For a letter thanking the representatives who voted against the resolution, DOWNLOAD PDF VERSION HERE, or scroll down for a text version.

For a letter criticizing the representatives who voted in support of the Resolution, CLICK HERE, or scroll down for the full text.

For a list how each Representative voted on House Resolution 1082 and its full text, CLICK HERE

LETTER OF THANKS

[NOTE: If you wish to send this from a group or your organization, simply change the “I” and “my” to “We” and “our”. ]

Dear Representative ______________:

With this letter I applaud your vote of December 6, 2006, whereby you took a principled stand with 30 other representatives against the U.S. House Resolution (No. 1082). If you recall, Resolution 1082 condemned the Paris suburb of St.-Denis, France, for naming a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Although you and your colleagues were not successful in stopping a vote that passed by a 368-31 margin, you have my respect for resisting this Congressional intervention into Abu-Jamal’s ongoing judicial matter before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, for respecting the sovereignty of St.-Denis, France, and for standing firm against the criticism that you most likely received after your vote.

I know how difficult the retaliatory criticism can be. Representative Chaka Fattah (Dem. PA), a representative who in the past had supported Abu-Jamal’s efforts for justice, was successfully intimidated into voting for HR1082 by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). Now, Rep. Don Payne (Dem, NJ), another principled voter against the Resolution, and former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, has also become a special target. The FOP publicly denounced Payne’s vote as “a slap in the face of law enforcement” and went on to urge the Newark St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee to drop its plans to honor Rep. Payne in the parade.

I urge you to support Rep. Payne as he endures this criticism, and I pledge my support to stand by you through subsequent attacks that may come your way. I have also signed an open letter to John Conyers, demanding that the House Judiciary Committee begin formal hearings to reconsider passage of HR1082. This open letter details how this hastily passed Resolution was so flawed. (Letter at: http://www.freemumia.com/conyers.html)

The FOP complaint that your vote and St.-Denis’s street-naming were an affront to law enforcement, are ridiculous. On the contrary, both actions actually guard the integrity of law and justice, and even can be seen as honoring the legacy of slain Officer Daniel Faulkner, because violating Abu-Jamal’s due process and other Constitutional rights would only compound injustice. It is by fully and freely airing the claims that Mumia has before the Circuit Appeals Court that we can be assured of having the truth about Officer Faulkner’s slaying. Thank you, again, for standing strong on this issue.

Sincerely,
____________

LETTER OF CRITICISM

Dear Representative ____________________:

On December 6, 2006, you followed the lead of 15 co-sponsors from Pennsylvania (and one from New Mexico) and voted to support House Resolution 1082, “Condemning the decision by the city of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner.”

I can only guess that you did not have enough accurate information about this case, and merely followed the political crowd that automatically wants to take a stand against alleged “cop-killers.”  While it seems nearly ludicrous and presumptuous that the U.S. Congress would try to pressure a foreign city over who it names its streets for, my biggest concern is the injustice that this does to Abu-Jamal’s presently active struggle to confirm his innocence while he is vulnerable to a death sentence.
 Are you aware of the following points:

            1. Contrary to the Resolution you voted for, not all of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s appeals have been exhausted. In fact, by voting for this Resolution, “non-binding” as it may technically be, you have inserted legislators into an active and unresolved Federal judicial case. Abu-Jamal’s case is currently before the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

            2. Contrary to the Resolution you voted for, the idea that Abu-Jamal had a trial by a “jury of his peers” is one of the most roundly contested matters presently before the Court of Appeals. In fact, Abu-Jamal’s claim that his jury was unfairly constituted due to prosecution’s inappropriate use of preemptory challenges against black juror candidates, was officially certified as appealable by U.S. Federal District Judge, William Yohn. Moreover, the Third Circuit Court has also agreed that it will hear arguments on precisely this question of a racially-biased jury selection process. In short, there does not yet exist a legal basis for the Resolution’s claim that Abu-Jamal had a “trial by his peers.”

             3. The Resolution you voted for omits reference to the fact that the Third Circuit has also agreed to hear arguments on two other open matters: (a) Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law during a post-conviction hearing because of the bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo, who was overheard during the trial commenting that he was “going to help'em fry the nigger;” and (b) Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial because of the prosecutor’s “appeal-after-appeal” argument, which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt. The fact that these additional arguments on such important matters are yet to be heard makes all the more egregious the Resolution’s intervention in the judicial process.

            4.  Contrary to the Resolution you voted for, not even the prosecutor’s own account of Police Officer Faulkner’s murder claims that “Abu-Jamal struck Officer Faulkner four times in the back with his gun.”  No one has claimed that on either side. While this may seem a minor error of description, the careless use of it in a prominent clause of the Resolution shows a callous disregard of the facts in the case. Apparently, neither the authors of the Resolution nor its signers have investigated the facts of the case carefully.

5. Contrary to the Resolution you voted for, the naming of a street for Mumia Abu-Jamal is not “an affront to law enforcement officers across the Nation.” What would be an affront to all peoples of conscience, and should be to all lovers of justice in law enforcement, would be to presume as guilty a man not proven to be so. St. Denis’ street naming was, in part, rooted in its respect for Abu-Jamal’s struggle to let all the truth be told about his case so that he can make the case for his innocence.

6. The Resolution you voted for omits reference to the national and worldwide respect that exists for Mr. Abu-Jamal’s own struggle for justice, and for his writings on behalf of others. This respect is rooted in careful analyses of Abu-Jamal’s trial and appeal processes, which have been skewed by an often flagrant racial and political bias. I recommend that you and your staff read, as just one example, a study by Amnesty International, Life in the Balance: The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (New York: Seven Stories Press,  2000), which concluded, “justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial.” Moreover, even an essayist in The American Lawyer, Stuart Taylor, after interviewing scholars on both sides of the case, concluded that he was joining the “Save Mumia” groups. These are just two voices among many distinguished jurists and persons of conscience worldwide who have spoken up for Abu-Jamal’s behalf.

You can take steps to redress the mistake and the injustice worked by House Resolution 1082. First, study up on the case, and you will see how weak the Resolution’s case is. Second, caucus with your 38 Representative colleagues who voted against the resolution to get their views on the case. Third, work toward drafting a counter resolution, one that would rescind the action of condemning St. Denis, France, for honoring Abu-Jamal.

Sincerely,
______________

*Did you not thank Donald Payne yet for voting against House Resolution 1082 despite FOP intimidation? If not, Click Here

*Did you not sign your name to the letter to John Conyers Jr. asking that he initiate formal hearings and inquiry to reconsider House Resolution 1082. If not, Click Here