and continue
on, providing opportunity to budding artists and hope for the hardcore
fans. Buy a copy for yourself, and one for South Park Mexican!
Buy it from the Dope House
Buy it from Amazon
Buy it from Itunes
Monday, June 20, 2011
Information
In 2002, during Coy vs. Texas
When justice is denied in the criminal courts, and again in the court of appeals, when hard evidence is non-existent and time has passed, then we move to the court of public opinion.
People all over the nation, but specifically inHarris County
We need to get people out of their comfort zone and off their asses, to show them that at certain times, the corrupt and evil hold all the cards and the innocent suffer because good men do nothing. Carlos Coy missed Father's day this year, as he has every year since 2002. Let's make sure he doesn't miss another one because of an unfair Criminal Justice System.
It's so easy to say 'Do something', but harder to do it.
We have to re-open the discussion, to demand a fair hearing now that Rosenthal is out of power and Pat Lykos professes an interest in righting the wrongs of the past. We have to engage others, challenge their assumptions of the court's infallibility, and win them over to our cause.
How do you get someone that doesn't care about Carlos Coy, or rap, or some trial that happened years ago and is over now, to take action? Personalize it for them. This could have been their brother, their husband, their son. It might be in the future. If we don't bring these ridiculous convictions to light, the system will continue to attack innocent people, incarcerating them with no evidence of a crime but the words of others with evil motives. Put the case in front of them, along with the information we have now. No one in 2002 could have foreseen the corruption, and the lies of Rosenthal's time in office, but it's 2011 now. All we have to do is look behind us, no matter how painful that might be.
I've made some mini posters. They're very simple.
![]()
It prints out like that, four to a page. All you have to do is fold, cut, and put them in your pocket; I keep some in my bag. Now, read this next part carefully.
Please, please, PLEASE do not put these on people's doors, do not leave them on the ground, do not put them ANYWHERE you do not have permission to do so. Don't tape them up, glue them up, or otherwise affix them to ANY surface for which you do not have the express consent of the property owner. Legally, these are 'handbills', and they will fine your ass for leaving them where you should not.
Please, do not get in any kind of legal trouble passing these around. The last thing we need is for the few people who are actually willing to DO SHIT to get ticketed or thrown in jail. Tape one up in the window of your car. If you want, tape one to the outside of your car so someone walking by can grab it and keep it. Pass them out to people who might be interested. Friends, family, the checker at the grocery store. Ask them to check out the blog, show them the video, know your facts so that when they say "Hey, isn't that the guy who-" you have an answer for them. These are a tool, and they will only work for you if you take the time to utilize them properly.
Now, I realize I'm telling everyone "The system fucked us over, now let's obey the system while we try to fix it." I realize how illogical that sounds. But these flyers are not going to get South Park Mexican out of jail. The information you possess, the awareness that you represent, that is what we want to spread. The flyers, used properly, are an effective means to that end.
Now print some out and let's get this information out there! We CAN change public opinion.
When justice is denied in the criminal courts, and again in the court of appeals, when hard evidence is non-existent and time has passed, then we move to the court of public opinion.
People all over the nation, but specifically in
We need to get people out of their comfort zone and off their asses, to show them that at certain times, the corrupt and evil hold all the cards and the innocent suffer because good men do nothing. Carlos Coy missed Father's day this year, as he has every year since 2002. Let's make sure he doesn't miss another one because of an unfair Criminal Justice System.
It's so easy to say 'Do something', but harder to do it.
We have to re-open the discussion, to demand a fair hearing now that Rosenthal is out of power and Pat Lykos professes an interest in righting the wrongs of the past. We have to engage others, challenge their assumptions of the court's infallibility, and win them over to our cause.
How do you get someone that doesn't care about Carlos Coy, or rap, or some trial that happened years ago and is over now, to take action? Personalize it for them. This could have been their brother, their husband, their son. It might be in the future. If we don't bring these ridiculous convictions to light, the system will continue to attack innocent people, incarcerating them with no evidence of a crime but the words of others with evil motives. Put the case in front of them, along with the information we have now. No one in 2002 could have foreseen the corruption, and the lies of Rosenthal's time in office, but it's 2011 now. All we have to do is look behind us, no matter how painful that might be.
I've made some mini posters. They're very simple.
It prints out like that, four to a page. All you have to do is fold, cut, and put them in your pocket; I keep some in my bag. Now, read this next part carefully.
Please, please, PLEASE do not put these on people's doors, do not leave them on the ground, do not put them ANYWHERE you do not have permission to do so. Don't tape them up, glue them up, or otherwise affix them to ANY surface for which you do not have the express consent of the property owner. Legally, these are 'handbills', and they will fine your ass for leaving them where you should not.
Please, do not get in any kind of legal trouble passing these around. The last thing we need is for the few people who are actually willing to DO SHIT to get ticketed or thrown in jail. Tape one up in the window of your car. If you want, tape one to the outside of your car so someone walking by can grab it and keep it. Pass them out to people who might be interested. Friends, family, the checker at the grocery store. Ask them to check out the blog, show them the video, know your facts so that when they say "Hey, isn't that the guy who-" you have an answer for them. These are a tool, and they will only work for you if you take the time to utilize them properly.
Now, I realize I'm telling everyone "The system fucked us over, now let's obey the system while we try to fix it." I realize how illogical that sounds. But these flyers are not going to get South Park Mexican out of jail. The information you possess, the awareness that you represent, that is what we want to spread. The flyers, used properly, are an effective means to that end.
Now print some out and let's get this information out there! We CAN change public opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)