national lawyers guild guilty?

We, the Bay Area National Lawyers Guild's Executive Committee, are greatly
dismayed at yesterday's posting on ANSWER's email list falsely accusing the
Guild of not supporting the anti-war movement and making other false
accusations. At the time when the left needs to be pulling together, this
type of a clearly divisive campaign attacking the Guild stands in the way of
the Guild doing the progressive work we always do. Let us respond briefly:

1. The Guild is run by an elected Executive Board (EB) of committed,
progressive members. The Board has supported every ANSWER demonstration
event, it demarcated post 9/11 work as priority work for the Guild, and its
fall fundraiser for this year is dedicated to supporting the anti-war
demonstrators. Statements that we equivocated in our opposition of the war
against Iraq are false and intentionally divisive. The EB has been a
stalwart in supporting the Guild's post 9/11 and anti-war work. Though we
salute our Program Director's work in this area, we equally salute our
membership and our Board in their unequivocal support of this work. Other
statements in this posting were equally false, and the Board isn't out to
get its Program Director, isn't a bunch of Zionists. The Board has actively
supported numerous demonstrations protesting Israelis actions in the
occupied territories, and is actively involved in organizing against Bush's
attacks against Palestinians and other Arab nationals.

2. Our program director, Riva Enteen, is responsible to the elected
leadership of our chapter. She is not being driven out of the organization.
She is NOT under a gag order that forbids her to talk about her job
performance or her employment. Indeed, it is only the EB that is under a
"gag order". As her employer, we are required to, and do, respect her right
to confidentiality. We aren't' allowed to discuss personnel issues by law.
There has been a discussion about this on the Guild's own listserv, and the
Guild chapter has been made aware that we can't discuss these matters unless
and until Riva waives her confidentiality. Riva has been asked whether she
wishes to waive her confidentiality so that the Guild membership can be made
aware of the issues surrounding Riva's job performance, but Riva has
declined to allow the EB to share the facts with the Guild membership. This
is her right, but for ANSWER and other organization to lob false information
and attacks at how we handle personnel matters without knowing the FACTS,
and instead rely upon rumor, innuendo and malicious one side statements,
isn't helpful to our organization or the left in this country.

3. We understand that the signers of this letter may come from a good
place, in their intent to support progressive movements, but, other
organizations have absolutely no knowledge of the performance issues
involving Guild staff. We are dismayed that organizations have jumped to
conclusions of wrongdoing without attempting to contact the leadership of
the organization to even attempt to hear the other side of the story. We
are 100% confident that we have and always have treated our staff fairly and
with respect.

4. Personnel issues can be difficult, but they are confidential. If there
are issues involving performance, they can't be aired or decided by a
multitude of organizations. They certainly can't be determined where the
Guild, by law, simply can't share its side of the story.

5. We are a democratically run organization. We elect leadership once a
year. We operate under a union contract and have never been in violation of
any provision of the union contract. The union contract has a grievance
procedure to resolve all grievances from staff and all personnel matters.
As we respect your respective organizations, we ask you to respect our. If
there are personnel matters, the grievance procedure will address them.

We wish to continue to work with and support all progressive organizations
in the Bay Area. Please allow us to continue our work, supporting our motto
that human rights shall be regarded as more sacred than property interests,
and our proud tradition as the legal arm of the movement.

In Solidarity,

The SF Bay Area National Lawyers Guild Executive Committee

The foregoing is a draft statement from the EC.... Even though it has yet to have full approval... I posted it... because....something is needed

Hi,

As one of the co-founders of the staff union inside the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), I want to praise the NLG for its legal work, and point out that the reason there is a union inside the NLG is the organization’s long history of abusive practices toward hired staff.

When progressive lawyers and legal workers take on the role of managers, they can be just as oppressive and arbitrary as the worst corporate bosses. Sure, it is a contradiction, but it is a fact.

Riva has long been active in the staff union and has a history of holding the NLG to its contract on important issues, and yet being flexible when it comes to working long hours on behalf of movement activists.

Clearly, the managers in the S.F. chapter are setting up Riva Enteen for termination. They are making a record to "justify" this termination, and creating an abusive and oppressive work environment.

All the fancy and high-sounding language about the Guild being democratic is just the same pile of crap that every management shovels out when it is trying to crack a union and break a worker. Sure, it is annoying when a manager has to abide by a contract, but the contract is what protects the worker.

So keep praising and supporting the NLG for its history and practice of defending the movement for social change, but hold it accountable for its thuggish and punitive treatment of workers such as my friend and colleague Riva Enteen.

Chip Berlet
Legal worker member of NLG since 1973
Co-founder, NLG staff union

JOLLY good show old man! Tut tut!

As the other full time staff member (for over 11 years) of the SF Bay Area chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, I have watched these young "activists" coming in and trying to take over the chapter. (The RCP did a similar thing in the 80s). They are spreading lies and rumours about what is going on at the Guild.
This is the same group that would go to different parts of the country and tell other activists the "right" way to protest and do civil disobedience (calling themselves a law collective with nobody who is an attorney). They would then move on and leave the locals to deal with the aftermath. ( Very colonial.)

They bought into a lie that Riva is under pressure due to her politics. This is absolute and utter nonsense. Riva has enjoyed unparalleled freedom to do whatever she wanted to do and get paid for it. (This issue alone has been raised by many members - is that position a paid activist position or should it be a position that organizes our members?) The Executive Board (elected by the membership) has tried to give direction to Riva as staff person. Unfortunately Riva does not want any direction by anyone and has resisted any and all attempts. There are many other problems that I have personally witnessed as well. Many of our younger members have left the organization because of their frustration with Riva.

We are a membership attorney bar association. We are not an activist organization open to everyone. Staff should take direction from the Board not the other way around. While I understand that Riva is popular with certain groups of activists, they do not set the agenda for the NLG nor its staff.

This is an internal Guild matter and has no business being spread around the net. People need to stop spreading these lies.

Seems reasonable. That doesn't count for much on these threads though.

As an attorney member of the NLG, I want to say how sad I am to learn of both this situation generally and the reaction to it by those who wish to oust Riva Enteen.

Riva has been a well-known and respected part of the Guild for over a decade. The above references to her doing "whatever she wanted" in fact refer to her taking amazing initiative and organizing new programs. I can think of no better way for someone to serve and organize the members of the NLG than through creating real, strong, professional programs that respond to the patriot act, detentions, aggressive war, and the other developments that the Guild has faced the past couple of years. Riva has organized the response of the progressive legal community to these events, and done so in the name of the NLG. That's exactly what I and most members are looking for from this organization.

I am also saddened by the attack on Midnight Special, and particularly the suggestion that their involvement in the NLG is some kind of hostile takeover, or that they are spreading lies. They are clearly legal worker members of the NLG and have every right to respond when the Board is engaging in actions that they believe harms the NLG. Law collectives seeing the Guild as their organization has stregthened both the NLG and the collectives.

Those of us who know both Riva and MSLC by their work welcome it being done in the name of and in cooperation with the Guild. As members, we have an interest in seeing that work and those relationships continue. Its cessation would have serious consequences both within the Guild and in the community of which the Guild is a part, and it is appropriate for this discussion to take place and for those factors to be considered. I hope there has not been irreparable harm here already.

I write here only to correct one major misconception mentioned by Chip Berlet but heard often in discussions about the NLG and its unionized workforce.

The idea of the union had nothing to do with oppressed workers, or working conditions, or anything else that might fit into a traditional union/management context.

The idea was to join a union so that the National Office Staff could get low cost medical and dental benefits.

How do I know this? Because it was my idea! I dreamed it up, I organized the first meeting with what was then District Council 65 in New York, and I talked it up in the NEC.

This was in 1978 or 1979 when I was in the National Office, my law partner Constance Carpenter was on the NEC, Hank DiSuvero and then Paul Harris were the Presidents of the organization. The National Office was run as a collective; we were (as I recall) paid $150 a week, and had no (NO!) health or dental insurance. District Council 65 was a break away union from the AFL-CIO over Taft Hartley (anti-communist) issues and ran its own medical and dental clinic right out of the union hall. (Which was located a few blocks from the NLG office at 853 Broadway.)

The idea seemed so simple then: join a union, get medical benefits; Stay healthy and still get to work for a progressive cause. So the staff union was not born out of struggle, or oppression, but rather out of the need for a good teeth cleaning every six months.

Dan Mayfield
dan [at] carpenterandmayfield.com

Wearing my hat as the Legal Worker Vice President of the National Lawyers Guild, I disagree with this unnamed "concerned NLG member" (are you really?) that the Midnight Law Collective fits under the Guild's definition of Legal Worker (which for the Bay Area Chapter of the NLG is defined in the Bylaws). They do not work in the legal field. They are activists doing political work. The NLG is a professional bar association for whom membership is open to those whose careers are in the legal arena. Calling yourself a "Legal Collective" does not make it so. Nor does their role fit the definition of legal worker as stated in the bylaws.

Your characterization of what is going on and what Riva does is extremely flawed. I know because I have sat in the same office with her for over 11 years. We have lost many of our younger chapter members because of their frustration of trying to lead the organization and having met resistance from staff.

BTW what new programs? The Know Your Rights -post 911 Guild actions were not started by Riva. The FBI/INS hotline was not started by Riva. The demo support against the war was not started by Riva. Check your facts. You do a great disservice to those NLG members who in fact instigated those efforts by not giving credit where it is due.

The NLG National Staff Union:
A record set straight with documentation

By Chip Berlet

Memory is a tricky thing. This account is based on union files in my possession.

The current NLG national staff union began when the NLG national office staff signed cards and affiliated with District 65 in June of 1982. According to a notice in Guild Notes (May-August 1982, p. 15), the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the NLG "voted unanimously to recognize the Guild Staff Union" at a meeting in New York City, June 10-12, 1982. The notice continued: "Recent moves toward specializing work roles, plus the decision to request longer term work commitments from the staff, created a need for the Guild to be more responsible in defining its work policies."

Denis Berger of the national office staff was a primary force behind the unionization of the national staff, and he immediately began organizing the other staff members around the country, who were employed in chapters and projects. There was substantial resistance within the NLG leadership across the country to the unionization of chapter and project staff. By late 1983, it was clear that negotiating a national union contract was going to be a struggle. An editorial in Guild Notes in late 1983 (Guild Notes, November-December 1983, p. 8) raised this issue.

= = =

"Bringing 'Labor Issues' Home"

"When using the word 'labor' Guild members are usually talking about someone other than themselves; blue collar workers, clerical workers, even teachers and nurses. But 'labor', meaning employees in their relationship to employers, is a subject which we must bring home.

"Last year the staff of the Guild national office affiliated with the National Organization of Legal Services Workers, (NOLSW), District 65, UAW. NOLSW and the Guild go back a long way--the Guild was very supportive of the union when it first began organizing legal services workers years ago. But we still suffer from a collective inability to view lawyers and legal workers as a legitimate part of the labor union movement.

- - -

"The issues between labor and management, particularly when we find ourselves on both sides, are some of the most conflicted and difficult, but the health of the organization demands that we don’t keep them in the closet, just as we can't ignore issues of internal racism and sexism. To do so only weakens the organization.

"The Guild must take a stand organizationally in support of all workers' right to organize into a union and to bargain collectively, even in our own offices…."

= = =


In May of 1984 the issue of signing a multi-unit contract for NLG staff was still dragging on, and in a memo to all of us who would be covered under the national contract, our organizer, Denis Berger, discussed our demands for fair wages, health insurance, and unpaid leave. (Denis Berger, "Dear Guild Worker(s)," 2 page memo dated May 16, 1984).

The national Guild Staff Union contract was negotiated in mid-1984, with Denis Berger and me coordinating the final negotiations. The national contract was signed (I believe) in late August of 1984. Denis Berger was the first national shop steward, a task that was later to be handled by Jennifer Wofford. Both eventually received the NLG Legal Workers Award for their efforts to defend the legal worker staff of the NLG.. In the early 1990s I also served as shop steward.

= = =


NLG Union -

Original 1985 union member book - back page
District 65, UAW/AFL-CIO

Membership Pledge

I solemnly pledge and promise to be a loyal member of

District 65

I will protect and support my fellow members and defend our Union's solidarity.

I will respect and abide by all provisions of our Constitution, laws, and regulations, and will fully comply with all decisions of the majority.

I will do all in my power to brink into our ranks all persons eligible for membership in our Union.

I will defend with all the strength I possess, the Union's name, its honor, and its integrity.

All this I solemnly promise.

= = =

My, but you are a rude one. And you are the Legal Worker Vice President, you say? Is elitism a requirement for holding office in your organization?

To paraphrase Shakespeare, I think you do protest too much. Tirades such as yours add a great deal of credibility to the claims made by the Midnight Special Law Collective. I would beleive them over you any day of the week. They have much better manners!

You owe the "concerned NLG member" an apology!

I have served on the Board of Directors of the SF Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild this year and have served on previous occasions, including as President of the Chapter. I have given consistent support to Riva throughout the year.

There is currently an internal review going on concerning some of Riva's work. I and others have some concerns with how that review is being conducted. Riva's union representative is representing her in those matters. To some extent, the issues involved impact the future direction of the Chapter. Chapter members will have an opportunity to discuss the future of the Guild at a membership meeting later in September.

These are internal NLG issues. It is not helpful to discuss these issues on the internet. Imagine for a moment how you would feel if an internal labor dispute at your place of work ended up on an internet site for all to read.

I ask Guild members to cease participating in this exchange here and elsewhere on the internet (other than to ask that it stop). I ask non-Guild members, in particular the Midnight Special Law Collective, to discourage further internet discussion. You will help the Guild in the long run by doing this, regardless of what position might prevail.

The Guild is too precious to all of us, both to members and to those who are been able to call on the Guild for help during critical times.

Thank you,

Steve Bingham

As a Guild member, I understand Stepeh's request that Guild members cease participating in this exchange.

One would anticipate that such a request would try to end the discussion on a non-controversial basis.

However, the post n=continues, "I ask non-Guild members, in particular the Midnight Special Law Collective, to discourage further internet discussion."

Non-Guild members? The Midnight Special Law Collective? Excuse me. The Collective contains Guild members who have worked tirelessly during the past year on the thousands of arrests growing out of opposition to the war on Iraq. The Collective is on the Activist slate in the next Guild election.

My apologies to the Midnight Special Law Collective in saying they're not members ot the Guild. I had orginally thought they weren't members but learned some time ago some (all?) are members. My error is inexplicable, not following my own advice to re-read text before hitting the send button. I am sorry.

I would also like to make a historical comment about whether MSLC members should be allowed to be members, since an earlier posting suggested they shouldn't. The 1987 NLG Chapter by-laws provide that "... any person who works for the National Lawyers Guild.... shall be eligible for membership in the organization."

Steve Bingham

Steve, et al
The Midnight Special Collective does not work for the Guild. Never have. They have volunteered with our Demo Committee. They have not been paid by the Guild.
They are not legal workers - they (with the exception of one law student) are in the category "Friends of the Guild" which is for people who are not in legal careers.
Sorry if some people feel this is "elitist" but we are an attorney bar association and we have bylaws that restrict our membership to those in the legal profession.

It seems that the national lawyers guild can censor Indy media "on demand" topical posts are edited or erased, based on the guild's approval
now that just can't be - can it?

Well Miss Manners can hide behind that moniker but I bet many have a good idea who that would be. Typical of that person, Miss Manners doesn't base anything on facts or reality, but bases things on personality traits. How sad. Not the best way to make decisions. Well at least we know you're not the *Good* Witch...

Rob doesn't owe apologies to anyone. Anyone can post anonymously and claim to be the Grand Poobah of the Guild, but unless they use their name there is no way to prove it. Is that "concerned member" really a member? Who can say? Is Mis-mannered a member of the Guild? It doesn't look like the members of that collective are Guild members. So why are they posting about this in the first place? It doesn't look like it is any of their business!

This is from Article 2, Section 1 of the national NLG Constitution as amended through 1996. (If it's not still current, could someone please post the most recent version? Thanks.) Article 2 deals with membership.

c. Legal workers: any person who is currently working, or who has worked, or who is training to work in any office, collective or other institution, which has as its primary function the provision of administration of legal services, information or education; or who, as an individual, provides or administers legal services, information, or education as a major component of her or his work.

small scalely creatures mainly found under rocks and in damp dark corners of the swamp. these creatures crawl on all fours and sustain them selves by sucking the life from all around them.
not to be confused with leaches (leaches have higher morals)

I have to agree with the Good Witch. Of course Ms. Manners would disagree with me since she has been one of the people spreading the rumours and untruths far and wide. She has supplied the collective with much of the crap they are spreading. So her post is quite ingenuous. That is why she posted anonymously.

As to the definition of LW posted; that may or may not be from the national version; however, the Bay Area chapter bylaws are different and would be controling in this case. People that work for legal collectives (as in law offices run collectively) do fall under the bylaws, however Midnight Special is not really a legal collective. (They are not a law office run collectively, nor do they work for a collective. They are a group of activists that may make their desicions collectively but that doesn't qualify.)

First of all, I am a member of the National Lawyers Guild and a member of the Up Against the Law Motherfucker Legal Collective and R2K Legal in Philadelphia. I do a lot of legal work- designing and giving a training to fellow ex-convicts on their rights, assisting them with pardon applications to the board to clean up their records, answering letters and gathering records for immigration detainees, helping defendants in CD cases by looking up police complaints, filing their own police complaints, and helping gather witnesses for their cases. I used to work as a paralegal at the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project and my work was pretty much the same, except I spent more time just answering letters and doing office work than the more substantial legal work I do more. Of course, back then some asshole who was getting paid by my dues would never have dared to say that I wasn't a real "legal worker."

The members of the Midnight Special Law Collective DO perform legal work. If the paralegals at PILP,Community Legal Services or any other non-profit legal services group are considered to be legal workers because of what they DO, then by any and all definitions, members of MSLC ARE legal workers.

The big hang-up Rob has is that he's getting paid (by MY dues), and the members of MSLC may not be getting paid for all the great work they do. Nowhere in the by-laws does it mention getting paid. One of the category of potential members of the NLG are jailhouse lawyers (which I used to be)- do they need to get paid to be "real" jailhouse lawyers too, Rob?

You see, "getting paid" is actually the first, last and ONLY principle of the legal profession. Somehow, we, mere mortals, who may have read law, researched cases, filed briefs, argued our own cases in court, answered legal calls from jails until dawn, conducted dozens of legal trainings, etc. aren't real legal workers like Rob because some idiots like me are dumb enough to hand our money that made we made HONESTLY to the NLG so they can pay him to make ignorant, slanderous lies about people who pick up the slack when the so-called "activist attorneys" leave activists to rot in jail because there is NO MONEY IN IT!!!!

Don't think that "activist attorneys" and "non-profit paralegals" aren't in the racket too. When the Philly cops arrested 76 people during the Republican National Convention in 2000 for just being in a warehouse making puppets, their cases were thrown out (thanks to R2K Legal and a bunch of UNPAID legal workers) and they filed suit against the city. Now, it was really hard to find these so-called "activist attorneys" when it came time to defend them in court, but as soon there was the possibility of making contingency fees of their suffering, "activist attorneys" came crawling out of the woodwork. However, when the City of Philadelphia played hardball, threatened the attorneys with vague threats of "criminal conspiracy," deposed hundreds of people, and made these attorneys actually WORK for justice for their clients (even though it was us, the lowly unpaid legal workers, doing a lot of the work), they slithered right back under the rocks from which they crawled. They ended up selling their clients out for a mere $7,500 donation to charity a piece. The clients couldn't even choose which charity freely. BUT, when it came to their legal fees, those attorneys made sure they GOT PAID. They sure didn't settle for any "donation to charity" when it came to their own wallets.

Also, as someone who has been in the system many times, I would trust practical experience with actual police and penalogical practice, over the crap some asshole in a suit was told in law school. When I was first convicted, I didn't realize how clueless my attorney was until I showed in prison. I met fellow inmates with eighth-grade educations who knew what was going on in the system much better than any attorney I've ever met. According to the law books, prison guards aren't supposed to beat you black and blue for looking at them "because it's against the law," but everybody inside knows they'll do it in a heartbeat- and get away with it too.

Before the 2000 RNC, as a member of the legal collective, we met with attorneys from the ACLU and NLG and we met with members of legal collectives. The lawyers told us the same disinformation the police had given them, but the legal collectives told us what really was going to happen. On EVERY point, the legal collectives were right and the lawyers were wrong. If you want to know what really is going to happen to you, talk to a legal collective member. If you want a lot of attitude and a HUGE bill from some asshole with a fancy suit and a bar card, talk to a lawyer.

Oh and BTW, Rob, many legal collectives do most of their work where they live, such as Up Against the Law in Philly and MSLC in Oakland for that matter. I'm a Philly native and my family goes way back in this city- am I being "colonial," Rob? And when these collectives do come into from outside cities, many of them stick around while a lot of NLG lawyers can't be bothered to even show up in the first place. But then again you probably don't know about most of the work that UALMFLC or MSLC do, because you're not GETTING PAID to read about it.

The REAL reason you hate Riva, MSLC, and all of us "activists" is that we are actually DO the work that you PRETEND to do for money- my dues money, in fact. I don't think that a group that so small that it is verging on extinction, such as the NLG, should waste its money paying you to slander people who do real work.

I'm a memebr of the NLG because I do a lot of legal work, so therefore I'm a legal worker. I also think the law is too important- not that's it's right, moral or logical, but because it can hurt people- to leave to a bunch of "activist attorneys" and paid hacks like you, Rob. I've met a few semi-decent attorneys with whom I've worked, and with whom I will work in the future, because I have to do so and they have proven themselves to be not so bad, but I've been a prisoner, an activist, a PAID paralegal, a prison case worker and a legal collective member and I know way too much to kiss anybody's ass because they have a bar card or that they are getting paid by MY dues.

You know, I've been looking at the times and dates on some of Rob's posts- which are during normal business hours- and I can't help, but wonder, if he's slandering Riva and MSLC while he's working for the NLG...and getting paid by MY DUES !!!!

Is this "legal work," Rob? Is this what I'm paying you to do?

Folks, there's obviously a lot of hard feelings on both sides but, and I don't want to pull rank because I'm a doddering 61-year old who joined the Guild decades ago, but one thing I learned in Movement politics is we won't ever move forward to a good or better place if we don't try to do it civilly.

Please re-read what you type out feverishly before hitting Send. How many of you have gone into an adversarial proceeding so cocky you could just say the first thing that came out of your mouth? None of you, I suspect.

Another thing, if you tone it down, you'll sleep better at night. Really.

Thanks, Steve

i like your style Jamie.

keep it up.

it seems that the MLC and riva's supporters started this crap when it has nothing to do with riva.... but changing the structure of the office to make itmore productive... riva is not losing her job... but people seem to think she is... hmmm.... i would advise the mlc to stay the hell out of affairs they have just gotten involved with, when they know no history...... and only a one-sided story from someone they have had good relations with....

and... to the anonymous posters.... you like it when others post anonymously.... i'll be the one at the EB meeting with tomatoes ready to throw your way... please listen to yourselves... i know some guildy folks are pro-legalization of drugs.... but you all sound like your on crack.

Gee, I guess the title "Activists with head in ass" kind of gave me the impression that the gloves were off, but I forget that you lawyer-boys sure can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.

Besides, shouldn't you have said something about this when Rob was spewing venom at every legal collective member? After all, he was on the NLG's clock when he was doing it. Oh wait, you guys were too busy hammering on Riva while this royal piece of work has been festering your office for what- eleven fucking years!?!? Maybe, you're trying fire the WRONG staff person. Oh wait, I guess one of these workers kisses your ass while the other is actually trying to do the job. The trouble is that actually fighting the power might rock your little boat, so anybody who gets one of these activist jobs and really works always gets FIRED, in my experience. They might offend the Ford Foundation or whereever you get your goddamn grants.

Wow, this all really makes me want to renew my Guild membership next year so you can give the money that I make ripping the guts out of old houses in North Philly to Rob so he can sit in the office that I help pay for and slander everyone who actually does the work.

Gee Mr. Graham - lie #1 is that you pay my salary. You are not an active dues paying member of the Bay Area chapter. You may have been at one time but you are not currently.
And have you ever heard of work breaks? Lunch time, etc?
Just because I don't view these collectives as legal workers under the chapter bylaws doesn't mean I don't value good work done by many of them. That is a giant leap you make there bud. However, our bylaws are what they are and MLC folks do not fall under them as Legal Workers.


MLC members admitted how screwed up their methods were going from place to place and telling people how to conduct their demos at the last NLG convention in a workshop on collectives. Yes, it was colonial. (With very white, straight middle class priviledged arrogance as well). Other collectives have done good work without leaving the locals holding the bag.


Mr. Graham, you know nothing about me, what I have done or what I do. I was out getting arrested protesting when you were in diapers. But you would rather engage in personal attacks than in facts, which is typical of many of Riva's supporters who really don't care about the National Lawyers Guild. (An organization I joined in 1988 and have given over 11 years of my life to furthering its goals as staff person.)

Well, no smart-ass comments from the other side so I'll take that as civility and cease my own smart comments. Maybe it's because Rob stopped posting from work, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. See you guys in Minneapolis.

I AM a NLG member in Philadelphia. If you say that you receive no money from any member of the Philly Chapter, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. so your salary is partially paid for by those members of MSLC who are members of the SF chapter and whom you relentlessly attack. My bag. You are really presumptuous to characterize that as a "lie," but you have been presumptuous throughout your postings. Why should you stop now?

I was just speculating about the fact that most of your postings took place during business hours and some were rather long. I've used that "I did it on my break" excuse too with some of my former bosses. Ain't it a good one, Rob. Oh BTW, yeah I have heard of "breaks" even though I'm just a dumb demolition worker, you arrogant, elitist snot.

I know that MSLC has prepared Know-Your-Rights material and has conducted trainings. Again, from the SF by-laws that have been posted and from my familiarity with several paralegals who do such work for non-profits who ARE members of the NLG, they should qualify- unless getting paid is the distinction. I would think your chapter would try to recruit members, but I guess it's more imprtant to keep it "a small circle of friends" as Phil Ochs would say. Your job is safer that way if you don't let anybody new into the club.

Yeah, I know MSLC has been conscious of their demo-jumping ways and they've stepped back from them after self-reflection. However, don't think that the "mess" is their fault- it isn't like they decided to arrest hundreds of people at a demo. Those folks were the police- you know, the folks you guys are supposed to focus on, rather than attacking the legal collective that may stop into town to help, but can't stick around. It isn't even like MSLC planned the demos.

I had raised the point because if you check a calendar, "oldhead," it's 2003, not 1999-2000 when they did all the demo-jumping. But I understand how the years must run together in your "old age" and how you feel that there is no need to update your impressions of MSLC. To quote Ronald Reagan, "Facts are stupid things."

Yeah, I don't know you- I just have read the arrogant condescending posts you've written. You don't know me either and you don't how old I am. However, in the brief time I've known of you, I definitely predicted that you would pull out some bullshit argument, like "I'm older than you," rather than deal with my argument. If I had a dime for every guy who said, "I was a radical way back in the day, but you darn kids are just being unreasonable," I'd never have to work again. I'll just take your irrelevant, and quite possibly untrue, comment as proof of your inability to refute any of my arguments.

What I see in your postings is man with a small amount of power and privilege, based on your twisted definition of how you're a "legal worker," but all these young whippersnappers in these legal collectives who are coming along and rocking your world aren't. I mean, 11 years at a non-profit is long time given the uncertainties that face non-profits, so you fear change. That's understandable. That's why all of your arguments never address your opponents' arguments, they just are ad hominid attacks on the technical standing of others. I thought that the NLG was based on inclusive, not exclusion, and equality, not elitism, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. maybe it's just like an American Legion for protest veterans who just want to relive the old days and try to keep the new kids out of the club.

You say that respect the work that members of legal collectives do, but I see none of that in any of your postings. If the NLG hates legal collectives and doesn't want us "kids" in your little club, you can keep your club and go fuck yourselves. Failure to change will send the NLG the way of the dinosaur and if that's the way you want to take the NLG, you can do it without us. Most legal collective members were legal WORKERS before any association with the NLG, and we'll be legal workers long after the NLG.

Man, I thought we had some cranks in Philly, but these posts make me feel SO glad not to be in the Bay Area. Maybe it's because we try to focus on fighting the power and not each other. But hey, I guess you've picked your priorities, and there's nothing a "young buck," like me can say to change your mind. Yeah, forget about Ashcroft, Rob- keep fighting the MSLC and Riva! Who needs allies when we have our own inflated sense of self-worth?

Hey, but it's probably you're hungry since you've spent all your breaktime attacking the MSLC and me. eat something, Rob- it'll be good for you. I mean, after a good night's sleep, I realized that I've been too hard on activist attorneys. I have had some good experiences with some of them, I must admit. I've been unfair and I'm not afraid to say it.

Wow, I feel much better now, Rob. Just take a deep breath and say, "Midnight Special really isn't my enemy. " Then give Dan Spalding a big hug and a sloppy kiss and you'll feel better. Then you can spend all of your breaks enjoying yourself, rather then feverishly typing attacks onto the SF-BA IMC website. God knows, I can't keep posting on this one article. I have a life to get back to, Rob.

I just can wait to see what condescending reason you'll come up with to dismiss all my arguments next. maybe, you could argue that everybody in Philly is stupid (you may not be wrong), or that the Great Spirit of the NLG has appointed you, Rob, to be its divine champion against the assault of legal-collective-member hordes.

wow.... there must be nothing to do in philly but post messages about SF... hmm.... we have a nice law collective we can send your way....

I knew that someone was going to slam me for being from Philly. I just knew it!

Sad to say there are actually many things (like a meeting I have to be at right now) I should have been doing than post repeatedly on the SF-BA IMC website, but I know...and love...MSLC. I gotta stick up for my peeps. Sol-sol-sol-solidarity!

Now, can you Left-Coasters just get along? Spew your wraith at the Big Boys, not the legal collectives. Don't make me post again.

There has been some discussion here about who has the right to membership in the NLG. One person (atg) quoted the national constitution as follows:

"Article 2(c)
"Legal workers: any person who is currently working, or who has worked, or who is training to work in any office, collective or other institution, which has as its primary function the provision of administration of legal services, information or education; or who, as an individual, provides or administers legal services, information, or education as a major component of her or his work."

I don't have a copy of the national constitution, but if atg is citing it correctly, it seems clear that legal workers in an organization such as the Midnight Special Law Collective should be welcome in the NLG.

Rob Petitpas has argued that the SF bylaws are "different and would be controling..." This seems a rather strange argument. It is like arguing that state governments have a right to supersede the national Constitution, and restrict citizenship rights granted by the federal government. By this logic, the Bill of Rights could be ignored by the California state government. That's not the way it works, thankfully.

In any event, I do have a copy of the SF chapter bylaws. Here is the actual language at issue:

"Section 2. Qualifications of Members
"Any person who is authorized to practice law anywhere and who resides or works in the counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, and Solano; and any judges of courts of record in the state of California in said counties; and any person who attends or has completed law school resides, works or attends school in said counties; and any person who works for the National Lawyers Guild or any of its chapters, any law firm, attorney, LEGAL COLLECTIVE [my emphasis], community legal defense office, law school, legal office of any governmental entity, legislative office of any governmental entity, or office of any public elected official, full- or part-time faculty members of law schools and resides or works in said counties shall be eligible fo membership in the organization."

Clearly the chapter bylaws look to welcome many kinds of legal workers into the NLG.

Rob further argues that the Midnight Special Law Collective is not really a legal collective because "legal collectives" are restricted to "law offices run collectively." The distinction doesn't appear in the bylaws. It appears to mean that they are different than the kind of law collectives Rob has in mind because the Midnight Special folks don't MAKE MONEY doing their work.

In this regard, please note that "any person who is authorized to practice law" is welcomed as a member, whether or not they are in practice (that is, making money practicing law). Similarly, any person who "has completed law school" is welcomed, without any requirement that they are pursuing any kind of legal career.

Under these circumstances, it would seem inconsistent, and downright silly, to exclude dedicated workers like the Midnight Special Law Collective, simply because nobody is cutting them a check for their good work.

I hope this helps clarify this important issue.

Letter in Support of Riva Enteen

I was hired to assist the San Francisco NLG’s Post
9-11 Project. When I started working at the Guild,
the US had just invaded Iraq and the streets were full
of anti-war demonstrators. Direct actions were
occurring daily, along with arrests. Our phones rang
constantly and Riva was working tirelessly with
volunteers to coordinate legal support for 3,000
demonstrators- no small effort as you can imagine. At
the same time, we were in the middle of the Special
Registration process, and she managed to provide
excellent guidance for the Post 9-11 Project.

The efforts by certain members to terminate Riva’s
position would be detrimental to both the
Demonstrations and the 9-11 work, as few people in the legal field have the extensive networking and
organizing experience that Riva has cultivated over
the years. Despite the enormous amounts of time and
energy she has had to spend struggling against the
witch- hunt, Riva never once wavered in her commitment and dedication to the Post 9-11 or the Demonstrations work. She was on-call 24 hours a day through her cell phone, for which she was reprimanded. I often wondered how much more we could be doing, if Riva could completely focus on the Guild’s work, rather than on mean-spirited internal politics.

It is clear that Riva is a target because of her
effectiveness as program director and her radical
politics, rather than her personal "shortcomings" as
some members have charged. Possessing foresight,
Riva asked me to write grants for the Post 9-11
Project, so that we could ensure the continuation of
this crucial work. I wrote a Letter of Intent (LOI)
for the Racial Justice Collaborative (RJC), and the
lack of support from some Guild members for the Post
9-11 work became clear as we came closer to submitting the LOI. It was shocking to witness that some Guild members would put the entire future work of the Post 9-11 Project in jeopardy for their personal desire to oust Riva.

The LOI submittal process occurred in a series of
stages, during which emails flew back and forth,
accusing Riva of various acts of insubordination,
including trying to mislead the RJC by reporting a
board different than the NLG executive board. The key
word in the Racial Justice Collaborative, is Racial!
The grantmaker wanted to affirm that the supervisory
body for the project, which they referred to
generically as the ‘board’ is diverse in terms of
gender and race, and representative of the
constituency we serve. Our current NLG board is all
white and does not play a supervisory role. Riva and
I explored the idea of listing the 9-11 Steering
Committee as the ‘board’, while making it clear that
this committee was distinct from the NLG board. This
would give the grantmaker a more accurate idea of the
NLG organizational structure and indicate that the
supervisory body included members that belonged to the communities in which we worked. After reaching a
compromise with the AFC and EC over this issue, where we decided to report both the NLG board and the 9-11 Steering Committee, other issues started to emerge.

Upon Riva’s request, I provided the AFC and the EC
background on the RJC, as well as the LOI write-up
several days before it was due. Their concerns and
feedback, rather than pointing to problems in the way
we had framed the Post 9-11 Project, was more
indicative of their carelessness and failure to read
the LOI completely. It seemed that since the ‘board’
issue had been resolved, members of these committees were fishing for any other potentially problematic elements that would stop the grant from going out on time. For example, a member expressed concern over sharing funding with the collaborating groups for the Project. From the grant, it was clear that NLG would be the sole recipient of the funds, which would then be used to strengthen linkages with collaborating groups. This confusion and other misunderstandings could have been cleared up quickly and neatly, if concerned members would have talked to us directly over the phone instead of sending frantic emails every half hour. As these last-minute issues became more and more baseless and superficial, the real underlying issues and fears became clear to me: If we got the $50,000 grant, it would not only be the largest grant the SF Chapter of the NLG has ever received but it would also comprise nearly a quarter of the entire budget. This would solidify Riva’s position within the organization and change the entire nature of the Post 9-11 Project. I concluded that they were not just trying to impede the grant, they were trying to kill it and use it as leverage against Riva.

My conclusion was justified when I was interrogated by
Andy Krakoff. After we submitted the grant, Nancy
Lowenthal asked me to meet her after work to discuss
future grants so that we could avoid the kinds of
misunderstanding we had encountered during the Racial Justice Collaborative. I was glad to meet with her and make the grant-writing process as open and
transparent as possible. She did not inform me that
she had also asked Andy Krakoff to join us. We began
talking about the first of 14 grants that I intended
to apply for and suddenly Andy began asking me
questions about the RJC Letter of Intent, as a means
to investigate Riva. He tried every intimidation
tactic in the book: he would ask me the same question again but in different words, he cut me off when I did not give him the answer he wanted, and he wrote down everything I said. I did not see how this insidious interrogation served to make the future grants process smoother. The questions were designed to make Riva seem intentionally deceitful and irreverent to the Board. The interrogation lasted over an hour, and he asked me questions so specific about times and dates regarding the RJC fiasco, I felt that since he had no substantive charges against Riva, he was searching for some kind of technicality to prove her guilty of insubordination.

While grant-writing for the Post 9-11 Project, I have
spent an extensive amount of time researching NLG’s
history, along with its mission and objectives. It is
clear that the Post 9-11 work is not only in line with
the Guild’s priorities, but that Riva’s work as
program director furthers the organization’s goals.

In solidarity,
Aisha Mohammed

I am a Guild member, not a 02-03 Board member, but have been very involved in the Guild's 9/11 and demonstrations work and I just have to respond to a few things. First of all I completely disagree with Rob’s tirade against Midnight Special who have done an amazing amount of work with the Guild in those areas. (Rob's view of the NLG bylaws is moot anyway since the Guild Executive Board has granted Midnight Special’s request to join.)

Second I am really sorry that Andy Krakoff was such a jerk to Aisha. I do not know what process the Guild Personnel Committee went through regarding the grants, however, I think i am the person who originally raised concerns regarding the grant requests. I didn't intend for Aisha to be interrogated, and my concerns, which i know others in Guild leadership share, are quite the opposite of Aisha’s conclusions, as she would know if she had communicated back to me in response to the email I sent to her, Riva, Robert, the Guild 9/11 Committee, and Executive Committee at the time, which I hoped would provoke organizational discussion of a different approach to the 9/11 fundraising. This was my email message:

“Aisha asked me to be on a "paper board" [which she said would not actually meet or even get reports] for the purpose of 911 project grant proposals. I am concerned about the idea of forming a separate board for 911 work when the chapter already has an elected executive board who should be regularly and fully informed and involved in this central work of the chapter. It might be appropriate to form a more diverse advisory board, but then it should have some real advisory role. I know everyone is busy, and I don't know what discussions have happened in the EB and AFC regarding the current grantwriting, but I feel it is a missed opportunity and fraught with problems for the chapter not to have a conscious, coordinated, strategic fundraising plan, including grantwriting and major and minor donor work, for all of its work, including 911 and demonstrations, rather than treating these key areas as if they are semi-autonomous projects that are supposed to raise their own money.”

I am not at all critical of Aisha or Robert who did fantastic work in their few months with the Guild. My concerns mostly arose over the year or so prior to their few months at the Guild, when the Guild chapter’s 9/11 hotline and outreach work, which began as a project of a Community Protection Network comprised of several activist groups plus the Guild and staffed by many volunteers, became increasingly split off both from the community and from the Guild itself, without any functioning coalition or Guild committee or "steering committee" behind it, no consistent communication with involved Guild members, Board, or others, as well as problems with supervision of the legal hotline and with continuity and follow through on projects. I was on the 911 steering committee which ceased functioning long before Aisha came on, and had helped with some of the grantwriting which obtained a series of small grants for extra part time staff for the 9/11 work and printing of our know your rights materials. I thought we needed to bring the Board more into the fundraising process in order to raise more money and avoid competing internally.

I am not aware of any resistance from the Executive Board to making 9/11 work THE top priority for staff (until the war started), or putting additional staff in the Guild’s small office space to help with this. In fact, Board members mostly asked me how they could help with this work. The original problems that arose over grantwriting had to do with a brief period in which the local chapter shared a 9/11 staffperson with the national Guild. It didn’t work out well to house the national staffperson in San Francisco as opposed to New York where the national office is, and the national did not have the money to continue the position but wanted to try to fundraise for a program position in the national office. The Guild’s national executive director requested that national fundraising be coordinated through her. However, Riva submitted several grant proposals for a national 9/11 project, including one to a new york foundation, without advance discussion with either the national or local organizations. This upset the national e.d., and when two of these requests were accepted, we could not in fact do the national project outlined in the proposal, so Riva asked the funders to approve a "regional" California project in conjunction with the LA chapter. However, this regional project hadn't really been discussed either by the Bay Area chapter board or 911 committee, or apparently the LA one either, and consequently never happened. I can’t imagine that anyone would have been against such a project, and if more people and perhaps more organizations, e.g. from the targeted communities, had been involved, we might have been able to do it.

Similarly, while we did get some grants (through Riva’s efforts and others’), they have only been enough for a series of part time temporary staff for a few months each, not a permanent position with benefits. I thought we should dream bigger, engage in a conscious process of deciding what we wanted to do and what we needed to do it, and involve the board and chapter finance committee in developing and carrying out a comprehensive fundraising plan that might allow us to hire additional staff on a long term basis. Instead, the grant process (all of this, again, prior to Aisha and Robert) had been haphazard, with proposals of inconsistent quality and not enough discussion of what we were trying to fund, and there were serious problems with budgeting, tracking and accounting for funds, and reporting back to funders. I believe these were the reasons that the Board created a policy for pre-approval of grant requests which perhaps Aisha was never informed of -- to further the work, not to hinder or “kill” it.

One or two people simply do not a movement make. While Riva’s job is essentially, a membership organizer, her relationship with Board members and other members trying to do the work seems in the past two years to have degenerated so much that rather than drawing leadership and members in to making the work happen, like the grant proposals which are just one example, important essential work being done out of the chapter office was oddly shrouded in secrecy, with no effort by staff to keep a real 9/11 Committee functioning, and each person or body in turn told that someone else has “approved” the work but there being no actual center for it in the organization (or in a coalition with other organizations), with negative effects on work being carried out. Involving Board, committee and coalition members, in, e.g., the grant process, or the decision to print a potentially controversial flyer, or planning how to use limited resources most effectively, could only help raise the money, help bring around those Guild members with less well developed politics, and help make the work happen. But then of course it wouldn’t be “Riva” getting the “largest grant ever”, but the Guild doing its work.

Rachel Lederman

For the real story, please go to http://supportriva.primate.net.

Nice try. Ultimately, this is not about Riva or the NLG, you know. Stripped down, this is about a direct action group that insists on calling itself a legal collective. Anarchist wannabes who are closet lawyer wannabes. I share their pain. The social reality is that you can't have it both ways.

No wonder things have gotten so bad if this is the attitude that Guild members have. How distressing that you would denigrate people who are not "lawyers." Is this attitude prevalent on the Executive Board? If so, it is telling.

I agree about this whole thing being a smokescreen for a more important issue. I know of the group in question. They shouldn't call themselves a legal collective: they provide no legal services, have no attorney oversight, do not even care to check the accuracy of the legal info they pass along: here is their disclaimer, written in small print at the bottom of their home page:

Obligatory disclaimer: We are not lawyers, and thus cannot give out legal advice. The information herein is what the law says. For all legal questions you need to contact a lawyer. The information posted on this site was collected from various sources and we cannot be held liable for it.

They train people for direct action (which is admirable, don't get me wrong), then pass the ball to lawyers when people are jailed. What happens when they pass along bad advice (oh, that's right, they claim that because they aren't lawyers, they are not giving legal advice) or incomplete information? Do they advise activists who are not US citizens to not participate in direct action because if jailed, they could risk deportation or bars to citizenship? (just one example of accountability)

I say if you call yourself a legal collective, then take responsibility for the info you disseminate (ultimately, that means having an attorney onboard...someone in the group that, by law, is accountable.) Check the accuracy of the info you pass out. Be accountable to the people you train for direct action. Otherwise, call yourselves what you really are: an information and referral service. Then you don't have to deal with attorneys or things like accountability or liability or ultimately, responsibility to the larger progressive community. But I guess that just doesn't sound as cool as legal collective.

I am not sure what Rob and others on this board are trying to accomplish; however, you are not putting your best foot forward. Each comment that is posted makes your case look worse in terms of how you are treating Riva or what you think the Guild should be about. From a public relations perspective, your comments are a disaster.

Think twice before you post these comments because you may not know it but you seem to be making a case for Riva, not against her.

Rob is not on the board of the NLG, he is a staffperson (the one other full time staffperson in the office besides Riva), who recently quit and is moving to southern California. He and/or whoever's been posting the anonymous messages do not speak for the Guild regarding this pointless attack on Midnight Special Law Collective.

from the support riva website http://supportriva.primate.net.

An open letter to the National Lawyers Guild in Support of Riva Enteen from the Midnight Special Law Collective

The current Executive Board of the Bay Area Guild Chapter is trying to fire Riva Enteen, our Program Director. The process has been undemocratic; the politics are suspect. This has severe and long-reaching implications. The Board has been operating in secret and has put a gag order on Riva, preventing members from knowing what is happening and making it impossible for Riva to present her case for fear of immediate termination. We have been kept in the dark for far too long.
As members of the Guild, we call on the membership to demand a full explanation of events so that, as a first step, this matter can be brought into the open. Only through honest open communication can we democratically resolve this crisis. This is a political issue and a workers' issue.
A Political Issue
When Midnight Special joined the Guild, we were heartened to find that most Guild members show equal respect to legal workers, and don't dismiss outspoken activists as illegitimate or disruptive. We were excited to be a part of the Guild's radical history.
But these opinions are not reflected by the Board. Riva has been demeaned for being a non-lawyer and called out for her activist leanings and connections. Riva personifies the radical politics of the Guild. This is critical especially at a time when our rights and liberties are under unprecedented attack from all sides and many progressive organizations are politically backpedalling out of fear.
A Workers' Issue
Riva has been at the heart of this chapter for 13 years as Program Director, but instead of supporting her, the current Board has criticized, second-guessed, demeaned, and silenced her. The Board has hit Riva with a gag order, barring her from talking about the situation. However, we have seen examples of the Board's unfair and prejudicial treatment toward her during recent Board meetings.
For Example, during the June 4th Board meeting, a Board member (Matt Ross) speculated that Riva could be guilty of 'fraud', and in the same breath accused her of having a paranoid streak regarding the Board. The Board has created a four-person committee specifically to monitor Riva. When the Board talks about Riva during its meetings, which are open to membership, it goes into closed-door "executive session". Also, she has been entirely excluded from the process of reorganizing her own workplace - a reorganization that might do away with her position.
We would like to provide more examples, but, as anyone following the issue knows, these are closely guarded secrets. What we do know is that this Board has made Riva miserable for over a year. No worker should be subjected to these employment conditions, much less a union member like Riva employed by an organization like the National Lawyers' Guild.
Riva's Dedication to the Guild
Apart from the secrecy and vitriol on the part of the Board, what makes this situation even more bizarre is that their target, Riva, is an exceptional Guild member and employee. Riva lives and breathes the Guild's work.
In 1998, the SF Bay Guardian awarded the Chapter the 'Best Folks to Call if You're Arrested for Civil Disobedience Award.' While this is to the credit of the many lawyer members of the Guild, Riva is the person who actually connects them to arrested protestors, making herself available twenty-four hours a day. The Midnight Special Law Collective often fields calls from arrested activists late at night, but 9 times out of 10, we just call Riva, who does all the follow-through to make sure those activists are taken care of. Most recently, her skill and dedication have been decisive factors in Legal Support to Stop the War's successful ongoing defense of nearly 3000 people arrested throughout the Bay Area while opposing the US war on Iraq.
In addition to amazing demonstrations support, after September 11th she started, obtained funding for, and staffed a legal hotline for immigrants and dissenters from across the nation who have been contacted by the FBI and INS. Instead of being intimidated or defeated in these difficult times, Riva has been successfully organizing throughout them, even after being called by the FBI herself.
Riva is a powerful speaker for the Guild about summary deportations, the Patriot Act, and other threats we are facing. She has built coalitions between the Guild and Islamic and Arab organizations to help us fight back against the current administration's racist attacks. And she does it all while raising a family on her modest salary.
The fact that the Board now seeks to fire Riva for reasons they will not discuss is completely unacceptable to us as members of the Guild and as members of the social justice movement.
Act Now
San Francisco is the heart of dissent in America. In March of this year, the rest of the country and much of the world looked to the Bay Area's resistance against the US war on Iraq. This culture of resistance in the Bay Area is in no small part a result of the Guild's organized defense of activists. Riva Enteen has been central to that work, and has been a key figure in the struggle against the current rise of facism - we have never needed her more than we do now.
Fellow Guild members, the Executive Board must be held accountable for how it treats our employees. Ultimately, it's our responsibility to make sure it does what's right. Please contact Board members and ask them what actions they're taking on our behalf. Attend the monthly Executive Board meetings (the next one is 8/6) and the annual Membership Meeting in October. Ignoring these undemocratic actions not only weakens the Guild, but also undermines the radical politics of our community. It's our right and our responsibility to be informed and involved!
Yours in struggle,
Midnight Special Law Collective

For the real story, see http://supportriva.primate.net.

Can someone please tell us what happened at those meetings? Thanks.

For an update on the struggle in the NLG, take a look a Jack Read's article at http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/10/1656358_comment.php.