Dear folks who are donating online to @PFJ_USA right now--thank you. We are a small org trying to dismantle a deeply oppressive system and transfer power to people usually marginalized in that system. In a pandemic world, the future is always uncertain for small orgs like us.
But in the last week, we've gotten more small-dollar donations than we ever have (literally in our entire existence) at partnersforjustice.org, and some really generous donations as well. We are thrilled, and really honored to have your support.
We have a long way to go--we're trying to expand our services to impact a full 10% of arrested folks nationwide within a couple of years, and ultimately ensure that no one encounters the criminal system without wraparound support and fierce advocacy.
All of which is to say--if you want to fund really robust, expansive services AND fund a team that would like to render ourselves obsolete by dismantling the system in which we work, you've found the right place, and we're super grateful.
The thing about the Trump immunity case is that yeah, to an extent it creates "King President" but tbh it much more creates "King SCOTUS." This is because what is an "official" act of the prez will of course be litigated and...
...who is waiting at the end of the road on all that litigation? King SCOTUS of course, who will get to decide what's official, what *evidence* is sufficiently tied to official acts to come in or not come in, and basically whether a case lives or dies.
And one more thing.
This whole idea of a job being so important that you get to be above the law? Yeah, that idea comes *straight* from the absolute mess of absolute and qualified immunity in policing and prosecution.
You may have heard the term “Project 2025” floating around, and you may even have cracked open the 900+ page document yourself, only to see a lot of kind of bland, policy-wonk text. So let me crack through the policy-speak and tell you WTF is in this document.
This is, um, a long thread. But if you want a lot of info about Project 2025, all in one place, you've come to the right place.
This document is what Trump and his team will do if elected. It’s their document, their plan, their platform. So like…it’s not *me* saying what they’ll do, this is *them* saying so. documentcloud.org/documents/2408…
Oh brother. OK, so first someone with "Attorney for the State" in their bio asked me for...an example of there being a chasm between what the law allows and what justice would be. Which is a bit surprising to me, so I kinda ignored it. But you guys want it, here we go.
The person I'm quoting here informed me that the law is clearly written on paper, and any American can understand it, which...well...I wish that was the case, because then lawyers and courts wouldn't be as necessary (no more statutory interpretation!). BUT...
But it's true that there are laws written on paper. The problem is that (1) they are unequally applied and (2) they are more impossible to comply with for some people for reasons that are not their fault.
It's not just that college graduates bring vital services to a state like medical care and high-end tech work and innovation and development. It's also that it's hard to get valuable businesses to move to a state with horrible schools bc they will struggle to retain talent.
That's when you get into a situation where you can't open a new lucrative state business because the key engineering talent that you need doesn't want to live in a state with carceral policies and garbage schools. They have kids.
Hey hey hey everyone, it's that time again! Your weekly @PFJ_USA video on something gross about your criminal legal system.
This week: the "Brady" rule, or, why oh why do prosecutors have such a hard time handing over evidence of innocence?
So basically, when a person is accused of a crime, the rules of our court system say that prosecutors have to turn over "discovery," which is the evidence they have against the person.
Makes sense, right? If they think someone is guilty, they should be able to show why.
And from a system perspective, handing over that evidence right away makes sense: if the evidence is overwhelming, the person might decide to plead guilty when faced with, like, a very clear videotape of them doing some crimes.
I promised you that every week I would tell you something you don't know (but should) about criminal courts. Today, let's talk about #debt.
What follows below are things I have learned from @FinesandFeesJC, @PSARATHYJONES, @JuvLaw1975 as well as deep research through @pfj_usa on this issue.
Basically, the takeaway is that NOT being in debt is good for safety: when people are stable financially they’re less likely to be put in a position of engaging in harm. partnersforjustice.org/evidence/what-…