Mike Siegel is fearmongering.  

Jose Luis Fuentes actually went to an East Oakland public School with a bullhorn and told high school students blatant lies about how they would all be racially profiled under the Gang Injunction.

John Russo and Tammerlin Drummond are both furious about this reckless and unprofessional behavior. And for good reason.

Watch Russo on video here, explaining why Mike Siegel and Dan Siegel are being misleading and fearmongering.:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=79105

This is a 20 minute interview, with Zennie Abraham who is a staunch advocate for the rights of Oakland's black community.  It's compelling and worth the effort of watching.

Also read Tamerlin Drummond's editorial in the Oakland tribune about how wildly misleading and misguided the Siegels' efforts are:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_16858469

If you want to read fiction, read what Mike Siegel wrote above.

Wow! Thanks for sharing your views, Max. This is another topic with really diverse perspectives. eh?

Susan, could you rephrase that and make it a little more nebulous and a little more patronizing?

Folks: WATCH THE INTERVIEW WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT I LINKED TO ABOVE.  

Zennie asks John tough questions, and the entire exchange is very informative. If you're in disagreement with John Russo for creating the gang injunctions, and if you're also a reasonable person, you owe it to yourself to watch this interview and hear him out. You may be surprised by your reaction. You may still disagree with him. But hear him out.

so, Max, you're guaranteeing that high school students will not be racially-profiled under the gang injunctions?

and just because Zennie Abraham--who was a shrill for Don Perata's failed attempt to buy the Oakland mayoral election--comes out in favor of something, it's supposed to be good for the black community?

Could you make a few more speculative assumptions, please?

This piece is amazing in that almost every sentence is full of misinformation, logical nonsense and/or willful ignorance. Really astounding coming from a couple of members of the bar, who should have some minimum ethical standard.

Rather than correct each point, I’m posting a link to our site, where people can read court documents and see for themselves what this anti-gang injunction actually is and does: http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/Notable/Nortenos%20injunction.html

Just a couple of quick points:

Number one: To pretend that the Norteños don’t really exist, that this gang is not responsible for real suffering and destruction in this city, is either shockingly naïve or a totally cynical distortion of reality. It’s also a slap in the face to every member of our community who has been robbed, shot, hurt or lost loved ones because of this gang.

In this year alone, the Norteños have been involved in almost half of the shootings in the Fruitvale, either as shooters or targets. OPD Captain Allison characterizes the Norteños in Oakland this way: "They are the biggest, most well organized, and the most violent. Of all the gangs, they care more about pure violence rather than maintaining a drug trade or other occupation."

Number two: This injunction will only apply to 40 individual adults who we can prove in court are members of the gang. It’s true that these guys have multiple convictions among them for domestic violence and car theft. If you don’t consider those serious enough, their other adult convictions include: multiple cases of assault with a deadly weapon, multiple robberies, robbery resulting in great bodily injury, carjacking, shooting at an occupied home, dog fighting, fighting in public, obstructing a peace officer by use of force, battery, carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a loaded firearm, felony possession of an assault weapon, possession of body armor, felony possession of a controlled substance while armed with a gun, felony manufacturing a weapon while in prison, discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner and many other gun crimes. Also: drug sales, vandalism, residential and non-residential burglaries, grand theft, receiving stolen property and forgery. Almost all of these crimes occurred/were committed against people in the Fruitvale neighborhood. Most of these guys self-identify as members of the Norteños.

The injunction will not give police any extra power, except to enforce the terms of the judge’s order against these 40 specific people. It will never apply to any minors, period. You say this will alienate young people from the police. It probably will if you keep lying to them and telling them that an injunction will somehow be used against them, that police want to use it to put them all in jail. How does it help young people to mislead and scare them for no reason?  

Last point: this injunction is just one narrow, targeted tool to prevent specific people from continuing to harm this community. Please check the facts and decide for yourself: http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/Notable/Nortenos%20injunction.html

Alex Katz

Oakland City Attorney’s Office

@eric

I wasn't making assumptions.  You're making assumptions based on reading things into what I wrote that I didn't actually say.  

Let me ask you this: did you watch the entire interview with John Russo on this topic? Would you care to refute any point that he makes in the interview?  He's the important person here. He's the one who's actions are of such concern. His opinion matters more than mine does.

If you have an issue with the injunction, I suggest you watch the video, and find a factual point that you can counter with another factual point.  Pick a timestamp in the video where he says something you think is false, and show us why it's false, and show us using evidence rather than hypothesis.

Also if you are concerned that a high school student could being targetted, I suggest you go to the City Attorney's website, look at the list of people named in the injunction, identify any that are young enough to be high school students, and then find out if any of those people are actually attending high school or if they've dropped out.  You might also find out, after the hearing in January, if any such persons have entered into the opt-out program.

The City Attorney has put a huge amount of information out there, and it's very interesting to me that the opposition has not sought to refute any of this information by directly referring to it, and showing why it's incorrect.  I think this is mainly because Russo has made a very strong case showing that his injunction is reasonable, constitutional and just.

Further, Michael and Dan Siegel are good enough lawyers to know that they will have virtually no chance of defeating this injunction in court, because the injunction is completely legal.  So they know they've rallied a community in opposition and that they're setting them up for disappointment.  I believe that the entire exercise for the Siegels is about grandstanding, increasing their own fame as civil rights lawyers, and also about building a political base of extremists to use to support their pet causes in future Oakland elections.

I understand this is an Opinio piece, and as such I appreciate some of the arguments. As a researcher in the criminal justice field, I agree with your stand that gang injunctions are simply inefective in reducing gang-related crime.

I do however, greatly disagree with two of your main points provided. First, you claim that domestic violence does not fall under the 'worst of crimes' (third argument). This could not be farther from the truth. Violence against women is a serious crime and we should not minimize it to try and prove a different point. Gangs, regardless of how one may think or feel about them, are a horrible experience for women, and their perpetuation of violence against women should not be tolerated.

Second, you state that Nortenos are a 'loose' network of Mexican Americans. That may be true- if we are to play with semantics. Yes, Nortenos does refer to Mexicans living/borm in the Northern part of Mex or living in NorCal, but Nortenos are most defenitely a gang very much organized and alive here in Oakland. I invite you to vist the Alameda Juvenile Hall where many of the young men there will tell you about their alliance to the Norteno gang. Please do not dilute your argument by resorting to semantics.

Yes, gang injunctions are innefective and they are a tool for racial profiling.

Ms. Guzman, 

The City Attorney has also repeatedly shown that his injunction does not permit police to make ad-hoc pronouncements based on clothing or ethnicity.  The only people affected by these injunctions are people who have been shown in court through clear and convincing evidence to be involved in a criminal organization.

How does this amount to racial profiling?  I simply don't understand how making law enforcement decisions based on people's deeds and avowed gang affiliation is profiling.  

Another view:

Another view of the Gang Injunctions--Oakland Focus Blog - http://bit.ly/hLEmav

Another view:

Another view of the Gang Injunctions--Oakland Focus Blog - http://bit.ly/hLEmav

i think Mr. Katz makes some good points, and i appreciate his expert opinion, as opposed to the incessant opining that Mr. Allstadt--who appears to have some strange personal fixation with this issue, despite his apparent disinvolvement with any of the particulars-- continually engages in. Without specific context, such as Mr. Katz provides, it's easy to get polarized on both sides here.

Here's my take-away:

1. the Nortenos do exist, they are a gang, it is a problem.

2. the injunction, according to Mr. Katz, is not an excuse for open season on racial profiling of Latinos wearing the color red, but 40 distinct individuals known to be gang members.

So that does address some of my concerns about the targeting of minors and non-gang members who may be unfairly accused of being Nortenos.

However, there is a caveat, in that what Mr. Katz is saying may not necessarily reflect the actual enforcement of the injunction, as interpreted by OPD, which takes place not in the courts, but on the streets. This much remains to be seen. I would like to know what kind of oversight procedures have been set up, if any, to ensure that what Mr. Katz is saying won't happen, will not, in fact, happen.

I will say that, given the nature of the injunction and Oakland's recent and past history, fears of racial profiling, and community outspeak on that issue, don't stem from liberalitis or paranoia, but seem well-grounded in reality.

There's certainly a danger of falsely accusing individuals of being gang mebers who aren't, and thus subjecting them to persecution, harassment, and possibly even false arrest and imprisonment. I noticed that in his response, Mr. Katz didn't mention the 2 individuals originally named in the injunction who the Siegels say weren't gang members. Does removing them from the injunction also end the harassment they have allegedly been subjected to?

We must ask outselves: is it worth violating the civil rights of possibly innocent people in our attempts to reign in those guilty of crimes?

Yes, there are politics involved on both sides of the gang injunction issue. that's why i think the Siegels are right to raise their concerns and not just accept what Russo is saying at face value. The same holds true for Mr. Katz, who points out the serious nature of many of the offenses. I dont think domestic violence should be downplayed, but i also think that the Siegels have a point in that prior convictions may not necessarily be proof positive of active gang incolvement.

What seems to be a point of contention here is whether the injunction refers to 40 known gang members, and/or a wider group who may or may not identify as gang members. It would be nice if Mr. Katz could clear this up for once and for all, since his statements and the Siegels' on this matter directly contradict each other.

Furthermore, to some degree, there are also cultural competancy issues at work here, which speaks to the need for more outreach and transition programs to ensure we are not just continuing a pattern of arrest/incarceration/recidivism, which is where i think the perceived ineffectualness of these injunctions comes into play.

Do we have enough Spanish-speaking officers? Are we prioritizing arrests or counseling? How are we improving the quality of life in Fruitvale via jobs and education to ensure that young kids don't just follow into gang life (as too often is the case)?

These are hard questions, my friends, with no easy answers.

But we must ask them, and keep asking them, until we do have some answers.

just my .02.

The misappropriation and abuse of the city attorney's office on this issue has been disgusting!  It is clear that Russo is merely trying to gain favor with his buddy Don Perata's employer the California Correctional Peace Officer's Association and with Oakland Police Officer's union for another bid at the State Assembly seat when Sandre Swanson is termed out.  This rogue city attorney is operating without city approval and  is building his career climbing political campaign by abusing and wasting valuable tax payers resources for a strategy that has proven to be ineffective at reducing crime everywhere else it has been implemented., according to the empirical research such as the report done by the Justice Policy Institute.  City Attorney Russo and Cheif Batts have never provided any empirical data to show that the injunction has been effective in North Oakland because in fact there a spike in crime after it was temporarily implemented.  While community based service providers are held to the standard of using eveidence based methods proving the absolute efficacy of their work, Russo and Batts expect Oakalnd residents to just take their word for it when they say that they have heard anecdotally that things are better in North Oakland as a result of the injunction - what happened to being factual? In the current economic climate of budget cuts when much needed resources and services are being slashed, Oakland cannot afford to stand by while this opportunistic city attorney abuses his position and office whothout the consent of the people of Oakland. Those resources should be reappropriated to support emplyment, re-entry, sfter-school programs and strategies that will translate into safer and healthier communities!

Hi folks,

This is definitely the beauty of the Internet: we can have a town hall-type forum from the comfort of our homes.  To respond to some of Mr. Arnold's questions, I have written another piece that elaborates on how the injunction will have direct impacts far beyond the 42 named individuals.  See http://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-siegel/how-gang-injunctions-affect-the-broader-community-racial-profiling-and-the-suppr/470974061397 and below.

With respect,

Michael

Dear Oakland Community,

As some of you are well aware, I have volunteered my services as a civil rights attorney for the individuals targeted by John Russo's "gang injunction" for the Fruitvale community.  I have engaged in this struggle for many reasons.  To keep it short and sweet, however, I will say this: the injunctions are a clumsy, expensive, and ineffective law enforcement tool that oppresses people of color, wastes precious government resources, ruptures trust between community and police, and generally causes more harm than good.  That said, I write to you to respond to two accusations: one, made by City Attorney John Russo, that we are "lying" when we say that the injunction facilitates racial profiling; and two, made by an Oakland Tribune editorial, that we are full of "horse manure" by saying that young people are demonized by the injunction.  See 

http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=2052382&nId=3&spid=25697 and 

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_16858469.

Big picture, I'd like to make note that very powerful institutions are out there calling volunteer civil rights attorneys "liars" and full of "manure."  This is interesting to me.  You wouldn't think that the people that represent the powers that be would need to sling such mud.  I'd like to think that this is a sign that we are doing the right thing by resisting the injunctions -- we are disturbing the status quo that has tolerated racial oppression for as long as European settlers have populated these shores, "from sea to shining sea."

To get to the specifics, however, here's the legal breakdown of why the proposed Fruitvale gang injunction will (a) increase racial profiling and (b) lead to the demonization of young people.

The Tribune writer, Ms. Drummond, would have us believe that the injunction is "carefully tailored" and only applies for specific individuals.  She is wrong.  Here is how the proposed Fruitvale injunction applies much more broadly.  Under the terms of the complaint, as filed by John Russo, the lawsuit is against (a) 42 named individuals; (b) 70 additional individuals, identified only as John Does numbered 1-70; and (c) "Nortenos, a criminal street gang sued as an unincorporated association." Because of (b) and (c), the lawsuit extends far beyond the named people.

Here is one example of how this can play out.  An "unincorporated association" is a common legal form for an organization -- a labor union is one example.  When a labor union is subject to an injunction -- for example, to cease and desist employing an unfair labor practice -- the court will usually issue an order against the officers, the members, and the supporters of the union.  Here, the same would happen: all "supporters" of the Nortenos are potentially subject to the injunction.

In order to determine who is subject to the injunction, the judge will consider evidence provided by law enforcement.  Police, as they have done in declarations provided in this case, will utilize criteria such as clothing, tattoos, and who someone associates with.  In this way, "Nortenos" can be interpreted broadly to include all sorts of people who "associate" with suspected gang members, including youth, family members, all sorts of innocent folks.  Although a judge needs to give approval before a specific name is added to the injunction, that does not limit who police will be questioning, profiling, stopping, frisking, photographing, and so forth.

This is where the "John Does 1 through 70" comes in.  We (the legal team, and others) believe that some of these John Does are placeholders until certain individuals become adults.  Thus, the police are actively profiling countless youth -- noting who they hang with, what color their belt is, whether they hold spray paint cans, etc. -- in order to determine who should be added to the injunction .  Already, the City Attorney has filed numerous court documents that include information about juveniles under surveillance.  And, without a doubt, the amount of surveillance far exceeds what Russo has filed in court.

Now, if either the City Attorney or the Tribune writer had asked me -- in advance of publicly attacking me -- I could have provided this information.  I fear that the truth is not their concern, however.  Hopefully, you can spread the word, and help me correct the record.

In solidarity,

Michael Siegel

P.S.  On a related note: did you know that gang injunctions are a relic of Jim Crow laws?  Check out this article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45355572