Day 4 of Frac Sand Protest Trial - Part 1

Putting Our Fate Into The Hands Of The Jurors by Steve Clemens. Feb 6, 2014
Day 4 of Winona Frac Sand Protest Trial

At 9 AM the jury was seated and defense witnesses continued their testimony. Veteran activist and Catholic Worker farmer, Mike Miles was the thirteenth defendant to take the stand. With a degree in Zoology and a Masters in Youth Ministry, Mike told us the premise of one of his seminary courses was that one cannot know God unless you are doing justice. He said he has found himself "walking up driveways I shouldn't have - because of my commitment to nonviolence.” He knew if he got arrested he would have his "day in court and hopefully be able to tell the truth, the whole truth, to a jury serving as the conscience of the community.” However, the Judge quickly told the jury to completely disregard Mike's statement that he felt confident the morning he walked on to the frac sand loading site at the Winona port because he had been acquitted before by a jury for doing a very similar thing under a Claim of Right defense. When asked by defense attorney McCluer why he stayed and risked arrest after being asked to leave by a police officer, Miles said because of the urgency of this issue: how frac sand is used to extract more oil and gas out of the earth. "We must do everything within our power [to try to prevent or mitigate climate change ]", he responded. When asked if walking on the property was the only recourse left, Miles cheerfully said, "No. There are many arrows in the quiver of nonviolence" and he has used a variety in his long history of activism.

Mike Abdoo became the last defendant to testify after a discussion the previous evening about our lawyer's desire to keep our testimony brief so the jurors could get the case before noon. He is a recent member of the Lake City Catholic Worker after having been a Winona Worker previously. In that role, he "attended numerous public hearings, took part in public protests, wrote letters”, and other myriad activities over 1 1/2 years trying to stop the frac sand industry. He described sand on the sidewalks, sand coming in windows, clogging air conditioner filters as the mining of silica sand exploded in the area about two years ago. His wife is now expecting their first child and "she drinks out of a well - that's terrifying" when recognizing the threats to clean water that this short-term profit industry can cause. He wanted to do "whatever we could do" to stop this.

The defense rested by 9:35 and the jury was excused while the judge and attorneys discussed his jury instructions. Our lawyer requested a broader instruction on Claim of Right, suggesting Hennepin County's Judge Jack Nordby's instructions but Judge Jeffrey Thompson ultimately disagreed. He said as judge he was trying to keep the issue focused on our actions rather than the content of our beliefs. He described how he marched in protest during the Vietnam War after the invasion of Cambodia while a student at Carleton College. But here in this court, we need to be "content neutral" in deciding this case. We need a standard appropriate for any kind of protest. He went on to list a variety of protests which have come before courts including land mines, the people from Westboro Baptist Church, the Klu Klux Klan, abortion, ... citing several cases he has read on appeal.

After denying an expansive view of Claim of Right, he also denied McCluer's request for an instruction on a necessity defense saying that the action taken must directly address the harm caused and the danger must be imminent. In this case he felt defendants still had legal remedies. "Democracy is a messy process. Over time, over a long period of time, maybe you can change people's minds - if you are lucky. But this doesn't mean you can break the law. It is a difficult process to change peoples' mind but the law doesn't allow you to break the law to do so. Civil disobedience means you break the law and take the consequences." He then quoted a favorite TV crime-fighter, Baretta, saying, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

When the jury returned, the Prosecutor said he would not call any rebuttal witnesses. So he was asked if he wished to make his closing arguments. He gave "the State's view", saying even "polite" persons cannot break the law. "Just because the defendants were peaceful doesn't mean they can break the law. The words "frac", "sand", or "silica" won't be found in the Judge's instructions. Trespass is the crime, not protesting. These people made a conscious decision to break the law. This was civil disobedience, a planned event. A deliberate act. Purposely breaking the law. Their strong feelings turned into a criminal act. I urge you to follow the law in this case. They [the defendants] should be held responsible for that.”

Richmond McCluer rose to give the closing for our defense. He asked the Judge for use of the courtroom easel so he could draw a crude "thermometer" with a vertical line with 0% on the bottom, a 50/50 line in the middle, and 100% at the top. His defense asks a clear question: "is it [the case] proven by the State? Every element? The police cannot convict them of a single crime. Even the Judge can't unless the defendants waive their right to a jury trial. Only the jury can do that.

On his diagram he started speaking and writing words as he progressed up from zero to 100. “Hunch”, “suspicion”, “strong suspicion”, “probable cause”. Above the 50/50 line in the middle he continued with “preponderance”, “clear and convincing”. At the very top, by 100% he wrote "certainty". Just below that level, he said and wrote "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." He proceeded to inform the jury that in a civil trial 51%, anything over 50%, “preponderance”, is enough to decide a case. But not in criminal cases. “No one can be 100% certain but we do ask for proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

"Some defendants told you they did it [trespassed] to prevent a greater harm. Some said they had no choice [after trying other legal means]. Some said they believed they had a Claim of Right. Some simply did not have the charges against them proved. The defendants acted with the knowledge that only the community can convict them. It is the conscience of the community and it has given the responsibility to you [the jury]." He illustrated his point with the story of two dogs in Winona, concluding, "What do 99% of people do when they see that poor dog outside in the freezing cold? There are a very rare few who cannot sit idly by. These people [pointing to the defendants] could not sit idle and I'm honored to represent them. I'm asking you to do justice."

Prosecutor Flaherty used his rebuttal time to tell his jury that “any fact can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.” After describing the latter, he said, “They [the police] did a good enough job in this case. … When you do an act, there are consequences. They made a conscious choice to protest and break the law or protest and not break a law. It is not about beliefs but what you did. Law punishes you not for what you believe but what you did. This case is about deliberate violation of the law and you should hold them accountable.

The jury instructions were given at 11:35 and 20 minutes later they left the courtroom to begin deliberations.

Day 3 of the Frac Sand Trial

The Whole Truth? By Steve Clemens. Feb.5, 2014
Winona Frac Sand Trial, Day 3

When my name was called by Richmond McCluer, our defense attorney, I walked up before Judge Jeffrey Thompson and told his clerk I would "affirm" rather than "swear" the oath to " ... Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, so help me God." I affirmed - but was quickly reminded that in U.S. courts, that is virtually impossible if you want to fully inform a jury about your motives and intent.

I was actually the third witness as the defense started its case. Because of the large number of defendants ( even though after another case dismissal this morning winnowed it down to 19 from the original 35), I knew our time on the witness stand would have to be compact. But when one is facing three months in jail, you would hope for plenty of time to have your say.

Dan Wilson, a former member of the Winona Catholic Worker and one of the organizers for our nonviolent witness against the silica (frac) sand industry which took place last April was first on the stand. With his degree in Biology, we hoped he could describe some of the purported health risks of mining and transporting silica sand. He was able to state he was trying to protect the area from full-scale frac sand operation because the sand in the landscape serves as both an aquifer and filter for water which eventually empties into the Mississippi despite the energetic efforts by Prosecutor Mike Flaherty to pretend this should be just and open and shut trespass case. Despite his considerable knowledge about frac sand, he wasn't able to share the truth as he knows it. When asked about his arrest, he replied, "It's not something we enjoy but what we feel called to [do]."

James Johnson, another former Winona Catholic Worker, now a special education teacher here, told the jury about the myriad of public hearings and meetings he has participated in and attended in Winona County on the silica sand controversy. He was constantly interrupted by the Prosecutor's objection but was able to express than he is "saddened that people are profiting of the pain of others." He also stated that taking this action which entailed risk brought him joy.

I was next to take the stand after my public oath to tell "the whole truth." No such luck. Time and time again objections to relevance were voiced by Mr. Flaherty. The Judge, cognizant of the long line of witnesses still to go, clearly wanted testimony truncated. Once I broached the Claim of Right provision in Minnesota's trespass law, the trial came to a screaming halt. The Judge immediately ordered the jury out of the courtroom so the lawyers, judge, and I could attempt to resolve the impasse created when the Judge insisted that the only instruction related to Claim of Right he would give the jury must be related to a property interest. After I reminded him of my reading of the Brechon case ( involving Honeywell protesters) that defendants must be given wide leeway in explaining their motives and intent to a jury - even if that was a mistaken reason - but reasonable, in good faith, and nonviolent, the Judge relented and said he'd give me a maximum of two minutes to give my rationale ( but no legal arguments!) with the jury present. Needless to say, one cannot give " the whole truth" ( as I understand it) under such constraints. I left the witness stand wondering why I put so much effort into preparing testimony which won't be allowed by some judges.

But I was followed by Marie Shebeck, a gentle White Rose Catholic Worker from Chicago. She described the reasons she joined the action along with explanations about the values of this movement begun by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurine.

She was followed by Will Hesch-Bruggeman, a local teacher who was passionate about health risks to children posed by mining and transport of this toxic and carcinogenic sand. He told jurors the school he teaches at is less than seven blocks from the site where he was arrested. His wife brought their 5-month old daughter to the courtroom yesterday and Will talked about health dangers to expectant mothers and those in the womb. On April 29th last year, Will had two very personal reasons to risk arrest with us!

70+ year-old Roberta Thurstin-Timmerman is our elder among the arrestees. She did us proud as she proclaimed, "I have a voice and a body - I can speak for those who can't." She was clear she was speaking on behalf of not only young children but also flowers, plants, and trees. "I love this world God gave us and the children of this world shouldn't be subjected to these things which can be stopped. If we can stop this [frac sand mining] so we can study the health effects, it [getting arrested] was worth it.

Joe Kruse talked of his love for the sand bluffs near his boyhood home across the river in LaCrosse, WI but went on to lament the devastation he has witnessed after visited several frac sand mines in Wisconsin and told of spills in a nearby county which destroyed trout streams. "[The frac sand industry] is really a trespass on a common resource - water. "I was glad when the police arrived [at the protest site]", he said after describing an irate sand-hauling driver who threatened them with his huge truck. But he concluded his testimony stating he was willing to risk this on behalf of children.

Barb Kass, an activist grandmother, said "silica sand is the wrong answer. It allows us to think we can continue to over-consume oil and gas products." She tried to talk about the importance of "invitation" in standing in solidarity with others but when she tried to briefly illustrate her point with a personal example from her family's powerful solidarity action with indigenous spear fishermen in Wisconsin, the prosecutor quickly objected and the judge told her to "move on" to another topic. Many of us in the courtroom came to Winona at the invitation of local residents who needed our solidarity to pull off such an ambitious public witness. She reminded the audience that the local Catholic Worker community "has been doing this hard work for a long time", making it clear that we were primarily standing behind and alongside them. Her granddaughter turned 4 the day of the arrest and Barb beautifully described her resistance act as a "present" to that precious child. (She also shared ice cream with the younger generation she was protecting.)

Stalwart Quaker/Buddhist activist John Heid kept the courtroom mesmerized with his passionate (and compassionate) explanation to the jury of why nonviolence is "a way of being" for him, not just an interesting philosophy or tactic. He said, "I don't use the term 'protest', this [action] was a prayer. The heart of what we were doing is nonviolence. I felt invigorated, very alive" when going to the site for the vigil. He drew a distinction between law, authentic law, and conscience. After our lawyer told him (while John was on the stand, in front of the jury) that he advised John not to take the witness stand since the prosecution's evidence against him was muddled at best and insufficient, John quipped, "I've always had a tenuous relationship with lawyers!" The judge roared with laughter because he had already faced Heid in his courtroom for previous acts of nonviolent resistance where he represented himself.

While many others (including myself) tried to slip in references to great practitioners of nonviolence in recent history, John quickly reminded the jurors, " [Martin Luther ] King and Gandhi were all criminals - they all broke the law. We idolize the law," he lamented. He described some of his fellow Quakers as " mystics with feet", saying that this is a prophetic vocation. He described his action as "putting my feet where my heart and soul are." Suddenly the hard pews in the courtroom were mystically transformed into church pews - if only our churches were as committed to peace and justice as John continues to model it for us! His testimony made the boring tedium of yesterday's prosecution witnesses worth sitting through to get to the heart of the matter.

Becky Lambert, a farmer like Barb Kass, talked about the huge threat to the soil this mining entails. "These mines are getting closer and closer to our [Lake City, MN Catholic Worker] farm. If our landscape is destroyed, so is what we do." She described the Catholic Worker passion for sharing food, breaking bread with others. She described carrying food to the demonstration site saying, "we hoped to share our food with the workers and police officers." It was a sign of intended reconciliation. When asked if risking arrest was a kind of last resort after trying other legal means to stop frac sand mining and transport, Becky said, "this is what I could do at the time. We stopped the work for one day. This [appearing in court for the trial] is part of the witness."

During one of our courtroom breaks, Rachel Stoll, the next witness, told me she is younger than my youngest son! When she took the stand she eloquently described the benefits of leaving the sand in the ground as a means to protect our river and the water table. She told how all the planning meeting for the action were open to the public and stated our flyer advertising the faith and resistance retreat before the day of action called our plans for Monday, April 29 as "Gospel Obedience" rather than civil disobedience. She felt "compelled to act" and she "felt joy knowing we were doing the right thing."

Matthew Byrnes was the last defendant to take the stand on this long day in court. Again, he was told by our lawyer that he risked conviction by taking the stand because he, too, had poor evidence presented against him by the prosecution witnesses. But he strode confidently to the witness stand after affirming his oath like two other Quakers before him did. He observed that the City of Winona seems to listen more to protests than listening at meetings. The previous city-wide moratorium on frac sand facilities (which had expired before our April 29 witness) was only first discussed by the city after a dramatic protest by Catholic Workers and supporters raised the issue to their agenda. The moratorium was put in place so health effects of silica sand could be studied but no information was ever released to the public. Since our mass arrests, an air monitor has been installed on the downtown YMCA and the Governor traveled to Winona to state that frac sand as an industry was not good for southeastern Minnesota. The judge told Matthew that he couldn't draw causal effect from our actions to these but Matthew concluded his testimony stating about his arrest, "It was the only decision I could do as a moral person."

Day 2 at the Frac Sand Trial

Day Two: Prosecution Brings It's Case

"This case is ONLY about trespassing. Being on private property, being asked to leave, refusing to leave. That's what this case is about, nothing more!" The Winona Prosecutor,  Michael Flaherty kept his opening argument brief and moved quickly to his first witness, Dan Nisbit, owner of CD Corporation, a "bulk commodities company" which leases land from the City of Winona, MN in order to ship silica (frac) sand on barges down the Mississippi River. His operation can handle up to 120 truckloads of frac sand a day to fill two barges. When asked if he is aware of health risks associated with silica sand, he states, "I've seen some pamphlets". He told the jury his employees do not wear any special respiratory equipment while work at his Port of Winona facility. He did say the protesters offered him donuts on the day of the arrest last April 29 and that we were "polite and respectful". "They [the protesters] shut our operation down."

Next on the stand was the owner of the sand washing facility across town where other activists also blockaded frac sand-hauling trucks. Robert Hemker also leases his property from someone else. He has a dredging operation for sand and gravel and equipment to screen, wash, size, and separate loads of silica sand that is trucked to his site from Wisconsin. His operation usually handles 80 trucks per day except in the cold season. When asked, he allowed that he uses 80 to 100,000 gallons of water in his sand washing operation but says he recycles and reuses almost all of it - maybe 1,000 gallons might be lost to evaporation or retained in the sand. When he was called to his site by employees who told him protesters were there, he described finding a "dinner table" set up by the scales used to weigh the sand-hauling trucks with food and "babies crawling on the ground." He was offered food by the protesters (he declined) but agreed they were "peaceful and polite." There was "nothing threatening; they weren't throwing rocks or anything."

The Deputy Chief of Police testified about how they run driver's license or other photo ID through their computers to state-run databases to confirm the identities of those arrested. The next witness was an Investigator from the Winona Police department. Each of the following police or sheriff's officers called to the two protest scenes were questioned about what they saw, what they did, and were asked to identify photocopies made of the driver's licenses given to arresting officers. Some officers making the arrests did not hear the "warning" given by the officer in charge of the site. Other officers issued citations to people they hadn't "arrested." Some officers wrote the citations on site, others after persons were transported to the Law Enforcement Center (jail). Some were transported by the arresting officer, others were placed in a jail van and transported by others. All testified the demonstration and arrests were done peacefully and courteously. We were described as cooperative.

My arresting officer, Jim Sjoberg told the jury, "they were peaceful and nonviolent. Mr. Clemens said he respected me as a police officer." One officer couldn't remember which of the 3 men he processed he "arrested" and which he "cited" back at the LEC. To get a proper conviction for trespass, we need to be told we are on private property, asked to leave, and refuse to do so. If the arresting officer doesn't give the defendant the warning and the opportunity to leave, the procedure is flawed - especially when a sharp lawyer like Richmond McCluer is sitting at the defense table. After his closing statement, I'm sure the Winona Police Department will order all their officers to take a remedial arrest procedure class for future mass arrests.

From this vantage point mid- trial, besides the 6 case dismissals already, I'm fairly confident up to one third of the remaining defendants are likely to be acquitted due to sloppy police work. We'd rather "win" on the basis of conscience and principle but acquittals for many might encourage other local folk to consider civil disobedience as one of their options.

Keep posted - tomorrow we remaining defendants get our chance to tell our stories to the jury. A jury of 7 women and one Catholic priest, ages 30, 41, 44, 52, 56, 56, 57, and 64.

Day 1 of Frac Sand Trial in Winona, MN

When Law Becomes An Idol by Steve Clemens. Feb. 3, 2014

"I don't have an opinion about it (frac sand mining)"
"I've remained neutral"
"It is ok to speak out - but you must do it within the law."
"You have a right to speak out as long as you follow the rules."
"I know nothing about frac sand ... But I'm a mother and [I know] anyone can lie to me."
"You have the right to speak out if you have something to say. ... I don't know much about the frac sand issue."
"I have no opinion on frac sand one way or another. ... There is a time and place to speak out - it must be controlled - but with breaking the law, something must be done."
"People have a right to speak their minds but [you must] stay within the law."
"I don't know a thing about frac sand. ... A lot of people across the river [in Wisconsin] are upset about frac sand. ... It is OK to speak if you do it by the law and don't cause a lot of trouble."
"I don't know the truth about frac sand ... It does give people jobs ... I am disturbed about what it is doing to the landscape - what is removed will never grow back. I don't know about health issues."
"I don't read newspapers. ... I know very little about frac sand. ... I have never spoken out [in protest against anything] ... If there was a law broken ....
"I have spoken out about prevention of child abuse. ... I am interested in the legal process."
"We need to become more independent regarding energy. It would give us jobs. ... [Whatever is done must be] within the boundaries of the law."
"I have no knowledge about frac sand, I don't understand any of it. ... I did go to a Women's Rights protest in 1981 but I'd never do something like that now! ... It made a difference."
" I've seen the headlines in the newspaper but never read much about the issue."

There were 17 Winona County citizens called forth for the jury panel from which we would help select the six jurors (and two alternates) who would hear our testimony and decide our fates. Of the 35 arrested last April for nonviolently blocking frac sand trucks, 3 had the charges dropped, 2 asked to be tried in absentia, and several did not show up for court (no reason given but I know at least two of them are out of the country after our original court date in December was cancelled after a Judge recused herself). This leaves 21-23 defendants who now face the possibility of up to 3 months in jail and/or a $1000 fine and possible restitution for misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Time after time, prospective jurors were asked by Mr. McClure what opinions they had formed about the frac sand industry and whether they had ever engaged in public advocacy or public protest of any kind. Most of the panelists felt it was "OK" for others to give their opinion/protest but quickly added the qualifier: as long as you don't break the law. It was as if the Martin Luther King holiday two weeks prior to our trial was completely out of mind. Dr. King, notorious for being arrested for civil disobedience, used his law-breaking as a way to expose the cancers of racism, materialism, and violence as a way to change both hearts (public opinion) as well as laws. His willingness to suffer the indignities of jail, derision, and violence provided a moral credibility to his campaigns for social change and justice.

We merely hope to follow in the path that he, Dorothy Day, Cesar Chavez, Dan Berrigan, and many others have blazed. How will our jury and Judge respond?

A Mostly Minor Injustice Reveals The Evil Beneath

-->

Buyer Beware: How HeathPartners Subverts ObamaCare To Further Enrich Themselves by Steve Clemens, December 27, 2013

I’m sure all of us have found examples of the evilness of supposedly “non-profit” health insurance companies as they seek to maximize their bottom lines. This complaint is only for $73.24 so it doesn’t qualify for major outrage but does go to illustrate the lengths to which insurance companies go to justify the obscene salaries they pay their corporate officers and then use their “profits” to buy up smaller health providers in their march to secure more.

At age 63, I’ve been plagued by decreasing hearing loss and have gone to an Audiology Clinic run by HealthPartners. I like the audiologist and he takes time to explain my hearing loss and his recommendation to get hearing aids to both enhance my hearing ability as well as hopefully slow down or avoid further deterioration. As a conscientious consumer, I price out similar styles of hearing aids at nearby Costco with the HealthPartners’ model and with the price being competitive, decide to buy the HeathPartners’ ones for $2,600 because of the ability of Dr. Geddes, the Audiologist, to take the time to carefully explain my choices. I’ve had the hearing aids for almost a year and a half and they seem to work well. Dr. Geddes asks me to return annually to re-check my hearing and make sure the hearing aids are working properly.

Meanwhile, my health insurance carrier changes due to my wife’s employer and then retirement and I’m now at the “mercy” [sic] of Blue Cross/Blue Shield who must now share the blame with HealthPartners for my unfolding complaint. Under the Affordable (Health) Care Act, aka ObamaCare, all insurance carriers must provide “preventive care” at no additional co-pay for their customers. Because my new policy has a higher deductible, I want to be sure my return for the annual check-up is covered before I go. So I call both Blue Cross, the insurer, and HealthPartners, the provider, prior to my appointment last July to be sure I won’t have to pay out-of-pocket for this check-up since its purpose is similar to an annual physical. Both parties tell me it “should be covered” – however with the proviso that it will depend on how the visit is “coded”. I make the appointment, stressing that I merely want only this as an annual check-up. The visit goes well, the doctor is his usual helpful self but tells me the “coding” for the visit is done by another department.

It take about a month or so to get the “Explanation of Benefits” statement from Blue Cross (maybe I should add “the ones who put the ‘BS’ into Blue Shield” – but their system is no more or less transparent than the other insurance vultures out there) and notice at the bottom the “amount you owe” is $73.24 after the insurance payment of $63.72. Since it says “THIS IS NOT A BILL” at the top, I hope that I won’t see a bill from the provider. But, alas, the envelope bearing the HealthPartners’ logo with the clear window allowing the customer’s name and address arrives the next month telling me to “Pay This Amount”: $73.24. However, the figures they list to get to this magic total owed by me is different than my “Explanation of Benefits” from BC/BS. The former claims the charges to be $96 with an insurance payments/adjustment of $22.76 while the latter tells me the charges are really $179 but the “allowed amount” is only $136.96 so $42.04 becomes the “Provider Responsibility Amount) meaning Blue Cross thinks HealthPartners is over-charging for this “service”. BC/BS tells me it is paying $63.72 but still leaves me with the same $73.24 owed to the provider as my “Deductible Amount”.

So I call HealthPartners to dispute the bill. The “billings” employee I talk to on the phone is quite friendly and hears my complaint. After explaining that I called both BC/BS and HealthPartners before making the appointment, and also telling the doctor that I wished to be seen only for my annual check-up, she told me they will order a “code review” and will contact my insurer so I should not pay the bill until it was reviewed. Finally I received a letter informing me that “HealthPartners Clinics are committed to providing quality customer service and an exceptional patient experience. The coding for your services … has been reviewed and confirmed to be accurate.” It went on to say I could fill out an appeal form if I wished to dispute this decision. The letter was not signed but “HealthPartners Patient Accounting Representative” was helpfully typed after the “Sincerely,”. I filled out the form, hoping for some sanity in this morass.

The letter from Flannery Daley, Operations Manager of HealthPartners Patient Accounting came last week. I must quote the explanation: “This service was covered by your insurance and was applied towards your deductible. Generally speaking, if there is a problem-related diagnosis, a service is not considered preventive. Because you have a diagnosis of hearing loss, the annual check is not considered preventive. Therefore, the $73.24 that Blue Cross Blue Shield has applied towards your deductible for this service will not be waived.”

It would have been helpful if HealthPartners or the doctor would have told me this when I made the appointment! Following this logic, I must pay for my annual eye exam since I wear glasses. I should pay for my annual physical because I am “overweight” – all this despite the clear wording of ObamaCare that all insurance companies must provide this preventive care at no additional cost. I can’t say for sure that a Single-Payer plan will cure all these problems but I do know that getting insurance companies out of the mix would greatly enhance the “exceptional patient experience” HealthPartners promised me.

My friends from Iraq just scratch their heads trying to figure out the total confusion and obfuscation of the “Health Care” [sic] system our politics has saddled us with. My new insurance provider starting January 1 doesn’t have HealthPartners Audiology in their “network”. Now, I’ll need to call again before my annual “check-up” this fall.

In all fairness to HealthPartners, this rip-off pales in comparison to my son’s itemized bill from Allina Health for his emergency room visit this fall to Abbott Northwestern Hospital: 4 chewable aspirins (81 mg) listed at $26.40 – a bargain since only 2 acetaminophen tablets were $26.20. But further down a 325 mg aspirin tablet was $26.05. Of course the really important figures are the lines which read “insurance payment: $11,118.86” followed by an “adjustment” listed as “insurance discount: $13,360.19” I guess even HealthPartners (his insurance company this time, not the provider) isn’t willing to pay those prices.

My pharmacist, Tom Sengupta at Schneider Drug in Minneapolis tells me (about health insurance companies): "They're all evil - but some are worse than others. Try to find the least evil one."

-->The sign in his front window urges us all to support “Single-payer healthcare for all”.

30 Years Ago ...

Remembering and Resisting for 30 Years by Steve Clemens. August 8, 2013

It was 30 years ago; the U.S. Army School of the Americas was still in the Panama Canal Zone but military troops from the repressive government of El Salvador were training at Ft. Benning, GA. A small cadre of peacemakers, primarily from Koinonia Farm and Habitat For Humanity, came to the main entrance to the sprawling military base for the weekly Quaker-style candlelight vigil. The vigil had begun 4 months prior and usually consisted of 8-20 people who gathered in a circle to prayer, reflect, and protest U.S. policy in Central America.

It was the assassination of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero while saying mass in the capital city in March of 1980 that had awoken many of us to the suffering of the Salvadoran people and the U.S. complicity in the harsh repression of the people; campesinos struggling for land and justice from the couple of dozen families of elites that controlled the land and the government. Romero had written to then-President Jimmy Carter just months before his assassination asking him to stop the flow of military aid and weapons to his nation. He never received a reply from the President before the bullet ended his life as he held the chalice of wine over his head during the mass.

Three years later activists discovered that Salvadoran troops were being trained by U.S. Military instructors at the large infantry base on the outskirts of Columbus, GA and a protest march and rally was scheduled around the third anniversary of El Salvador’s increasingly famous martyr. Unfortunately (from my perspective), the tone and tenor of that protest was strident and caustic and I felt that while I agreed with the political aim of ending the military training and changing the foreign policy of the Reagan Administration towards Central America, we would be better served by a reflective, contemplative and confessional presence outside that military base than the bombastic chanting and finger-pointing of the larger demonstration.

A week later, our Thursday evening hour-long candlelight vigil outside the base began. Some friends from across the Chattahoochee River in neighboring Alabama joined us as did a couple of others from nearby Buena Vista, GA. Someone would often read a short reflection, a poem, or a prayer, we’d sing a song or two, but mostly held signs with our candles and reflected and prayed. Occasionally someone driving out of the base would shout something (frequently it wasn’t PG-rated even though children were often present); less frequently someone would stop and talk to us.

In August 1983, Father Roy Bourgeois and Father Larry Rosebaugh drove over to Koinonia Farm (where our family lived) to share with our intentional community their plans for nonviolent resistance to the continued training of the Salvadoran troops. It was my first encounter with “Father Roy” but the Louisiana drawl in his voice and his gentle demeanor made me feel energized and included. I had known “Father Larry” a lot better since our 1981 nonviolent witness together in Amarillo, TX led to our sharing the same jail cell for a week after our arrest for praying at Pantex, the final assembly plant for all U.S. nuclear weapons. After he was transferred to a different jail, we saw each other at arraignment, trial, and sentencing before we headed off to different federal prisons to serve the rest of our time.

Larry had told the 5 of us with him in the holding cell outside the FBI office in Amarillo about his travels through Central and South America, especially his time in Recife, Brazil where he was arrested, jailed, and tortured for his work with the poor. I came to love and trust Larry during our jail-time together so when he arrived with Roy, I suspected here was another “radical priest” God had placed in my life to challenge me to further action. (I should have seen a pattern after “Father Tom” from the Maryknoll seminary in Glen Ellyn, IL “schooled” me during my Wheaton college years and then former-priest Phil Berrigan continued that “education” during the year I lived in Washington, DC.) Father Larry, and now, Father Roy: all wanted to challenge me to live out my values in a way that nonviolently confronted those in power.

Roy and Larry told us that they were fasting and planning to nonviolently confront the Salvadoran troops. They didn’t share the details with us (they seemed to just evolve from one action to the next for them), but we did invite them to join our next weekly candlelight vigil and told them some of us would possibly like to join them in their direct action. We talked about “continuing” the candlelight vigil on to the base after our usual hour presence by the entrance, knowing that we would likely be arrested by base security if we did so.

As Thursday arrived, most of us had no idea that Roy and Larry, joined by a local Catholic activist, Linda Ventimiglia, had already stirred up a hornets nest with 3 or 4 other acts of witness including the dramatic scaling of a tree outside the Salvador barracks and playing Oscar Romero’s final radio address where he asked, plead, ordered Salvadoran troops “in the name of God” to “put down their guns” and “end the repression.” The three of them had been arrested and thrown off the base several times that week before our Thursday evening vigil.

I don’t remember now if we walked or drove to the Base Commander’s house but at least 4 of us went with Roy, Larry, and Linda. Someone rang the doorbell while others planted a cross (not burning!, I must add, given the context of Georgia) on the front lawn. A teenage girl came to the door and we asked if the Base Commander was home. We were told he’d be home shortly so we told her we would vigil quietly on the sidewalk with our candles. It was only a few minutes before base security arrived, we were arrested, and hauled off to what we assumed was base headquarters.

In the six hours we were held under arrest, I distinctly remember overhearing various military officers saying very vicious and demeaning comments about “Catholics”, especially since they had become familiar with Roy and Larry’s vocation as priests. About 3 AM, each of us was handed a letter stating that we were “banned and barred” from that military base. We had the right to appeal this order if we wished but otherwise it was in effect with no end date listed. (Years later I was to receive “Ban and Bar” letters lasting 1 year or 5 years; this one was presumably for life.) They then drove us off base in groups of 2-3 dropping us off miles from the city center meaning we would have to walk to get to our cars. Fortunately, they did drop Judy Cumbee off back at the main entrance since her leg was in a cast from a previous accident.

Less than one year after these nonviolent direct actions, it was announced that the “School of the Americas” was moving to Ft. Benning as part of the Treaty to return the Panama Canal Zone to Panama agreed to by President Carter several years earlier. Our weekly vigils continued for several years before becoming a monthly vigil. I moved to Minnesota in 1990 and just months after our arrival, we heard word that Father Roy was going back to fast, pray, and protest at the gates of Ft. Benning. And thus began what has become The School of the Americas Watch, a nonviolent movement to embody the call of the martyred Archbishop: “put down the guns and stop the repression” – now throughout the Americas, not just El Salvador. One by one, nations have begun to pull their troops out of this notorious school now renamed “The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC)” in an attempt to “re-brand” it from a “school of assassins” to an institution which promotes “human rights” (albeit at the barrel of a gun!)

More than 300 nonviolent activists have gone to prison to protest this school in those 30 years. Late last week 40 members of Congress (including Rep. Keith Ellison from Minneapolis) introduced a bill to suspend operations at SOA/WHINSEC and begin an investigation of the connection between US military training and human rights abuses in Latin America. In November, I will return to the gates of that notorious institution to once again say “Close the SOA!”

Thoughts on Obama and the Zimmerman Acquital

Myopic Outrage At A Clear Injustice: In the Aftermath of the Zimmerman Verdict by Steve Clemens. 7/15/13

[Disclaimer: As a white male it is virtually impossible for me to fully understand and appreciate the burden of being a black male in this society. Even though I’ve been arrested and in jail and prison, lived in the inner city and rural South, I can only approximate what that experience is because I was always a phone call away from “connections” to the world of privilege and (somewhat limited) power – unlike Travyon Martin and others like him.]

It was a Facebook posting by a friend of mine, quoting President Obama after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the slaying of a young black man in Sanford, Florida that got me riled up.

"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin." - President Obama

Somehow listening to one of the most egregious law-breakers in the history of the Presidency (a "kill list", refusal to prosecute under the Convention Against Torture Treaty, blatant disregard of eavesdropping restrictions, continued operation of GITMO and hundreds of CIA black sites, .... – the list could go on ad nauseum) say we are a "nation of laws" makes me ill. To add "a jury has spoken" without referencing the inherent racism of our present judicial system that so clearly favors the wealthy and powerful makes his statement inane. Coming from a former Constitutional law professor, it seems clear that power has corrupted and absolute power has corrupted absolutely. So forgive me if I can't appreciate words from this man, however honorable his intent might have been.

Reflection, while necessary is not to be confused with restitution or reparations. Calm reflection? How about heated and angry reflection if we can truly understand that Trayvon could have been our son or daughter? I suspect that the President could draw on his own background; even while basking in the privilege of Harvard I’m sure the color of his skin and texture of his hair led some of his classmates (and maybe a few of his professors) to respond to him differently than the white majority. I know my own white privilege and well-educated male status has both protected and perverted my understanding of the realities of the Trayvons and others who are routinely profiled – and worse – threatened and attacked. If the jury verdict can’t even approach justice for the life of a 17-year-old, it will be a much longer time before restitution will ever be considered in that courtroom.

Yet, standing in the crowd gathered outside the Hennepin County Government Center this evening I was uncomfortable with the chanting: “What do we Want”? “Justice!” is the reply elicited. “When do we want It”? “Now!” is the response. But when the chant leader asks the crowd, “Who do we want it for”?, the crowd is encouraged to shout out “Trayvon” and/or “Terrence” (referring to Terrence Franklin, the young black man recently shot five times in the head and twice in the black by two Minneapolis police officers who have yet to be charged while the police “investigate” themselves.) I want to respond instead with “Everybody”. Justice for Travyon and Terrence? Yes! But also for many, many others.

The verdict in Florida was not a shock for someone who has lived in the Deep South for 16 years before moving to Minnesota - especially since I’ve been reading Glenn Greenwald’s excellent-but-disturbing book, And Justice For Some. The double standards and outright hypocrisy of our judicial system and the fawning defense of it by the corporate media have most often led to one standard for the elites and another standard for the rest of us. And that is for most of us in the 99%, both blacks and whites, and peoples of other hues as well. When coupled with the deep embedded racism within all American institutions (remembering the absurd voting rights decision of the Supreme Court less than a month ago), there is little “justice” one can expect in court.

Maybe in sensing the grief and pain of Travyon’s (and Terrence’s) parents, our Commander-in-Chief might also “reflect” on the parents of the children and youngsters blown to kingdom-come by the drones which have become the beloved instrument of choice for the former law professor who seems to wish to forgo even the formalities of a day in court for the accused if they are Arabic-speaking Muslims.

Yes, the President is right that this verdict could very well enflame racial tensions and hatreds. Asking Americans to reflect rather than just react is probably the right course of action. Yet despite having an African-American Attorney General and a biracial President, the past five years haven’t seen the gross racial disparities in our prison system change and the egregious corruption, unpunished, of Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks that disproportionally victimized the poor and people of color. When is the venting of outrage appropriate?

As the elites see more and more evidence that the empire is collapsing around us, they are rightly concerned that many of us will rise up and demand a change; a change many were conned into believing would come with a vote for this biracial President. Hope for change flared once again with the Occupy movement. Will this Zimmerman verdict spark a demand for deeper change? Not likely unless many of the 99% realize that most of us are Travyon Martin in this story. The “Stand Your Ground” laws and the property laws weren’t promulgated for your benefit or defense but rather to keep on-track this economic system which demands winners and losers, rewards greed, and keeps us divided. No wonder Catholic Worker co-founder Dorothy Day called it a “filthy, rotten system.”

I know if feels insensitive to my black friends to say this but George Zimmerman is also a victim in this tragedy. Yes, a perpetrator can also be a victim, even if to a lesser degree. If we are left to fight over the scraps that fall from the abundantly-laden tables of the elites, there will be a lot of pushing and shoving in the competition to grab what is left or discarded.

Greenwald’s penultimate paragraph of And Justice For Some helps sum it up: “ At some point, serious social unrest is the inevitable result when a population is forced to suffer mass joblessness and deprivations of every kind while it sees a tiny sliver of elites enjoying gilded prosperity; when ordinary people are threatened with imprisonment for petty offenses while they see elites illegally spying, invading, torturing, and plundering with near total impunity. Such a two-tiered setup is simple unsustainable.” [It is no accident that whistle-blower Edward Snowden sought out Greenwald with the revelations and details of massive eaves-dropping by our government on its own citizens and most of the rest of the world as well.]

Who knows how President Obama really feels about the verdict? Unless there is a radical reordering of present policies, who cares? He is more likely interested in maintaining a status quo that ensures his elite position than raising questions which might lead to more than calm [and necessarily shallow] reflection.