MEDIA RELEASE: MOVE 9 Member Mike Africa Released on Parole After 40 Years in Prison

October 23, 2018

Earlier today, MOVE member Mike Africa was released from prison after 40 years of incarceration. Mike was released on parole from SCI Phoenix in Skippak Township this morning.

Mike was imprisoned since August 8, 1978, following an altercation between the Philadelphia police and the MOVE Organization. Mike is one of 9 MOVE members, collectively known as the “MOVE 9,” who were convicted and sentenced to 30-100 years in prison following the altercation.

Mike’s wife Debbie Africa was also one of the MOVE 9. Debbie was eight months pregnant at the time of the incident and gave birth in jail to their son, Mike Africa Jr. Mike Sr. has been incarcerated for his son’s entire life and today was the first opportunity for the father and son to spend time together outside of prison.

Mike Sr. and his wife Debbie maintained their relationship despite both being in incarcerated and separated from one other for 40 years. In June of this year, Debbie became the first member of the MOVE 9 to be released from prison. Today marks the first time that Mike Sr., Debbie and their son Mike Jr. have ever spent time all together.


“After being born in jail and never being with my parents, I’m happy to be with my mom and dad at home for the first time ever in forty years,” said Mike Africa, Jr. He continued “But this struggle isn’t over. There are still MOVE members behind bars who deserve to be reunited with their families and loved ones, just like my mom and dad can now be with me and the rest of their family.”


Mike Sr. has been eligible for parole since 2008 and went before the Pennsylvania Board or Probation and Parole (PBPP) for the tenth time in September of this year. Mike’s legal team submitted a packet in support of his parole petition, detailing Mike’s exemplary prison record, his educational accomplishments in prison and over 75 letters in support of parole. These included letters from religious leaders, retired DOC staff who knew him personally and former prisoners who described the positive influence Mike had on them. Mike also received recommendations for parole from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), Corrections expert and former DOC Secretary Martin Horn, and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.


One of Mike’s lawyers, Brad Thomson, of the Chicago-based People’s Law Office, said, “Mike’s record in prison was exceptional and demonstrated that he was an excellent candidate for parole. With this decision, the Parole Board recognizes that Mike, like Debbie, and the rest of the MOVE 9, poses absolutely no threat to the community.” Thomson went on to say, “This victory would not have been possible without the decades of organizing and advocacy spearheaded by the MOVE organization and their supporters.”


Bret Grote, of Abolitionist Law Center, another lawyer for the MOVE 9, stated, “This historic release of Mike Africa renders the Parole Board’s decision to deny the rest of the MOVE 9 all the more incomprehensible. For example, Janet and Janine Africa have both maintained DOC records that are as exemplary as Mike’s and essentially identical to that of Debbie, yet they were inexplicably denied parole this past May.” Grote and Thomson recently filed petitions for habeas corpus on behalf of Janet and Janine in federal court, challenging their parole denials.


In addition to Janet and Janine, three other members of the MOVE 9 remain incarcerated, as two (Merle Africa and Phil Africa) died in custody. All five surviving members of the MOVE 9 (Janet, Janine, Chuck, Eddie and Delbert Africa) have been eligible for parole since 2008 and have been repeatedly denied parole when appearing before the PBPP.


During the August 8, 1978 altercation, a Philadelphia police officer was killed and following a highly politicized and controversial trial, the MOVE 9 were convicted of third-degree homicide. All nine were sentenced to 30-100 years in prison.


Brad Thomson, bradjaythomson[at] ,773-297-9689

Mike Africa Jr.,,



Time to Fight Back: Statement from Legal Counsel in Support of Professor George Ciccariello-Maher

June 4, 2017: The Abolitionist Law Center, together with Eisner & Dictor, P.C. have been retained by tenured Professor George Ciccariello-Maher as legal counsel for the purpose of defending him from the ongoing efforts of reactionary forces to pressure Drexel University to unlawfully terminate him. Following months of concerted harassment of Professor Ciccariello-Maher and his employer, including numerous death threats against Ciccariello-Maher, Drexel University has caved into pressure and convened a so-called “Committee of Inquiry” to review unspecified “conduct” of the Professor in light of unspecified University “policies.” In doing so the University has intimated that the Committee may recommend termination of Professor Ciccariello-Maher’s employment.

As the Professor’s legal counsel we have notified Drexel University that any termination of his employment would be beyond the authority of this Committee as it has been constituted in violation of the University policy requiring that discipline or adverse action against tenured faculty must “be carried out under the standards approved by the American association of University Professors (AAUP).”[1] These standards are set forth in the AAUP’s Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings[2] and its Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.[3] The Committee of Inquiry has not been formed and is not proceeding pursuant to these standards, and as such any adverse action against Professor Ciccariello-Maher would be patently unlawful.

To be clear: any adverse employment action taken against Professor Ciccariello-Maher in this matter will render the University liable for breach of contract.

Thus, we are demanding that Drexel University abide by its avowed commitment to academic freedom and cease the ominous and unjustifiable inquiry into his political speech and opinions. The mere formation of the Committee of Inquiry that is investigating Professor Ciccariello-Maher’s “conduct” to ascertain if any “policies” of the University have been violated represents a dangerous, chilling precedent for any academic whose opinions or modes of expression contravene political orthodoxies.

On Saturday, June 3, in response to a request that Professor Ciccariello-Maher address the Committee, we wrote the Committee and the Provost requesting information regarding the conduct being investigated, the policies at issue, and the AAUP standards being used. We informed the Committee of the following:

This is a very serious matter. In recent months, Professor Ciccariello-Maher has been the subject of a concerted attack by forces of right-wing revanchism, including hordes of neo-Nazis and white supremacists of the alt-right, Fox news, and Pennsylvania Republican Party State Senators. These forces are broadly aligned around a virulent and reactionary project of chauvinistic nationalism that is mobilizing racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic elements of society pursuant to a politics of scapegoating. Academic freedom and free speech are values to be protected with even greater vigilance in such an environment. This Committee must critically and fearlessly evaluate how Drexel University has allowed itself to be put in a position where it is enabling these forces. Anything less falls woefully far beneath the standards of academic freedom that are supposed to animate a democratic society.

We are heartened to see the emerging mobilization on behalf of Professor Ciccariello-Maher and look forward to working with his supporters and all the others who are mobilizing against the ceaseless rightwing attacks on public intellectuals who make principled and serious commitments to combating white supremacy, challenging police violence, struggling for social transformation, supporting movements for liberation, and fostering an ethic of solidarity. Make no mistake about it, Professor Ciccariello-Maher is being targeted because he has made such commitments, and we will diligently participate in the fight back on behalf of our client.


/s/ Bret Grote

Bret Grote, Esquire

Legal Director
Abolitionist Law Center


/s/ Benjamin N. Dictor

Benjamin N. Dictor, Esq.

Eisner & Dictor, P.C.


[1] Drexel University Tenure and Promotion Policy, § VII. Termination of Tenured Faculty.

[2] Accessible at:

[3] Accessible at:

Abu-Jamal v. Kane – Silencing Act Declared Unconstitutional

Attorneys, plaintiffs, and supporters after trial of Abu-Jamal v. Kane
Attorneys, plaintiffs, and supporters after trial of Abu-Jamal v. Kane

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Chief Judge for the federal court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Christopher Connor, ruled in favor of plaintiffs in the consolidated cases of Abu-Jamal v. Kane and Prison Legal News v. Kane and held the recently enacted Silencing Act unconstitutional.

Abu-Jamal v. Kane-4.28.15 decision

The court held:

“The court concludes that the challenged statute betrays several constitutional requirements; the enactment is unlawfully purposed, vaguely executed, and patently overbroad in scope. However well-intentioned its legislative efforts, the General Assembly fell woefully short of the mark. The result is a law that is manifestly unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to plaintiffs. Thus, the court is compelled to grant plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief, declare the Revictimization Relief Act, 18 PA. CONS.STAT. § 11.1304, to be violative of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and permanently enjoin its enforcement.”

The so-called Revictimization Relief Act was passed in response to Abolitionist Law Center client and imprisoned intellectual and journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal’s commencement address to Goddard College students in October 2014. Abu-Jamal’s commencement address led to yet another campaign of repression and censorship by the Fraternal Order of Police and the Pennsylvania political establishment designed to silence Mumia and any other former or current prisoner who’s speech roused the ire of prosecutors or crime victims.

In a crushing victory, the court found that all of the plaintiffs’ primary arguments against the constitutionality of the statute had merit: “Plaintiffs assert three principal challenges: first, that the Act is a content-based regulation of speech unjustified by compelling government interests; second, that it is impermissibly vague; and third, that it is substantially overbroad, all in violation of the United States Constitution. Each challenge is meritorious.”

Finding the statute “unlawfully purposed,” the court chastised the legislature for passing a law that was “manifestly unconstitutional” on account of the U.S. Supreme Court holding more than 20 years ago that restricting free expression for the purpose of protecting crime victims from mental anguish is unconstitutional:

“In the Revictimization Act, the Commonwealth articulates that which the state of New York in Simon & Schuster did not—an explicit intent to enjoin expression that causes mental anguish in crime victims. Compare 18 PA. CONS.STAT. § 11.1304 (“Revictimization Relief Act” (emphasis added)), with Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at 118 (“The [state] disclaims, as it must, any interest in suppressing descriptions of crime out of solicitude for the sensibilities of readers.”). Simon & Schuster, in conjunction with decades of Supreme Court precedent, seals the Act’s fate. Even the noblest governmental intentions cannot cure impermissible legislation when the United States Supreme Court has explicitly foreclosed the legislation’s purpose. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at 118; see also Snyder, 131 S.Ct. at 1218 (holding that even when expression “inflict[s] great pain … we cannot react … by punishing the speaker”). Hence, the court must strike the Revictimization Relief Act for its impermissible infringement on the constitutional guarantee of free expression.”

The court observed that the law was so indefensible that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania’s counsel was forced to distort the legislative intent of the statute in a futile effort to argue that the law conformed with constitutional precedent:

“During oral argument, the Attorney General conceded that her office is uncertain whether even Maureen Faulkner—the victim- catalyst for the legislation—could successfully obtain relief under the Act. (Tr. 35:25 (“They could certainly attempt to … [but] I don’t believe that they could necessarily secure it.”)). Such equivocality reflects the impossibility of defending this law: the weight of precedent has forced the Attorney General to contort the legislature’s vision so as to render it unrecognizable from its original intent. (See, e.g., id.)”

The opinion concluded with First Amendment truisms as well as an acknowledgment that the legal and appropriate way to counter speech one disagrees with is by speech, not repressive legislation:

“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech extends to convicted felons whose expressive conduct is ipso facto controversial or offensive. The right to free expression is the shared right to empower and uplift, and to criticize and condemn; to call to action, and to beg restraint; to debate with rancor, and to accede with reticence; to advocate offensively, and to lobby politely. Indeed, the “high purpose” of the foremost amendment is perhaps best displayed through its protection of speech that some find reprehensible. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 408–09 (“[Free speech] may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949))). The United States Constitution precludes any state enactment that effectively limits expressive conduct when
the essential injury is personal affront. 13 See Coleman, 335 F.Supp. at 589.
The victims who have suffered at the hands of certain plaintiffs are not without remedies. Victims are free to protest inmate speech through demonstrations, picketing, or public debate. They may publish responsive leaflets and editorials. As Maureen Faulkner did, victims may air their grievances to the press. Indeed, the victims’ discourse may include expressive conduct that plaintiffs themselves find objectionable. The First Amendment does not evanesce at any gate, and its enduring guarantee of freedom of speech subsumes the right to expressive conduct that some may find offensive.”

Abu-Jamal v. Kane-4.28.15 decision

Prisoners and Advocacy Groups Win Right to a Trial On Constitutionality of the Silencing Act (PA SB508)

Mumia Abu-Jamal This afternoon, Chief Judge for the federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Christopher Conner, ruled that Plaintiffs in the cases Abu-Jamal v. Kane and Prison Legal News v. Kane had standing against Attorney General Kane to seek a ruling on the constitutionality of the Silencing Act, a censorship law targeted at Mumia Abu-Jamal and other currently and formerly incarcerated people.

Read the decision here – Abu-Jamal v. Kane

Defendant Seth Williams was dismissed from the case based on his explicit disavowal of enforcing the act until a court of competent jurisdiction rules on the constitutionality of the statute. His dismissal does not hinder Plaintiffs ability to obtain the relief of invalidating this law, as a favorable ruling on the First Amendment issue against Defendant Kane will achieve the same result. Williams’ disavowal of enforcement is a far cry from his political grandstanding in support of this bill’s passage in the fall.

The judge has ordered Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to be merged with a trial on the merits, meaning that if we win we will be granted a permanent injunction against the statute, and the statue will be invalidated.

“Silencing prisoners is one more way of dehumanizing them,” said Amistad Law Project Policy Director Nikki Grant. “We need the voices of the marginalized to shed light on injustice.”

The trial is set for March 30 in Harrisburg, PA approximately 5 months since former Governor Corbett signed this ill-fated bill into law on October 21st 2015.

The Abolitionist Law Center, Amistad Law Project, and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law filed the lawsuit on Nov. 10th to stop enforcement of the law. The law firms represent Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal, Kerry “Shakaboona” Marshall, Robert L. Holbrook, Donnell Palmer, Anthony Chance, and Human Rights Coalition.

The Silencing Act, also known as 18 P.S. § 11.1304, allows the Attorney General, county District Attorneys, and victims of personal injury crimes to bring a lawsuit in civil court against the person convicted of the personal injury crime to enjoin conduct that “perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim”. The actions that could prompt a lawsuit include “conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.”

“This law is unconstitutional,” said David Shapiro of MacArthur Justice Center. “The facts are on our side and the law is on our side. The Silencing Act targets a huge amount of constitutionally protected speech based on who is speaking.”

After a prerecorded commencement speech by journalist and prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal was played for graduates at Goddard College in Vermont, the Pennsylvania legislature passed and outgoing Governor Corbett signed into law the Silencing Act on October 21st, 16 days after the commencement speech.

Abu-Jamal has spent 33 years in prison, 29 of which were in solitary confinement on death row after being convicted at a 1982 trial that Amnesty International said “failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings.”

Robert L. Holbrook, who is serving a death by incarceration, life without parole, sentence he received as a child, had this to say about the law: “there are people in prison who will stop writing, stop publishing, stop speaking out because of this law.”

Bret Grote 412-654-9070

Ashley Henderson 215-310-0424

Noelle Hanrahan 415-706-5222

David Shapiro 312-503-0711


Amistad Law Project is a West Philadelphia-based public interest law center. Our mission is to fight for the human rights of all people by providing legal services to people incarcerated in Pennsylvania’s prisons. | @amistadlaw | 267-225-5884

The Abolitionist Law Center is a public interest law firm inspired by the struggle of political and politicized prisoners, and organized for the purpose of abolishing class and race based mass incarceration in the United States. @AbolitionistLC | 412-654-9070

Prison Radio has recorded Mumia and other political prisoners for over 25 years, and we are pulling out all the stops to keep these voices on the air. 415-706-5222 Please donate today to amplify prisoners’ voices far and wide beyond the bars: Support Prison Radio: Defeat SB 508:

MEDIA RELEASE: Lawsuit seeks to invalidate outgoing Governor’s censorship statute

Prisoners, human rights advocates, scholars, and media sue to prevent enforcement of “Silence Mumia Law”

November 10, 2014: Pittsburgh, PA – A lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania censorship law intended to silence Mumia Abu-Jamal and others convicted of personal injury crimes was filed today, less than one month after outgoing Governor Corbett signed the bill into law as part of his failed re-election campaign.

Download the Complaint: Abu-Jamal v. Kane

The Abolitionist Law Center, Amistad Law Project, and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center are representing Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal, Kerry “Shakaboona” Marshall, Robert L. Holbrook, and Human Rights Coalition in a lawsuit against Attorney General Kathleen Kane and Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams that was filed today in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Senate Bill 508 allows the Attorney General, county District Attorneys, and victims of personal injury crimes to bring a lawsuit in civil court against the person convicted of the personal injury crime to enjoin conduct that “perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim”. The actions that could prompt a lawsuit include “conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.”

“This law is clearly unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania legislature and Governor Corbett wanted to use Mumia Abu-Jamal to score political points and passed a law that can’t pass constitutional muster. We’re suing Attorney General Kane and Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams before they can sue to keep Mumia from speaking publicly,” said Bret Grote, Legal Director of the Abolitionist Law Center.

On October 16th, days after Mumia Abu-Jamal’s prerecorded commencement speech was played for graduates at Goddard College in Vermont, the Pennsylvania House passed Senate Bill 508. The bill was passed in the Pennsylvania Senate the next day and Governor Corbett signed it into law on October 21st, 16 days after Abu-Jamal’s commencement speech.

Abu-Jamal has spent 33 years in prison, 30 of which were in solitary confinement on death row after being convicted at a 1982 trial that Amnesty International said “failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings.”

Abu-Jamal has given three commencement addresses in the past: another for Goddard College in 2008; one for Antioch College in Ohio in 2000; and one for Evergreen College in Washington state in 1999. He has recorded more than 3,000 essays, published seven books in nine languages, with two more books set for publication in 2015, and has been the subject of three major broadcast and theatrical movies. The latest film, Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary, is currently airing on the Starz network, sold out theatres coast to coast, and has sold more than 20,000 DVDs.

“This is not the first time Pennsylvania has tried to silence Mumia,” said Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio. “The Department of Corrections has punished Mumia for speaking publicly and eliminated in-person broadcast media visits with all prisoners in response pressure from the Fraternal Order of Police.” In November 1996, the DOC responded to FOP pressure by eliminating in-person broadcast media visits with all prisoners.

In May 1994, a regular series of commentaries by Abu-Jamal were planned for broadcast by National Public Radio program All Things Considered. NPR fired Abu-Jamal after having its funding threatened on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The Department of Corrections punished Abu-Jamal for violating a prison rule that forbade prisoners from conducting a business or profession. The Third Circuit found that enforcing the rule against Abu-Jamal would cause him irreparable harm under the First Amendment.

“The Pennsylvania legislature has targeted Mumia Abu-Jamal and in the process swept up a whole host of people in prison and people who have come home,” said Nikki Grant, Policy Director of Amistad Law Project. “The fact that this bill is even on the books makes it less likely that people who have been convicted of personal injury crimes will speak out publicly. These are the people who are already most marginalized in our society.”

The Human Rights Coalition, another plaintiff to the lawsuit, is consistently critical of human rights violations within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and is comprised of prisoners, prisoners’ family members, formerly incarcerated people, and community activists. “Human Rights Coalition utilizes the voices, input, and leadership of people in prison in all of our work,” said Patricia Vickers of Human Rights Coalition. “We also document prison abuse and are concerned that this law will make people fearful of reporting abuse.”

“People who have been harmed by violence need relief–counseling, healing, restoration. Stifling speech doesn’t provide any of that,” said Amistad Law Project Legal Director Ashley Henderson.

“How can the state’s legislators pass and politicians sign the recent law described as the ‘Muzzle Mumia Act’?” said Mumia Abu-Jamal. “They can’t. At least not constitutionally. In order to do so they had to knowingly and willingly violate both the U.S. and state constitutions and their very oaths of office.”


Ashley Henderson                                                  215-310-0424

Noelle Hanrahan                                                   415-706-5222

Bret Grote                                                  412-654-9070


Free Speech and Historical Truth in the Case of the Lucasville 5-plus: Journalists and prisoners file lawsuit against censorship in Ohio prisons


Journalists, a professor, and a group of prisoners brought a civil rights lawsuit against Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) officials on Monday, December 9, asserting that prison officials violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in restricting media access to prisoners convicted of crimes related to the 1993 Lucasville prison uprising in order to stifle public discussion.

“The First Amendment guarantees to all people the right of free speech; this right cannot be extinguished at prison walls,” said Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Prisoners have a right to speak.  The public has the right to know.   Suppressing the freedom of speech of prisoners has only one purpose: to keep the truth from being reported.”

The complaint states three causes of action:

1)    Prison officials are denying media requests based on the anticipated content of the interviews in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment;

2)    Prison officials do not have a rational basis for denying media interviews with prisoners convicted of crimes stemming from the 1993 Lucasville prison uprising in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment;

3)    The restrictions on media and public access to information are unreasonable restrictions on speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

The media plaintiffs are Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Christopher Hedges, James Ridgeway of Solitary Watch, and Derrick Jones, a theater and film instructor at Bowling Green State University. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio is representing the plaintiffs.

All five prisoner-plaintiffs were framed for homicides that occurred during the 1993 Lucasville prison uprising. The uprising lasted 11 days. Nine prisoners and one prison guard were killed during the uprising.

Siddique Abdullah Hasan, Keith Lamar (aka Bomani Shakur), Jason Robb, and George Skatzes are four of the prisoner-plaintiffs who are part of a group collectively referred to as the Lucasville 5-plus. These men were framed and sentenced to death for homicides that occurred during the 1993 Lucasville uprising, and have been held in solitary confinement for the last 20 years, fighting Ohio’s ongoing efforts to execute them. The “plus” refers to the numerous other prisoners framed up in the aftermath of the uprising who received sentences other than death.

A fifth prisoner-plaintiff, Gregory Curry, is serving a life sentence after being convicted for a homicide occurring during the riot in a trial fraught with perjured testimony, suppressed evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct.

As the state persists in its efforts to execute the Lucasville 5, the fight over historical truth continues as well, with lives hanging in the balance. Access to media in this context involves more than the protection of an abstract right, but instead implicates the most fundamental questions about the humanity of people in prison and the tyranny of the state.

The lawsuit claims “Defendants and their predecessors have for twenty years denied all face-to-face media access to prisoners convicted of crimes committed during the April 1993 uprising[.]” In addition to denying requests by Hanrahan, Ridgeway, Jones, and Hedges for interviews with prisoners convicted of crimes related to the uprising, reporters from the Columbus Dispatch, the San Francisco Bay View, and the Associated Press in Columbus have been denied access to those prisoners as well.

In contrast, prisoners convicted of crimes that are unrelated to the 1993 uprising have been permitted to speak with journalists and media workers from WTVG 13 (ABC Toledo), The New York Times, Fox 25 News in Lima, Ohio, French national TV channel France 2, the Edinburgh Evening News, BBC News, Channel 35 in Lima, Ohio, Towers Productions in Chicago, News of the World of Glasgow, Sunday Post of Glasgow, The Times of London, Cicada Films, and WJW-TV in Cleveland, Ohio.

The lawsuit is the latest effort by supporters of the Lucasville 5-plus to challenge the state of Ohio’s efforts to control the factual narrative and the political meaning of the Lucasville uprising. Staughton Lynd, a lifelong political activist, author of several books (including Lucasville: The Untold Story of a Prison Uprising), and attorney has stated, “the truth about these events remains untold in the courts as well as in the media.”

ALC will continue to follow this case and support efforts for the Lucasville 5-plus.

Five Things You Need to Know About Solitary Confinement


NEW YORK/PITTSBURGH — By Bret Grote and Kanya D’Almeida. This article was first published by Ecosocialist Horizons

Stop the average person on the street in any major city in the United States and ask them if they were aware that for 60 days this summer scores of U.S. citizens were on a sustained hunger strike; the vast majority will tell you they had no idea. Continue reading “Five Things You Need to Know About Solitary Confinement”