Our Time PressThe Local Paper with the Global View

It happens all the time. A thirsty consumer grabs a cup of coffee with a debit card, unknowingly exceeds the available balance, and gets smacked with a $30 fee for the $3 purchase.
The banks call it overdraft protection – the usually automatic loan fronted by institutions to cover purchases even when checking accounts have run dry. And they consider it a service to customers. But critics argue that the industry has adopted a slew of abusive tactics to maximize the frequency of these loans – and the considerable fees that accompany them.
Now, as Congress is preparing to tackle a series of proposals tightening oversight and regulation of the finance industry, a growing chorus of lawmakers and consumer groups is urging Democratic leaders to include overdraft reform as a part of the package. In an economy where taxpayers have already bailed out Wall Street banks to the tune of billions of dollars, they argue, those institutions shouldn’t be permitted to turn around and slap abusive fees on their rescuers.
“They’re taking the TARP funds and then they’re raising fees and rates on the same people who funded TARP,” Pam Banks, policy counsel at Consumers Union, said of the banks benefiting from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. “They’re double dipping with the taxpayers’ money.”
But reform won’t come easy. Overdraft fees are a whirling profit engine for banks, and the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep Congress at bay. Indeed, in a report released last November, the Federal Deposit Insurance  Corporation found that overdraft fees range from $10 to $38, with a median charge of $27.
And those fees add up. A 2007 report from the Center for Responsible Lending found that overdraft fees bring in roughly $17.5 billion each year – more than the estimated $15.8 billion in overdraft loans that generated them. Industry representatives maintain that overdraft protections are designed to benefit customers. “In general, people do appreciate and value this service,” said Nessa Feddis, spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association. She said that consumers can easily avoid trouble by keeping track of balances, maintaining a balance cushion or opting into programs where the debit account is linked to a second account or a line of credit to absorb the overdraft. “There are all sorts of ways to to avoid it,” Feddis said. Critics argue, however, that many of the industry’s practices hit below the belt. Among the most controversial, most banks automatically enroll customers in the overdraft protection program, without their knowledge or consent. Also, most institutions manipulate the order of purchases, often increasing the number of overdraft transactions. And there is no system in place warning shoppers when they’re poised to buy something that will send them into overdraft territory.
A House bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), takes steps to protect consumers on all three fronts – but the bill faces a tough road ahead.
Despite wide agreement that the finance industry is largely responsible for the current economic mess, it retains enormous sway on Capitol Hill, where  controversial housing legislation has stalled already this year in the face of industry opposition. Furthermore, Congress has spent hundreds of billions on the banks in recent months, hoping they’ll re-grease the economy by increasing  ending. In the wake of those efforts, many lawmakers will likely be reluctant to support legislation that could hurt industry profits, even if those reforms protect consumers. Such proposals will likely be spun as undermining bailout efforts.
Graham Steele, an attorney at Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, said many lawmakers are “spooked by the apocalyptic messaging” of the banking lobby. “They seem to still have traction on Capitol Hill, unfortunately,” Steele said. The debate highlights the difficulty facing lawmakers pushing to reform the powerful finance industry: In good economic times, there’s a tendency in Washington to stay out of the affairs of banks for fear of impeding an economic engine; in bad economic times, there’s a tendency to stay out of their way for fear of hindering recovery. Ironically, the  current economic chaos might make it more difficult for proponents of finance reforms to rally the congressional support to pass the proposed changes.
On Tuesday, Bank of America made headlines by scrapping plans to hike its overdraft fees from $35 to $39 per transaction. BoA spokesman Jim Pierpoint said the decision was made in consideration of the troubled economy, particularly the rising rate of unemployment. The company is also working on a case-by-case basis with newly unemployed customers to review overdrafts, he said. Yet two other
recent BoA policy changes – one applying a $35 fee if a customer’s balance is negative for five days, and another hiking allowable overdraft fees at 10 per day, up from seven – will remain in place, Pierpoint said.
Faced with declining revenues, other banks are also tightening the belt on consumer benefits – adopting new fees and reducing borrowers’ limits.
Some Democrats aren’t holding their breath for the banking industry to volunteer overdraft reforms. The Maloney bill would prohibit automatic enrollment in a bank’s overdraft protection program, instead requiring the customer to opt-in to participate. It would also alert debit card users at the ATM or the coffee counter if they were about to exceed their balance, allowing the shopper to opt-out of the purchase to avoid the penalty fee. Finally, the bill would prohibit any reordering of purchases that leads to an increase in overdrafts.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has vowed in coming weeks to take up a series of finance reform bills, including proposals to reform the credit card and mortgage lending industries. Frank spokesman Steven Adamske said Tuesday that overdraft reform is on Frank’s radar, but it remains uncertain if or when the committee would consider the legislation this year.
There is no companion to the Maloney bill in the Senate.
Of the various industry tactics, the resequencing of transactions to maximize overdrafts is perhaps the most obscure. In a hypothetical case,
a card-user with $100 in available funds might buy a $75 sweater, a $2 cup of coffee, a $4 hamburger and $30 worth of groceries – going over the limit only on the final purchase. But banks often tally each day’s transactions by order of the purchase amount – largest to smallest – not by chronology. In this example, the consumer would exceed the limit after just the two largest purchases ($75 + $30 = $105), and thus be hit
with overdraft fees on the two smaller purchases as well. The result? The bank gets three overdraft fees ($81) instead of just one ($27).
Feddis, said that tactic is precisely what customers want, arguing that the the most vital purchases tend to be the most expensive. “People want their important expenses paid,” she said.
Maloney’s office, though, isn’t buying the argument. “Whether it’s by design or innocent, its effect is to incur more fees,” said Maloney
spokesman Jon Houston. “They’re using this as a profit center.”
The Federal Reserve has taken recent steps to protect consumers from overdraft fees as well. In December, the Fed proposed two strategies to give customers more options surrounding overdraft payments. The first would prohibit banks from charging overdraft fees on purchases already made without first giving consumers the choice to opt-out of the program. The second is an opt-in approach, requiring specific consent from the customer before banks could authorize overdraft purchases at all. The final rule is expected before the end of the year.
The Fed’s action could easily be the only overdraft reforms of 2009. Faced with the imposing opposition of the finance industry, some
observers say, Congress won’t likely get very far with its finance reform agenda this year. “I . can’t think of another sector that has proven itself so adept over the years at blocking even minor reforms,” Stephen Pearlstein, the Pulizer Prize winning business columnist for The Washington Post wrote Wednesday. “With so many conflicting interests among well-heeled firms and so many agencies fighting to protect their bureaucratic turf, the most likely outcome is political stalemate. “Watching the Senate Banking Committee deal with financial regulation,”
Pearlstein added, “is a bit like watching a cow chew its cud.”

By Amadi Ajamu

<PMTags1.0 win><C-COLORTABLE (“Black” 1 0 0 0)><GFIRST 18><GALIGNMENT “justify”><FONT
 “Times New Roman”><SIZE 10><GTABS $>  The follow up to the World Conference against Racism (WCAR) 2001 and the Durban Declaration dubbed “Durban Review” will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, April 20 – 24, 2009. The December 12th Movement International Secretariat, a non governmental organization (NGO) with consultative status to the United Nations, will lead the “Durban 400” delegation and defend Black peoples’ right to reparations for slavery.
The follow up to the World Conference against Racism (WCAR) 2001 and the Durban Declaration dubbed “Durban Review” will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, April 20 – 24, 2009. The December 12th Movement International Secretariat, a non governmental organization (NGO) with consultative status to the United Nations, will lead the “Durban 400” delegation and defend Black peoples’ right to reparations for slavery.

Member nations attending the first WCAR held in September 2001 in Durban, South Africa, declared “…that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and should always have been so, especially the transatlantic slave trade.” Attorney Roger Wareham states, “Today, the United States government, which walked out on the Durban conference, and Europe are vying to reverse these correct verdicts because they would be the principal payers of the reparations debt.”
A City – Wide Send Off Rally was held on Monday, April 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM at the National Black Theater, 2051 5th Avenue (off 125th Street), Harlem, New York. Speakers included, Viola Plummer of the December 12th Movement, Dr. James McIntosh of CEMOTAP, Black Radio personality Bob Law, Attorney Esmeralda Simmons of the Center for Law and Social Justice, and Abdul Hafeez Muhammad of the Nation of Islam, Dr. Leonard Jefferies, Chaka cousin of the All African Peoples’ Revolutionary Party.
There was also a special video presentation of the “Durban 400” documentary of the December 12th Movement and National Black United Front’s lobbying efforts at the WCAR in Durban, South Africa.

Sherri Hobson-Green owns a brownstone in Bedford-Stuyvesant. She’s also a mother, an entrepreneur, and now, a “green” community activist. “I’ve always loved gardening, and I’m very involved with working with my neighbors to beautify our Macon Street block by caring for the trees, and cultivating plants and flowers”, she shares. “I am passionate about greening. And it dawned on me that I could do more by turning my passion into transforming what is usually wasted space, our roofs, into living, breathing organisms that improve the quality of life in my community. The concept of greening my roof, and saving our planet, touched, moved and inspired me to take action.”

That movement led Sherri to learn everything she could about green roof technology. “I enrolled in a ‘Green Roof & Wall’ course at City Tech”, Sherri continues, “and it was amazing!” She learned that a green roof is a roof of a building that is partially or completely covered with vegetation and soil, or a growing medium, planted over a waterproofing membrane. It may include additional layers such as a root barrier, drainage and irrigation systems.
“What the course really educated me about,” Sherri explains, “were the long-term economic benefits green roofs offered me as a homeowner.” Green roofs have been found to dramatically improve a roof’s insulation value. A study conducted by Environment Canada found a 26% reduction in summer cooling needs and a 26% reduction in winter heat losses when a green roof is used. Greening a roof is also expected to lengthen a roof’s lifespan by two or three times, according to Penn State University’s Green Roof Research Center. Additionally, green roofs offer definite health benefits such as: a decreased need for health care services and medication due to the benefits of passive experiences with nature and vegetation, and from reductions in ground level ozone resulting from a reduction in the “urban heat island” effect.
Armed with her new knowledge, and determined to transform her vision of a greener, healthier Bed-Stuy into reality, Sherri reached out to Arn Ashwood, a community-based marketing and branding consultant, for help launching her green roof initiative. He recalls, “When Sherri laid out her plan to educate and mobilize community homeowners, small businesses, and institutions to embrace green roof technology, I was intrigued. My company, the LivingArts Marketing Group, in partnership with Urbanology Systems, a multicultural marketing and strategic management firm, have created a branding strategy called the Urban Green MovementTM, to promote the financing, design, construction and renovation of affordable, energy sustainable, “green” housing units that create “green” jobs. Sherri’s vision became the first initiative presented under the Urban Green MovementTM umbrella: the LivingLive (green) Roof ProjectTM.” 
Meet the green team at the brownstoners table and learn more about the LivingLive (green) Roof ProjectTM   and how it can empower and inspire your life on Saturday, April 25 at the Community Environmental Expo, an initiative of Project Green 2009, Von King Park Cultural Arts Center, Magnolia Tree Earth Center of Bedford Stuyvesant, Inc, and The Hattie Carthan Community Gardens.   The event takes place in historic Herbert Von King Park, 670 Lafayette Avenue (bet. Tompkins/Marcy), Brooklyn, New York.

The Case of the Central Park Jogger can serve as a laboratory for dissecting the criminalized justice system, and demonstrates how dangerous are provisions of the Patriot Act which are intended to officially sanction the interrogation protocols used in this case.
Lawyers Michael Tariq Warren and Roger Wareham are co-counsels representing three of the defendants: Kevin Richardson, Antoine McCray and Ramon Santana.
Michael Warren: We became involved in this case back in June and decided we would develop the components for the motion to set aside the verdict.  On the basis of new evidence that would have materially changed the outcome of the case had it been known at the time of trial.  They have yet to respond to it.
There are two vital exhibits in this motion.  The first is an affidavit from investigator Earl Rollins, who is also an attorney, detailing what Matias Reyes told him. 
There is a second exhibit, a notarized statement from Matias Reyes himself.  The statement goes into detail, but in essence it says, ‘I committed the rape and assault of Trisha Meili, known as the Central Park Jogger and I did it alone.  I didn’t do it with anybody else, I did it alone.’  That was the essence of his notarized statement.
Essentially what is involved here is this.  Back in 1989, these young boys, like many other young boys of color, young men and women of color, were seized upon by experienced, seasoned detectives.  Who had twenty to thirty years on the force.  Who were second and first grade detectives.  Who are a part of what they consider to be the elite group of detectives that comprise the sex crimes unit as well as the Manhattan North Homicide Bureau.  They took each one of these boys individually, not collectively, and they involved them in vigorous custodial interrogation.  By that I mean, they had them separated from their parents, contrary to the assertions that you hear in some of the newspapers from information leaked by the district attorney’s office.  they were separated from their parents for a substantial amount of time, hours.  What they do is this.  This is the methodology.   The methodology is for the detectives to formulate a script.  That’s what they did with these young boys, whose ages were fourteen, fifteen and one was sixteen years of age.  None of them had ever been arrested before in their lives.  So this situation was new to them.  It was new to their parents. 
So they separated these young boys, didn’t allow their parents to see them, and then swung into action.  Not only did the script the internal part of the interrogation process where they asked the questions over and over again.  Grilling, grilling grilling.  Good cop, bad cop.  Good cop, bad cop. The second part of this process was to make each and everyone of them think that they are a witness.  That they are a valuable witness and that all they are doing is giving information on the other. 
You have to keep in mind that the information is consistent with the script that was given by these detectives and grilled into their heads, over and over again.   These young men were not aware of the acting in concert theory of prosecution which means that all of them are prosecuted for doing something.  Assisting each other in terms of what the prosecution said they did to Trisha Meili.  And then after they make them feel they are a witness, every ten or fifteen minutes or so, what they do is a recycling process.  They tell them, “look, it’s going to be alright because you’re going home.  You’re telling on the other.’  But they are only telling what they believe the detectives want to hear, because the detectives have already scripted them.  At this point, they are trying to please the detectives.  Just as many adults would.  That’s why so many cases have been reversed these days where people had confessed.  Even adults and these were young boys.  This process went on for hours and hours.  Every fifteen minutes, “You’re going home.”  And then the script starts.  After they get what they want, then it’s reduced to a written statement.  In oft times, as in the case of these young boys, the detectives wrote the statements out themselves.  There are terms in these so-called statements that are construed as confessions, that these young boys would not use.  These are terms seasoned detectives use.  They are the telltale signs.  After they get the “confessions” signed, they bring the parents back in for about five minutes as they did here.  After that it’s show time.  They call in the assistant district attorneys and they start the videos. 
The most abominable aspect of this interrogation, was that Linda Fairstein and Elizabeth Lederer, the two prosecutors in this case, were an essential part of the interrogation process.  They acted as, what we call in the law, co-conspirators, with these seasoned detectives.  In committing what we call crimes against these young boys by virtue of seizing, through illegal methods, statement that were clearly improper at the best.  Once they got the video tapes, then they announced to the boys and their parents that ‘you are going to be arrested.”  They placed them under arrest, read them their Miranda rights and placed them in a holding cell. 
There has been a lot of information in the press, again on information from  the DA’s office, about the “confessions”.   That the confessions were fine because the parents were there and the parents consented.  That’s not so.  What I have just recounted to you is exactly what took place.  Even if that had been so.  Even if the confessions were legally permissible, which they were not, the other evidence, the scientific evidence the DNA, the hairs, was lacking. 
Not only were the confessions coerced out of these young children and their parents, but the so-called independent evidence that is the two hair follicles that were found on the underwear of Kevin Richardson.  Those were not the hair follicles of Trisha Meili, the jogger, as the prosecutors were allowed to argue in court before the jury by judge Galaghan.  The blood on the rock, and the follicles on the rock did not belong to Trisha Meili as the prosecutors were allowed to argue by judge Galaghan.  And the semen specimen that was taken from Trisha Meili did not match any of these young boys and they knew it at the time.  But they were allowed, by this corrupt judge, who was a part of this train, to argue to this jury that they could consider that there was a match.  There was no match at all scientifically.  There was no identification.   The paraded Trisha Meili into court to get the sympathy of the jury.  This is how they do it. 
Along with that, the racist media was giving a projection totally against these young boys.  And totally against children in communities of color.  They adversely affected the minds of even our people who did not come out at the time.  But there is a God.
Some years later, after Harlan Levy got into legal swaggering and came out with a book about this and came out with damaging admissions, and he was a part of the presecution.  He wrote about how Elizabeth Lederer and Linda Fairstein got upset because the scientific evidence did not match and the only thing they had were the confessions to pick out items they could use for the purpose of convicting these boys.  Parade the jogger in, include the racist media, that’s a conspiracy.
Along after many years.  After these boys had served time in prison.  Seven years, Kharey Wise for thirteen years, lo and behold, the man who committed these acts, Matias Reyes, has come forward, has told them how and when he did it and that he did it alone. 
The reason the prosecutors were nervous, because the know the confessions, even if not seized illegally and improperly which they were, could not stand legal muster alone.  They need an independent source of evidence.  Which is why this corrupt judge Gallagher, allowed the prosecution to argue that there was a match of DNA, a match of hair follicles and a match of blood.   The DNA to the young boys and the hair follicles to the victim.  An outright lie.  This motion to set aside the verdict will be heard on Oct. 23rd.
Attorney Roger Wareham
In his invocation Reverend Curtis said we should pray for those who made a mistake, but this was no mistake.  There are people in this audience who know the history of our existence in this country and to me it has always been summed up most succinctly by the chief justice of the United States, who, during the Dred Scott Decision, said that “A Negro has no rights which a white man is bound to respect.”  That was before the Civil War, but in my view it has never changed.  If something happens, particularly if it happens to a white woman.  And what happened in the park was a tragedy and a crime, but the knee jerk reaction of this city is that a black guy did it, and it doesn’t matter which one we get.   We’ve just got to get one.   And that’s why we’re in the situation we’re in now.  That’s why those five young men lost most of their teenage years.  That’s why their families were separated from them and damaged by this.  That’ why we are where we are right now.  A black guy did it.  That’s all they needed to hear and they didn’t care. 
We had a press conference a week ago, when we came out of court.  After the eight or nine months the district attorney had already spent, in my view covering up, they say investigate this information they’ve had since January.    The press was out just like tonight.  One of the press is Mike Sheehan, from channel 5.   Before his career as a newscaster, he was very respected member of the homicide division of detectives for the police department.  Coincidently, he was one of the detectives when this thing first went down because they thought the jogger was going to die.   When you finally hear Reyes, he says, “I thought she was going to die.  She was making all the sounds like she was going to die.”  And she was dying.  She lost 75% of her blood.   So the homicide detectives were in on it.  Sheehan was part of it.  He was part of that crew that got these so-called confessions, and Tariq laid out the method they used to do that.   Eventually he was off that case.  Reyes was arrested four months later.  Four months, not four years.  Not in another city.  Not in another borough.   Arrested for committing a crime on the upper Eastside.  A rape.  He confessed to a rape and a murder.  And it was detective Sheehan who elicited that confession from him. 
So at that press conference someone raised to point of why wouldn’t they test his DNA?  Because when Reyes was arrested, he confessed to some other rapes.  And with DNA samples they were able to make matches.  So someone said, “Why wouldn’t they.” and I think anybody, you wouldn’t have to be Columbo to figure it out.  You have an unidentified DNA sample in the Rape of the Century, and you have somebody who committed a rape and has confessed to other rapes in the past three months, and one of them is a rape and a murder of a pregnant woman.  Why wouldn’t you try to match that person’s DNA to the unidentified sample in Central Park?
If you can answer that question, then you will understand why the district attorney has not finished their investigation.  It’s because they have a very, very big problem.  Sheehan’s reply, because Mike (Warren) said, “well why don’t you ask Sheehan, he’s standing right there.”  His position was just as arrogant as ever.  “Well we have confessions.  The parents were there.”  And all those things that Mike told you.  “And that wasn’t Reyes’ M.O.  He worked by himself.”  Bingo.  Reyes “worked by himself.” So now Sheehan has a problem.  He has a suspect who confesses to several rapes with the same M.O. who works by himself.  Sheehan all participated in getting these false confessions from these five young men.  If he matches the DNA, then how do they explain the confessions? 
Remember, the confessions were supposed to be valid because ‘they (the young men) gave facts only the perpetrator would know.”    That’s how the do it.  “Only the perpetrator could have known this.”   And the police.  They always leave out that part.  And the police.  So that’s where the script comes from that Michael talks about.  There are things in there that only the perpetrator would know, and the police who went and investigated the area, what the person was wearing and all that.  And all those facts are fed to these young men.  Who are really victims of a form of torture.  So that’s the problem they have.  They are desperately trying to figure out a way to cover up these false confessions.  Their first response is to say ‘well maybe they were all in this together.’  Now their theory of the case was that they all gave each other up.  So if they all gave each other up, why would they not give up the one person who left a semen sample at the scene of the crime?  Sometimes they really insult our intelligence.
They brought Reyes down to the park.  He said “They were giving me all kinds of crap, ‘well maybe they came after I did it, and maybe we were in it together.’  I said ‘I did it myself.’  And Reyes said, “The condition I left that woman in, no one would have touched her.’  He said, “No one would have touched her.”  So that knocks that out. 
They knew about this in January.  To this day, the district attorney’s office has not contacted the families to say, “We have a confession.”  The families found out about it in June with everybody else when they saw an article in the newspaper.  
But before then, the district attorney’s office and the police department had been by the Richardson home, the McCray home, To just pay a visit to see how everybody was doing. And oh by they way we have a few pictures here we want you to look at.   So they lay out a photo array, and in it are the co-defendants.  So obviously he knows them, but doesn’t recognize anybody else.  Now we weren’t there.  So I can’t vouch for the fact that Matias Reyes’ picture was in there.  But I think it is real safe bet that Reyes’ picture was in there and they were hoping that Kevin or Antoine were going to say, “I know him.”   That didn’t work.
Raymond Santana is upstate on an unrelated crime.  All of a sudden they bring him from upstate and put him in the yard with Matias Reyes.  That doesn’t work. 
The only contact between Reyes and these five young men is with Kharey Wise.  They bumped into each other in 1989-90 at Rikers’.  They had a beef over a television.  The Daily News reported that the beef was over the case.  Now I wonder where that idea came from.  You can figure it out. 
The situation we have is that there is a massive cover up going on but they’re not going to succeed.  They cannot succeed.  These confessions that they’ve hung their hats on is what’s going to sink them.  The confessions will expose how the “criminal justice system” is run by criminals.  And if one thing history has taught us in this country it’s that it is not enough for us to be right.  Not enough to have justice on our side.  It’s not enough that a crime has been committed and there should be some reparations for that crime.  If the community is not out in support and force resolution of this issue, it’s not going to happen.  We know Clifford Glover, we know Eleanor Bumpers, we know Amadou Diallo.  All the cases we know and each one we say, “This time they’re going to be punished.”   And every time they walk away.  Because we are not able to mobilize and sustain the support necessary to give impetus to what is going on legally.  Which is why tonight we are going to enlist your support.  Thank you.

The case of the Central Park Jogger may be 20-years-old for some, but it is as new as this morning for Kharey Wise, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam and Raymond Santana the young men who were convicted of  raping Trisha Meili known as the Central Park Jogger, in April 19, 1989.  The convictions were based upon confessions extracted from these 14-16-year-olds, after 28 hours of enhanced interrogation by seasoned and “scripted” homicide detectives. (See Attorneys Michael Warren and Roger Wareham, page 2.)
In December of 2002, attorneys Michael Warren and Roger Warham filed a motion to vacate the convictions based on a confession from Matias Reyes a convicted serial rapist and murderer and a DNA match between Reyes and semen found on Ms. Meili.  The motion was affirmed and the boys, now men, are “free.”

“This is the 20th Anniversary of that event,” said Councilman Charles Barron at a press conference on the steps of City Hall.  Standing with him were Raymond Santana, Kharey Wise and his mother, Sharonne Salaam, mother of Yusef Salaam, Attorneys Alton Maddox and Colin Moore.  The councilman will be introducing legislation to provide compensation for the five men who were imprisonedÿfor up to 13 yearsÿbased on what attorney Colin Moore characterized as “abuses” in the District Attorney’s office.ÿÿ  “They have been robbed of their youth, robbed of the opportunity to develop their lives so they could have good jobs, good homes,” Barron continued.  “They don’t that opportunity because of the terrorist-like tactics of the police department, to get underage minors, interrogate them for 28-hours to force confessions out of them even after they so-called ‘confessed’ they knew what the boys was saying wasn’t consistent with what happened and they prosecuted them anyway.”
The councilman said that over 22 states have exoneration laws “that say if you have been unjustly convicted and you’re exonerated, that they state will pay.  It’s time for New York to catch up.”
The reporting of the case has been called a media frenzy with terms like “wolf pack” and “wilding” being used in the media at the time. Dr. James Macintosh of CEMOTAP (Committee to Eliminate Media Offensive to African People) said “The city must pay reparations.  The New York Post, Daily News, New York Times also must pay reparations.  The New York Post called them a rolling mass of pus.  Gerald Nachman called them a melanoma.  That’s a black tumor, making a racial allusion.  They didn’t need courts to lynch them, so you don’t need courts to repair them. Media lynchers need to ante up.”

  
 The icon for this lynch mob attitude was Donald Trump who was singled out for special mention.  “And as for Donald Trump,”  said Barron, “You’re the one who put out a big ad calling for a return of the death penalty and that these boys should be executed.  You should put out another ad that says ‘I was a fool and made a mistake.  If the city does not compensate them I will.”  However, because such an action would call for both humility and grace, not two of Mr. Trump’s known strong suits, this was probably a rhetorical suggestion.
Attorney Alton Maddox spoke to the systemic nature of the legal assault on the boys. “20 years ago there was  a tragedy in this city that we will never repay.  Young men under the age of 16 were in a situation where they could not defend themselves.  There were four Black lawyers who came forward in this case.  All four of them, after they came forward were disciplined by various grievance committees.  Three of them have been disbarred, and the other one was suspended for a substantial period of times.” 
Speaking of the defendants he says, “They have to be compensated.   We cannot ask people who have been crucified to resurrect themselves on their own.   We don’t expect any of them to be Jesus.”
With this being an election year and with Robert Morgenthau not running there is a wide open race for New York District Attorney. And Maddox promises that “Whoever the next D.A. is, he’s going to have to come through the Black community.  We want to know where he stands on compensation for the Central Park 6.  Nobody will become the next District Attorney of this County without us.”
A Personal Tragedy
Sharon Salaam, mother of Yusef Salaam.  “My son still struggles with this situation.  Recently there was an article about the case in the Daily News.  They went back years to find a picture of my son and over that picture it said ‘Matias Reyes, convicted rapist.’  When is justice going to happen for my son?  We cannot go forward without some kind of justice.  My son needs a chance to live his life as a decent human being because that’s what he is.  If we are denied justice at every avenue, when will justice prevail, not only for us but for all the others?”
Mrs. Wise: “You took something dear and precious away from me.  At the time I was five and a half months pregnant, and Kharey was sixteen, turning 17 and you just took him.  My son went to jail at sixteen and came out at 30.  How can he get an apartment to live in?  You say he can’t live with me because I was receiving Section 8, so you gave him nothing.  Today he has no house to live in.  He’s going from place to place.  You gave him no job.  You wouldn’t even give him therapy.  What you took from me and what you sent back is not the same.”
Raymond Santana: “I lost seven years of my life.  I lost my childhood.  I lost my mother, she died of cancer while I was in prison.  I lost talents, I used to draw.  I used to play basketball.  I lost all of that.  Now I’m just a man in this world trying to survive day-to-day.  I don’t want this to happen to anybody else’s kid.  It’s our duty to make sure others don’t go through this.  To be swallowed up and pushed to the side as though we were nothing.”
Colin Moore, attorney for Kharey Wise, said, “we’re not here seeking justice, justice has already spoken.  These young men are innocent.  District Attorney Morgenthau had to admit he made a mistake.  And he made a motion to invalidate the conviction of these young men.  But what we want is a special commission appointed to look into the abuses of the District Attorney’s office in this case.  This was the first case in which it became clear that you can actually force young men to convict themselves.  There is overwhelming evidence if you apply the correct pressure you can get people to convict themselves.  It is obvious from the transcripts that the District Attorney knew or should have known that the confessions were inconsistent with the evidence.”
Councilman Barron will be making a motion before the City Council