Author John Grisham hosted a fundraiser in Arlington for Charlottesville-based Legal Aid Justice Center, The fundraiser featured the story of the Immigration Resolution in Prince William County, filmed by 9500 Liberty. I felt the entire story should be posted. Here it is, with credit to Mr. Hunley.
Jonathan Hunley
Manassas News and Messenger
ARLINGTON—A line of people started forming quickly around Prince William County police Chief Charlie T. Deane.
They wanted to introduce themselves, shake his hand, maybe even chat him up.
The eager group wasn’t all law enforcement members, though, or even people who had followed Deane’s more than four decades as a policeman.
They were interested in Charlie Deane, Movie Star.
Deane was one of a handful of Prince William area folks who came to the Rosslyn Spectrum Theatre on Thursday night for the latest screening of “9500 Liberty,” a documentary on the region’s fight over immigration.
The issue, which flared in 2007, lately has taken a back seat to economic woes. But it played out again on the big screen and was introduced by an even bigger name.
The movie, 78 minutes in its current incarnation, was the centerpiece for a $25-a-head fundraiser for the Charlottesville-based Legal Aid Justice Center, which advocates for low-income Virginians.
The event was headlined by best-selling author and Charlottesville resident John Grisham, a supporter of the Legal Aid Justice Center, which has a program geared toward immigrant workers.
“9500 Liberty” was made by Gainesville resident Eric Byler and his fiancee, Annabel Park, who lives in Silver Spring, Md. They began filming in August 2007 after Prince William supervisors first took on the issue of immigrants in the county illegally.
They first released videos on the Web site YouTube, and have gradually added to and tweaked the work. Thursday was the first time the current version was screened, but Park said it likely will be revised further.
The title of the film comes from 9500 Liberty St. in Manassas, where property owner Gaudencio Fernandez had posted several pro-immigration messages. The first was fashioned in 2007 on the remaining wall of a burned-down house.
The documentary chronicles the formation of a county government resolution seeking to determine residents’ immigration status, and the reaction and changes to that initiative.
Main “characters” in the real-life drama include blogger Greg Letiecq of the group Help Save Manassas and Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart on one side of the issue, and Fernandez and bloggers Alanna Almeda and Elena Schlossberg-Kunkel on the other side.
Thursday’s crowd of about 350 was overwhelmingly on the latter side, and they jeered footage of local folks mentioning 9/11 in connection with Hispanic residents and applauded at the film’s end.
But, after the screening, the filmmakers said they did not start the project with a position on the immigration issue.
They did feel compelled to express some opinions, however, especially about the need for Prince William police to check the immigration status of only those people taken into physical custody.
That’s how the law stands now, and Park and Byler agree with that. Initially, regulations called for status checks of anyone who violated the law and who police had “probable cause” to think was here illegally.
Those who supported the earlier version of the law were a minority of area residents but caused the region to be considered intolerant, Byler said.
“We wanted to help show the real Prince William County,” he said.
That seems to be the aim of county Supervisor Frank J. Principi, as well.
Principi appears in the film and was at Thursday’s screening. The first version of the Prince William immi-gration resolution was passed before he was elected.
But he pushed to remove the “probable cause” element, drawing praise from some and ire of others.
“Frank, I hope you enjoy serving on that board, I tell you,” Grisham said.
After the screening, Principi said seeing the film caused “different emotions,” including sadness at families torn apart when members had different status and at the economic impact of Hispanic immigrants—legal or illegal—leaving the county.
“What we need to be about is celebrating our diversity,” he said.
When he shook hands with Deane on Thursday, they joked about being movie stars.
The police chief said the immigration initiative required lots of training for the department and the juggling of protecting crime victims, following county policy and refraining from racial profiling.
“It was a busy year,” he said of the ordeal.
Good on Chief Deane. It’s good to know he will be getting the recognition he deserves. I wonder if there will be a new Grisham novel coming down the pike. He wouldn’t need to fictionalize much. Chief Deane would be the hero of course.
“Best-selling author” is a stretch anymore for Grisham, who has sold his name out to lesser-known writers peddling inferior novels under his mantle.
It was a wonderful evening 🙂
I was one of those lining up to shake the Chief’s hand. He embodies character and dignity.
I loved what Chris said in the video about Chief Deane, about generations of teens growing up in PWC under the watchful eyes of the Chief, something like that. Such a long record of public service is inspirational.
It was wonderful to meet you firedancer. It was a great evening. I especially got a kick out teasing Frank about his “salsa” dancing with his wife!
The story of Maria, only 16, was really moving. Living in a country that she can’t even read or write the language because Amercia is her true homeland. Very sad, especially watching Alanna’s daughter weep because she missed her so much.
I have said this before, Chief Deane deserves to be recognized as one emobdies the Kennedy spirit in “Profiles in Courage”.
One must remember that 9500 Liberty is a propaganda film
that tells just one side of a complex issue. It is a visual
opinion piece, not an unbiased objective documentary.
In today’s America, Richard, “propaganda” is anything that contains information you are averse to hearing or unaccustomed to seeing. Do you use that term to insulate yourself from considering the events that are depicted in the film as true? Or do you use that term to insulate yourself from seeing the film at all? What is the aim in employing such a word other than to say “I don’t agree”? I have decided to say “I don’t agree” when someone says something I don’t want to deal with, and it’s working great. In fact, I don’t even have to say it or type it and it still helps.
But I guess that wouldn’t work here because I believe you did say a few weeks ago that you understand why the original Immigration Resolution was over the top, and we had to get rid of probable cause so we wouldn’t get sued by the U.S. Justice Department. Whether or not you agree that racial profiling is wrong, you have to agree that costly law suits are, well, costly. So why hide behind the “propaganda” word?
Nothing is objective other than what you see with your own eyes, and even then it IS your eyes that saw it.
Witness Too, I never was a fan of the PWC Resolution and, indeed,
without the steady professional help of Chief Deane to modify
the original Greg/Corey version, it would have have been
a much larger train wreck.
What I object to is the opinions extremes on both sides are
demanding we accept. In a court of law you have the prosecution
and the defense – this film, much like BVBL and HSM on the
other side, is all prosecution – with no questions allowed.
Jurors/Citizens need to clearly hear both sides of the case and base
their decision on the law and the FACTS in evidence.
( By the way, “…’propaganda’ is anything that contains
information you are adverse to hearing or unaccusomed to seeing.”
sounds a little spooky. Have you been talking to Cheney?)
@Firedancer
Thanks Firedancer. I was one of those teens and now my kids are. I spoke from first hand personal experience, and not some dumb a$$ talking point.
Richard, my point was that your word is used by everyone to refer to anyone they don’t agree with or don’t want to hear from. It makes it sound as if you don’t agree with something, or don’t want to hear something. But in this case it sounds like you haven’t even seen the something, which means we aren’t able to discuss it just yet. I have not seen this version, but the previous version contained plenty of prosecution from Mr. BVBL himself, as well as many of his supporters. It also had a number of other views and then the end result was a collective decision that almost everyone agrees with: do away with “Probable Cause” and avoid those law suits. I don’t think this is a controversial position since even people inside HSM support this change, or at least say they do.
Chris, I’m glad your voice is still out there and no one has silenced you. You have really been through the wringer, poor kid! Thanks for keeping your voice in the mix. We need you.
Wtiness, many thanks. I will NEVER allow my voice to be silenced. I will always have my voice out there.
Poor Richard,
I’m curious…have you attended any of the screenings? It sounds like you haven’t, and yet you would attend HSM meetings on a regular basis. Th
Chris, both the filmakers and HMI too often
distort the truth to serve their own purposes.
FOX has made a mockery of the term term “fair and balanced”,
but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a worthy goal for those
seeking to share and receive accurate information. In
some cases propaganda and advertising are close, but
know the infomercial and honest unbiased information aren’t
the same.
I would welcome PBS or CNN, without a preset angle or
agenda, visiting the Manassas/PWC area and doing a story
on immigration and not just with HSM of MWB. Go to the
schools, the hospitals, the police departments, the judicial
system, family services – do the leg work of real reporting
and do it with an open mind. That is what I would like –
for the good of the entire community.
@Poor Richard
CNN, PBS without an agenda? Without an angle?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now THAT’S Funny!!!
Poor Richard,
You saw the film then Thursday night, specifically, what parts were “propoganda” ?
Poor Richard, I hear what you are saying. I meant do disrespect.
BTW-PBS did cover the immigration story here in PWC at the hieght of it all, and it aired in September of 2007. All sides were equally respresented and given equal time. Take a look at it..you might really be surprised to even see a Supervisor.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1102/cover.html#
Plenty of leg work is going on by George Mason University — the school has been actively sending students out into the community to interview people from all walks of life and record oral histories for several different projects.
The university has also been bringing people together for film screenings, study circles and workshops that give opportunities for people from all viewpoints to be heard and build relationships. There is a workshop the first week of June that will bring together leaders in Prince William.
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
Slow it might serve you well to take a peek at the video yourself.
@Cindy B
Right you are Cindy. I will be talking to George Mason later this week.
Some people just refuse to participate in anything that they don’t have control over and advise others to do the same. Kudos to those that are willing to participate in such things, especially the study/neighborhood circles.
Brookings Institute also talked to people regardless of their feelings on immigration. Those who didn’t like what they heard dismissed the Brookings Institute report as liberal drivel. Those people discounted that Brookings has been doing studies for many different organizations including the federal government.
My thinking is: if Greg Letiecq and his helpers believe that Brookings Institute isn’t the truth but BVBL is, they are simply redefining the truth. Some of them actually sat with us and watched the 9500 Liberty movie last year and really they couldn’t argue that the film does anything more or anything less than show what happened. Chris is right: some people only want to deal with a reality in which they control every aspect. In this case, I think they are just threatened by this film becasue they can’t control the output. Same with Brookings, all the local papers, all the local journalists.
Chief Deane really gets their goat, though, because try as they might to defame and slander the man, the community just won’t have it. That is why the film is so fun to watch.
Hate to say it, CNN is just as biased as Fox News, but in opposite direction for the most part. They do their fare share of distortions too. And, at least on the project I work on, which is used to transmit video to troops overseas without access to the US Armed Forces TV network, the system used to carry both CNN and Fox. CNN once did a piece where they strongly implied all soldiers fighting in Iraq were guilty of war crimes. General in charge of our project said pull the plug on CNN – so we no long carry CNN – just Fox and the Pentagon Channel (sort of can be thought as “CNN for the military” – actually rather boring to watch if you ask me).
So, to say CNN would be unbiased, not so much. Actually, finding an unbiased news organization? Good luck.
I think Fox and MSNBC are far worse than CNN. I am not saying it isn’t biased, I just don’t hear opinions on every single bit of ‘news’ reported. I will confess though, that Faux News is far more entertaining. I can tell when it is on even with my eyes closed.
Why didn’t Chief Deane resign in protest and thereby use his moral clout to end the resolution?
The Brookings Institute is definitely a credible organization, but there can be no doubt that it is left leaning. Just as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are right leaning, think tanks are colored by political philosophy. Conclusions from a think tank about a particular topic can usually be deduced, just by knowing which organization published the report. A report on PWC Immigration is therefore needed from a more right-leaning organization to see the degree to which its conclusions differ from those of the Brookings Institute.
Gainesville, I agree CNN is just as biased as the next one. I do find that both CNN & MSNBC have a very left leaning view. I’m a true Independent and I only will watch the Fox News Channel. Now, with that being said that doesn’t mean that I don’t think has it’s own spin too. I really do have to laugh when Bill O’Riely says “Welcome to the no spin zone”. That’s down right laughable.
Kelly, I think we’ve already HAD a report from a right leaning organization. A far, far, far right leaning organization. It’s called FAIR, Federation for American Immigration Reform. Not only did they issue a report, but they also made recommendations. Sadly for our county, John Stirrup and Corey Stewart lapped it up, thanks to the snake oil salesman who had apparently hypnotized them both. And the far far far right organizations recommendations were on our law books for a time. This is a blot on our county’s reputation that is only partially undone by the fact that those recommendations were removed soon after.
@kelly3406
I’m curious as to why a more right leaning organization has studied PWC. I talked to the Brookings Institute too. I think it’s important to remember not all were willing to participate because they already their minds made up it would be slanted. Well of course something is going to be slanted when those on all sides are willing to participate. Brookings Institute did speak to one Supervisor for their report. The HSM crowd did NOT participate. Now, why hasn’t crossed their minds that if their voice isn’t heard..it will not be represented. Again, it goes back to those not having control of something.
oops. has NOT studied PWC.
grasping my throat here, Chris. arrgghhhhhhh The other person who lives here almost fell out.
‘Very left leaning?’ CNN? Examples please.
I am not saying the station is without bias …they all are.
Brookings Institute is known more for researchers with a strong academic background than for left-leanings. The ‘leftist leanings’ seems to be a media designation for the think tank.
On the other hand, anyone willing to get the Heritage Foundation down to Prince William County should feel free to have a go at it. They are a reputatable think tank also.
There just seems to be a tendency for people to ascribe left and right labels to anything they don’t agree with.
Chris brings up excellent points about Brookings Institute as far as the Prince William Immigration report goes. I do know some people interviewed who I would definitely say were not real enthusiastic about immigration: legal or otherwise.
I think the most recent bias was during our last election. CNN was
pro-Obama right out the gate. imho. “Examples please”, my goodness you are starting to sound like a former poster on another blog that wouldn’t answer a single question yet kept chomping at the bit to have others answer his question. Now, I won’t call them out by name yet. However, my guess is you know exactly who I’m talking about.
I agree let’s get the Heritage Foundation here to PWC. The bottom line is we all have our biases just as prejudices.
What made them fall at your house?
You know who who runs the taxi service was worried about you and Faux News. (cryptic message)
Yes, I know who you mean. That ‘minion’ is just an extension of the master, methinks.
How lame is this, I don’t even remember the last election. It seems like light years ago.
It’s hard to trust any one news source, and the line between news gathering and selling products has been totally blurred. I read the Washington Post and the DC Examiner (my former editor Mark Tapscott is there). My husband brings home the “McPaper” – USA Today – from his travels. I watch CNN and Fox, but prefer old movies or peaceful silence to their fear/panic-goading (swine flu) when the world, on average, is safter than it’s ever been. I check out several local blogs, but only because I know the writers and have spoken to them personally – Alanna, Andy Harrover. What I trust most are the face-to-face conversations with people who speak from their own experience. I’d rather stumble over trying to explain myself and what I am doing with fresh thoughts and words, than memorize talking points or cut-and-paste.
Cindy, I think you bring up several good points here, especially about news gathering and selling products (and/or ideology). I find if I keep the news on all day, I end up depressed.
I don’t want my news to tell me how to think or what I am suppose to think. I find that channels like FoxNews to that. I actually enjoy the local news more. It isn’t overkill.
What do you think of the trend, because of the economy, toward creating local news services to share newsgathering resources and provide pool coverage of events? Chicago’s doing it. I think our local news outlets are considering it.
You like “local news”? Jesum Crow every morning that I turn on “local news” at 6 AM, I get a rehash of the prior day’s metro section or A pages. Occaisionally I get a new story that was apparently “reported here first” according to a station that is reporting it simultaneously (sp?). And then there are apparent stories that really aren’t stories, like Lucy lost 5lbs on some sort of diet,or here’s how you can save 5 cents at your local fast food joint. It really is all filler, except for the fun days when it snows and every reporter available to man is on a street corner with a ruler, measuring snow fall, and reporting that guess what…it’s snowing outside.
Cindy, I don’t know much about it. Give me an example of how it would work, please. I think anything that replaces what we have now is a good thing. I think the 24 hour cable news channels are doing something to the American system that just isn’t a good thing. In the first place, it is depressing. These stations are filtering news, telling us how to think, and probably a whole host of things we don’t even know about.
DB, what station is this? I have never heard of such a thing but I don’t have the radio on at that hour.
Supposedly an independent group would shoot general footage at general events and send it to all the news stations. That would not include exclusive coverage of breaking news events.
Does anyone know when and where the June screening of 9500 Liberty is?
Cindy, thanks. That would save money and share resources for sure.
I had this mental flash of footage from the old days….reporters dashing for a pay phone to call in their stories while flashbulbs blinded everyone in the room.
What movie was it when the reporters all smashed into a row of phone booths and the phone booths fell over?
Dunno. I will ask older and more venerable Mr. Howler…he might know.
Witness Too – I don’t remember that movie. I do remember movies depicting things from old times and reporters running to nearest phone book. One I remember was the movie “The Right Stuff” when the sound barrier was broken, some reporter ran to a phone booth to report it, but some military guy intervened and hung up the phone. Whether that actually happened that way, or is a myth created by Hollywood, I don’t know.
MH – an excellent point about the unfiltered 24 hour a day news we have now. I think at times there’s too much “our pulse is on the news” sort of thing. Personally, I find some stories following them – hearing at first highly inaccurate reports (in the race to be the ‘first’ to report things), then getting them clarified, then all the “ups and downs” wearying or exhausting, as a “news spectator” for lack of better term. I don’t care what network, CNN, or any other network – if you see a breaking story – following the ups and downs is draining. The Swine Flu story a perfect example of this – first a lot of hype and paranoia (there could be thousands of deaths in the USA, etc.). Now, seems like flu season is ending, but have to be on guard this winter against re-emergence of swine flu. Following the ups and downs of that story, just exhausting.
In the old days, there was the “6 o’clock news”. There was the daily newspaper. Information had time to sink in, be analyzed and filtered. You didn’t get all the “Breaking news” stuff and it seemed a simpler time, and less draining. If a breaking story has ups and downs along the day – who cares – all I care about is what point A was, and what point B is, not all the oscillations it did along the way.
Being a realist, I know we are never going to go back to those simpler times, but I think there’s a price being paid for this “instant news and analysis” society we have become. Some technology is good, some is bad, and this is a case where some of this “instant news technology” is BAD. What’s worse, everyone has camera phones, and that is sometimes not such a good thing. I’m not denying in some cases it IS a good thing to capture something that no one else might have captured. But I’ve seen some very bad instances of it too.
Anyway, an interesting comment you made there MH in your post #39 that I wanted to spin off of a little bit with my own thoughts.
Also, in regards to filtering news, you have an interesting point MH. In the old days, news was filtered (the 6 o’clock news, the daily newspaper). BUT, you read it, discussed it at the dinner table, etc. Now, as you say, the cable news outlets (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) are on 24 hours a day and do the thinking and discussing and instant analysis for us. That is bad I think. I sometimes get to watch a LOT of it, not because I want to, but because the system I work on carries Fox News (well, it USED to carry CNN until by order of high up Army General it no longer does) – and I sometimes get to sit there watching Fox News drone on and on when I’m doing work on the system in the field. I just got to do this 3 weeks ago when the Swine Flu story was going. I got tired of hearing all the instant analysis, reports that this could be a “pandemic” and thousands of people could die right here in the USA, etc. etc. I would go home at the end of the day feeling very drained, and did not at all want to hear the words “Swine Flu” mentioned. Seeing it 8 hours a day roughly, nonstop, was really draining, and hearing all the gov’t officials come on, and analyze it, or seeing the many live press conferences with Dept. of Health, Dept of Homeland Security, etc. was just too much. And THOSE were initially unfiltered, but then you get the “talking heads” come on right after it. ENOUGH ALREADY is what I wanted to scream at the video I was watching, but of course I’d be talking to a TV monitor and not those that were originating this nonsense 24 hours a day. The worst was that was about the only story being covered, it seemed, with all kinds of fancy maps and graphics. I like statistics a lot, but was tired of it after so many hours nonstop.
Slowpoke – you wrote in reply to Poor Richard: CNN or PBS without an angle?
Actually, I think you could say that the phrase “Network News and no angle” is an oxymoron. It is like the phrase “military intelligence”! I don’t care what network you want to name, they ALL have angles/agendas.
Sorry I didn’t get into the discussion sooner, we went away for the weekend.
The screening was a blast. We met so many wonderful people! Elena and I had a chance to talk briefly with John Grisham, it was very exciting.
And, by the way, none of them were masked, horse riding anarchists from southern Mexico. Very funny part of the movie was when one of the HSM’ers was asked to explain the zapitista movement, and then ended up saying something along the lines of ‘just ask Greg, he knows all about it’.
Envy anyone who gets to talk with John Grisham – have read a few of his books. That’s pretty neat.