[Pnews] New legal action by Mumia Abu-Jamal may provide a path to overturn his conviction

Prisoner News ppnews at freedomarchives.org
Wed Aug 31 10:22:28 EDT 2016


*Path to Mumia's Freedom*
by Rachel Wolkenstein
A new legal action filed by Mumia Abu-Jamal in the Pennsylvania Court of 
Common Pleas on August 7, 2016 provides a path in the courts to overturn 
Mumia’s conviction and win his freedom. The legal underpinning is the 
recent precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court decision /Williams v. 
Pennsylvania/, 136 S.Ct. 1989 (2016), which holds /it is a violation of 
the due process right to an impartial tribunal free of judicial bias if 
a judge participating in a criminal appeal had “a significant personal 
involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision” in a defendant’s case./

Ronald D. Castille was a senior Assistant District Attorney during 
Mumia’s 1982 trial and the Philadelphia District Attorney during Mumia’s 
direct appeal of conviction and death sentence. Ronald D. Castille was a 
Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court during the entire period of 
Mumia’s appeals of his post-conviction proceedings from 1995-2008.

Mumia made motions to Justice Castille to recuse himself from his 
post-conviction appeals to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from 1996-98 
and again in 2002 on grounds of bias and conflict of interest, but 
Castille refused. Mumia raised Castille’s denial to recuse himself as an 
appeal issue in the federal courts, but it was ignored.

The District Attorney’s office and Justice Castille did not disclose, or 
denied or minimized any direct role District Attorney Castille had as a 
prosecutor in capital prosecutions, including jury selection and other 
prosecutorial trial conduct and appeal strategy and preparation. As 
stated in the new filing, “The high profile and political sensitivity of 
Mr. Abu-Jamal’s case, increases the likelihood that Justice Castille’s 
minimization of his involvement in the case was not credible.”

Castille’s role as both prosecutor and judge in Mumia’s case, in light 
of the /Williams/ decision, opens the door to a court decision vacating 
(overturning and dismissing) all Pennsylvania Supreme Court denials of 
Mumia’s post-conviction petitions. If this new legal action succeeds 
Mumia would get “do-overs” to the legal challenges he made to the racist 
frame-up conviction, for which he has now spent close to 35 years in 
prison, almost thirty in solitary confinement on death row.

This new legal action can lead to renewed challenges to all the state’s 
unconstitutional racial, political and class biased procedures and state 
misconduct that resulted in Mumia’s frame-up conviction before the 
pro-cop and racist judge Albert Sabo who declared before trial, “I’m 
going to help them fry the n----r.”

Mumia’s other challenges to his conviction include: Ineffective 
assistance of trial counsel; The prosecution’s intentional exclusion of 
African-Americans from his jury; the Prosecution’s summation argument 
that Mumia would have “appeal after appeal” depriving Mumia of the 
constitutional standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the 
importance of the jury decision in determining guilt and a death 
sentence; Denying Mumia the right to self-representation and to be in 
the courtroom during his trial; Police and prosecutorial fabrication of 
evidence of guilt—false hospital confession, phony ballistics evidence, 
lying witnesses Cynthia White, Priscilla Durham, Robert Chobert—and 
suppression of evidence of Mumia’s innocence—Veronica Jones, Dessie 
Hightower, William Singletary, Ken Freeman, Arnold Howard and the 
confession of Arnold Beverly.

In other words, Mumia would be able to re-appeal the entirety of his 
frame-up conviction before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If the new 
appeal wins, Mumia will get a new trial, if not dismissal on grounds of 
gross state misconduct in prosecuting Mumia.

And should a new trial be ordered, the prosecution has no evidence to 
present against Mumia. The three legs of the case--eyewitnesses, 
confession and ballistics--have been proven to be manufactured by the 
police.

This is what should happen under the U.S. Supreme Court holding in 
/Williams/.

But Mumia’s case isn’t any case. There is no other case in the United 
States that has faced as much orchestrated hostility from the Fraternal 
Order of Police and both parties of U.S. capitalism as that of Mumia 
Abu-Jamal.

The legal and political caveats for a winning strategy to free Mumia: 
Legal action that underscores Mumia is innocent and framed in a 
political and racist prosecution that denied every aspect of due process 
and a fair trial; and an intensified international campaign of publicity 
and protest demanding Mumia’s freedom now!

Mumia’s case embodies the police terror and shootings on the streets, 
the false and frame-up prosecutions in the courts, the dehumanization 
and warehousing of mass incarceration, and the ultimate act of “legal” 
lynching in the racist death penalty.

*/Mass international protest kept Mumia alive/*

The state tried to kill Mumia on the street on December 9, 1981. They 
tried and failed to lynch him by state execution in 1995 and 1999. In 
December 2011 the state gave up trying to execute Mumia and instead put 
him on “slow death row”—life imprisonment without parole—and tried to 
silence him. Mumia has not been silenced, but has been subjected to 
medical mistreatment and the deliberate refusal to cure his hepatitis C.

Mumia was targeted for state extermination as a Black Panther Party 
member when he was 16-years-old, renewed when he became a renowned radio 
journalist, “the voice of the voiceless” and a supporter of the MOVE 
organization. In the face of execution and life imprisonment Mumia has 
never wavered in his opposition to and exposure of the racist 
oppression, class exploitation and murderous terror perpetrated across 
the globe by U.S. imperialism.

The combined forces of the capitalist state, its police, courts, 
supported by the politicians in both parties of capitalism are united in 
keeping Mumia locked in prison.

Now is the time for a renewed international campaign to free Mumia! 
Winning Mumia’s freedom is a blow against the class and race biased 
American criminal injustice system, a win for all those in imprisoned 
nation and for us all.

*/On Ronald Castille, from Prosecutor to Supreme Court Justice/*

Ronald Castille became an assistant Philadelphia District Attorney in 
1971, and a senior assistant at the time of Mumia’s 1982 trial. In 1985 
he was elected as District Attorney and was the District Attorney during 
the preparation and legal argument of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s direct appeal 
from his 1982 conviction and death sentence.

Despite the prior motions made for Castille to recuse himself from 
hearing Mumia’s appeals, he has not provided any information regarding 
participation in Mumia’s trial preparation or disclosed his direct 
oversight and preparation of the District Attorney’s office filings and 
legal arguments during Mumia’s direct appeal. As part of Mumia’s prior 
Motions for Justice Castille to recuse himself, discovery was requested 
but denied in 1996 and in 2002. The new legal filings request discovery 
of this information.

District Attorney Ronald D. Castille’s name appears first in the list of 
prosecutors submitting the DA’s legal briefs arguing in support of 
Mumia’s conviction and death sentence. We do know that one of Castille’s 
first appointments was the promotion of Assistant District Attorney 
(ADA) Ronald Eisenberg to become Chief of the Appeals Unit. In that 
capacity Eisenberg began overseeing all the appeals and post-conviction 
proceedings of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and continued through Mumia’s 2011 
federal court appeals.

We know that one of Castille’s “accomplishments” as District Attorney 
was the 1986 video training tape on how to exclude African-Americans 
from juries. It has been known as the “McMahon tape” after then-ADA Jack 
McMahon who gave the presentation. But the Training Tape was produced by 
the District Attorney’s office. The first frame of the video bears the 
seal of the City of Philadelphia, name and title of Ronald D. Castille, 
District Attorney, the logo of /DATV Productions/ identifying the 
videotape as produced by the District Attorney’s television productions 
department. Frame two identifies the videotape as “Jury Selection by 
Jack McMahon.” This Training Tape was the District Attorney’s response 
to the 1985 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in /Batson v. Kentucky/, 476 
U.S. 79 (1986) that found unconstitutional the use of race as a reason 
to eliminate potential jurors. The practice of keeping African-Americans 
from juries was a long-standing policy and practice in the Philadelphia 
DA’s office and the Training Video was a “how to” as well as “how to 
conceal” continuing that practice. However, the existence of this 
training tape was not publicly known until 1997.

In 1986, after Castille’s election as District Attorney, the Fraternal 
Order of Police (FOP) Lodge No. 5 named Castille its “Man of the Year.” 
In 1989, the FOP provided support for Castille’s re-election bid for 
Philadelphia District Attorney.

As District Attorney and prior to his run for Pennsylvania State Supreme 
Court in 1993, Castille was a vociferous defender of a pattern of 
prosecutorial misconduct that was prevalent in his office and admonished 
by the Pennsylvania appeals court, blaming alleged misconduct on the 
“pushy, obnoxious” defense lawyers. Two of the Philadelphia prosecutors 
found to commit misconduct by the appeals court in cases unrelated to 
Mumia’s were the ADAs in Mumia’s trial (Joseph McGill) and 1995 hearing 
(Charles Grant).

In 1993 Ronald Castille ran for and won a seat on the Pennsylvania 
Supreme court as the law and order candidate. He highlighted his support 
of the death penalty, touting that his office had secured 45 death 
sentences. He bragged about prosecuting some of the city’s most 
notorious criminals in recent years. Castille’s campaign ad highlighted 
his endorsement by 36,000 police officers of the Fraternal Order of Police.

*/Mumia’s Direct Appeal and the 1989 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denial/*

Mumia’s direct appeal of his 1982 conviction and death sentence wasn’t 
filed until 1986. No challenges were made to the false trial evidence.

The legal argument on Mumia’s appeal took place before the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court on January 19, 1988. The first issue of the appeal was 
that the prosecution systematically excluded African-Americans from 
Mumia’s jury, depriving him of an impartial jury and that the prosecutor 
had removed a Black woman juror and replaced her with a white male juror 
with ties to law enforcement.

Mumia’s legal argument applied the U.S. Court decision of /Batson v. 
Kentucky/, and argued that the prosecutor violated /Batson/. The 
District Attorney’s office objected and denied even a /prima facie/ case 
existed, including that Mumia is a Black man and the deceased was a 
white police officer was not relevant and that there was not even an 
inference of a pattern of strikes against Black jurors by the prosecution.

Yet, at the very moment the DA’s office argued before the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court that there was no disqualification of jurors because of 
race in Mumia’s case, and no pattern of exclusion of Blacks from 
Philadelphia juries, District Attorney Castille was training his 
assistants to do just that with its /DATV Training Tape/.

The most dramatic and memorable portion of that day’s appeal argument 
was on the issue of trial prosecutor Joseph McGill’s summation argument, 
made to the jury on the question of Mumia’s guilt and again on the 
question of whether to sentence him to death or life imprisonment. 
McGill told the jury that if Mumia were to be convicted, it wasn’t 
final, that in fact Mumia would have “appeal after appeal.” This 
argument was a denigration of the decisive role of the jury, of the 
constitutional protection that reasonable doubt requires acquittal. It 
was intended to convince the unsure juror that he would not be 
responsible for a verdict of conviction and execution, because Mumia 
would have plenty of chances to appeal.

During that argument Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Nix 
interrupted and strongly told the appeal prosecutor not to even try to 
defend the prosecutor’s “appeal after appeal” summation language. 
Justice Nix said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had precedent on this 
and had already reversed in a case where the same language had been used 
by the same prosecutor (Joseph McGill) in the same courtroom (Judge 
Sabo). [/Com. v. Baker/, 511 A.2d 777 (1986)] Nix’s statement brought a 
hush to the courtroom, leaving the strong impression that certainly 
Mumia’s death sentence, if not his conviction, would be overturned 
because of that prosecutorial misconduct. That was not to be.

Another appeal issue was the ADA McGill’s cross-examination of Mumia 
during his “allocution” (statement) to the jury. It was Mumia’s 
statement that he was innocent of the charge against him. He denounced 
the trial process, from the judge who denied him the right of 
self-representation and excluded him from the courtroom for large 
portions of the case to his court appointed attorney not representing 
him. ADA McGill seized on Mumia’s allocution to put him on the witness 
stand and question him about statements he made in an interview in the 
/Philadelphia Inquirer/ in January 1969—twelve years before his arrest. 
Mumia’s Black Panther Party membership, speech and writing as a 15 and 
16-year-old, including saying “all power to the people” and explaining 
the government’s murder of Black Panther Party members nationally as an 
examples of the historical reality that “political power grows from the 
barrel of the gun” was used in the prosecution summation to argue Mumia 
had a decade-long intent to kill cops.

On direct appeal, Mumia argued he should not have been questioned since 
he hadn’t taken the witness stand, that the questioning was irrelevant 
and prejudicial. And furthermore to question him about his Black Panther 
Party membership was a violation of his first Amendment constitutionally 
guaranteed right to political association and speech.

Over a year later on March 6, 1989 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued 
its decision. Justice Nix was listed as “not participating in the 
decision.” Only four of the six Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices 
signed the decision upholding Mumia’s conviction and death sentence.

Mumia filed a Petition for re-argument, which the District Attorney 
Castille opposed, and was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 
January 1990.

Mumia filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for c/ertiorari/ 
(review). It was opposed by the District Attorney and denied by the 
Supreme Court on October 1, 1990.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal in the case of a 
prisoner whose Aryan Brotherhood membership was used to argue for his 
death sentence. Mumia filed for re-hearing of his petition for review, 
pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in that case. The District Attorney 
opposed a re-hearing and the Supreme Court denied it. In March 1992, the 
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that to bring up prisoner Dawson’s 
organizational affiliation violated the defendant’s freedom of speech 
and association and overturned his death sentence. (/Dawson v. 
Delaware/, 503 U.S. 159 (1992).)

It is not conceivable that the positions taken by the District 
Attorney’s office arguments in Mumia’s appeal to the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court were without direct input from District Attorney Castille. 
Not only was Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case highly controversial and publicized 
but the issues on his appeal carried far-ranging consequences and import 
for other cases, particularly the challenge to the prosecution’s 
exclusion of African-American jurors and the prosecution’s often-used 
summation argument that a defendant had “appeal after appeal.” Moreover, 
the District Attorney withheld the fact of the /DATV Training Tape/, 
while arguing there was no pattern of exclusion of jurors by reason of 
race. These all constituted direct and personal involvement of critical 
issues of the defendant’s case and fall under the criteria established 
by the new /Williams/ decision.

*/Mumia’s Post-conviction hearings before Judge Sabo 1995-1997/*
/*and Justice Castille’s denial to recuse himself*/

On June 5, 1995, Mumia’s first post-conviction challenge was filed. 
Under Pennsylvania rules, the case was heard by the very same judge who 
was the trial judge in Mumia’s case, the infamous Albert Sabo. But on 
June 1, 1995, then Governor Tom Ridge signed a warrant for Mumia’s 
execution. That put the evidentiary hearing under the threat and 
pressure of an impending execution date.

The 1995 Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) again raised the issue denied 
in Mumia’s direct appeal. The exclusion and removal of African-American 
jurors in violation of /Batson/ was one of some 32 claims in Mumia’s 
post-conviction petition denied by Judge Sabo. The month long 
evidentiary hearing also established ineffective assistance of trial 
counsel, prosecutorial and police misconduct in falsifying a hospital 
confession, that evidence of Mumia’s innocence was suppressed, 
particularly that one or two men ran from the scene.

Mumia’s Appeal brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was filed in 
January 1996. In August 1996 Mumia filed a Motion for Justice Ronald 
Castille to recuse himself from participating in the appeal of Judge 
Sabo’s denial of Mumia’s PCRA.

The eleven-page recusal motion asserted Justice Castille’s actual bias 
as shown in his support for and by the Fraternal Order of Police, his 
“law and order” campaign, his virulent support for the death penalty and 
his defense of the head of the Homicide Unit and other prosecutors in 
his office, including the prosecutors who tried Mumia’s case and his 
post-conviction appeal, that Pennsylvania Superior Court determined to 
be prosecutorial misconduct. The motion stated: “the Office of the 
[Philadelphia] District Attorney’s high profile and long-standing public 
stance in this case [Mumia Abu-Jamal] creates the appearance that the 
Justice has a vested stake in this case. Accordingly, recusal is warranted.”

Castille didn’t respond until October 1998.

After the initial appeal brief was filed in January 1996 and while the 
appeal was pending, new evidence was uncovered. In October 1996, 
evidence was presented that Veronica Jones, a prosecution witness, had 
been threatened into falsifying her testimony denying her initial 
statement that two men ran from the scene. In 1997 Pamela Jenkins came 
forward stating the main prosecution witness, Cynthia White, had been a 
prostitute for the cops and threatened into lying that she saw Mumia run 
across the parking lot and shoot Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Mumia’s 
petitions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for additional evidentiary 
hearings to take these witnesses’ testimony were granted.

But that was not the case when in 1997, the “McMahon” jury training tape 
was exposed. Mumia made a motion to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for 
an additional evidentiary hearing to include this training tape and 
obtain additional evidence for Mumia’s /Batson/ claim on the 
prosecution’s exclusion of Black jurors at his trial. The District 
Attorney’s office opposed the motion with the preposterous claim that 
the /DATV Training Tape/ was only the personal view of then ADA Jack 
McMahon. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a remand hearing on the 
Training Tape. (/Com. v. Abu-Jamal/, 720 A.2d 79, 86 (1998))

After the Mumia’s Pennsylvania Supreme final briefs were filed, a 
preliminary version of the Baldus-Woodworth study with statistical 
evidence of Philadelphia jury selection for the period of 1981-1997, was 
released. This showed the pattern of the DA’s office racially disparate 
strikes of potential jurors. Mumia filed for leave to supplement the 
record on appeal with the study, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 
denied that request.

Nonetheless Mumia’s Appellant Brief and Reply Brief to the Supreme Court 
included the jury training tape and the Baldus-Woodworth study.

In October 1998 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied all of Mumia’s 
post-conviction appeal claims and Justice Castille simultaneously filed 
his opinion denying his recusal from participating in Mumia’s appeal.

Castille denied recusing himself stating, “Under the existing practice 
of this Court, recusal has always been a matter of individual discretion 
or conscience and only the jurist being asked to recuse himself or 
herself may properly respond to such a request.” (/Com. v. Abu-Jamal/, 
720 A.2d 121, 122 (1998).) He further asserted he had “no personal 
connection with appellant’s matter.” He claimed his office handled an 
extraordinarily large number of cases and it was, “virtually impossible 
for any duly-elected District Attorney administering such a caseload to 
be personally familiar with the details of each and every criminal case 
and appellate proceeding by the over 225 Assistant District Attorneys, 
Chiefs or Deputy District Attorneys employed in that office.”

But Mumia’s case was not an ordinary case or appeal. No other case has 
engendered the same attention from the Fraternal Order of Police. 
Castille further stated “recusal is unwarranted, where as here, there 
has been no allegation or showing of any specific prejudgment or bias 
against the defendant.” Castille did not respond to the fact of the 
/DATV Training Tape/ nor to his defense of the prosecutors who committed 
misconduct.

Regarding the support he received from the Fraternal Order of Police 
(FOP), Castille tellingly stated that five other sitting Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court Justices had the endorsement of the FOP.

*/New PCRA 2001 before Judge Pamela Dembe and/
/Justice Castille’s refusal to recuse himself on the subsequent app//eals/*

On July 3, 2001 another PCRA was filed bringing out the confession of 
Arnold Beverly that he shot and killed police officer Daniel Faulkner 
and additional evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and evidence of 
Mumia’s actual innocence. This petition included further challenges to 
the prosecution’s exclusion of African-American jurors. A supplemental 
Petition was filed soon after with the statement of court reporter Terri 
Mauer-Carter who came forward in August 2001 stating that pre-trial she 
heard Judge Sabo say, “I’m going to help them fry the n----r.”

On December 11, 2001 the PCRA court denied the Petition without a hearing.

In preparing the new appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Mumia 
filed a Motion for Remand to take testimony of Castille regarding his 
role in the McMahon training tape in May 2002. When that was denied a 
Motion for Justice Castille’s Recusal was filed. These motions made 
explicit Justice Castille’s apparent direct responsibility for the /DATV 
“McMahon” Training Tape/ and emphasized that Castille had not disclosed 
or even addressed his role with the training tape in refusing to recuse 
himself from the appeals court in deciding Mumia’s 1998 post-conviction 
appeal.

However Castille had recused himself from deciding whether or not his 
testimony should be taken on his role with the training tape. This, it 
was asserted, was an admission by Castille that he should recuse himself 
from further Supreme Court deliberation on Mumia’s case.

Additionally, Castille’s prejudicial role in deciding any case involving 
the training tape in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was pointed out. Of 
the three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions involving the /“McMahon” 
Training Tape/, the only one in which a trial reversal was granted was 
the case in which Justice Castille recused himself.

This provided further evidence of Justice Castille’s influence in the 
Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the prejudicial consequences of his 
denial to recuse himself in cases involving his offices jury selection 
practices.

Nonetheless, the 2002 recusal motion was denied without explanation or 
opinion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Mumia’s 2002 post-conviction 
appeal, refusing to even consider the evidence of Judge Sabo’s racial 
bias, the confession of Arnold Beverly and additional the violation of 
/Batson. /(/Com v. Abu-Jamal/ 833 A.2d. 719 (Pa. 2003))

In early 2004 another petition for /certiorari/ was filed in the U.S. 
Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling 
that upheld overt racial bias of the trial and appellate courts. The 
/cert./ petition also cited Castille refusal to recuse himself from 
participating in the appeals to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This 
petition for review was denied by the Supreme Court.

*/It will take a renewed mass international campaign
to win Mumia’s Freedom/*

It took a mass international campaign of publicity and protest to stop 
the attempt to kill Mumia through the legal lynching of execution. It 
took continued public outcry and international protest to get Mumia off 
death row and into general population. The legal decision overturning 
Mumia’s death sentence was first made in 2001, but the DA’s office 
appealed that twice to the federal court of appeals and to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. It was to avoid any possibility of opening Mumia’s 
conviction that in December 2011, the Philadelphia DA’s office, with the 
apparent brokerage of Edward Rendell (former Philadelphia DA, then 
Mayor, then Pennsylvania Governor, then Chair of the Democratic Party 
and now remaining one of its prominent national spokesmen) with the 
Fraternal Order of Police, agreed to stop attempts to execute Mumia, and 
instead sent Mumia to “slow death row,” life imprisonment without the 
possibility of parole.

Mumia is now fighting to stay alive and is battling the DOC for 
life-saving anti-viral medication to cure Hepatits C that he got from 
blood transfusions after he was critically shot and beaten by police on 
December 9, 1981.

But as the history of Mumia’s case in particular and the realities of 
the American criminal injustice system show us over and over it will 
take international mass protest for this new legal precedent to be 
applied to Mumia. This December 9 will be 35 years since Mumia, an 
innocent man, was framed for a murder he did not commit.

We need to seize on this new legal opening and build a renewed mass 
international campaign for Mumia’s freedom, Now!

Rachel Wolkenstein, August 28, 2016

/Rachel Wolkenstein began working with Mumia Abu-Jamal in February 1987 
as Staff Counsel for the Partisan Defense Committee and was present in 
the courtroom for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeal argument in 
Mumia’s case in January 1988. For additional information: 
www.RachelWolkenstein.net/

/Mumia’s new legal petition was filed on August 7, 2016 by attorneys 
Judith Ritter and Christina Swarns./

/The PCRA petition and appeals from 1995-1998 were filed by the legal 
team headed by Leonard Weinglass and included Rachel Wolkenstein, Daniel 
Williams and Jonathan Piper./

/The PCRA Petition and appeals from 2001-2003 were filed by attorneys 
Marlene Kamish, Eliot Lee Grossman, Nick Brown and J. Michael Farrell./

-- 
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20160831/127700bb/attachment.html>


More information about the PPnews mailing list