Clear LAPD policy, adopted over two decades ago, was flagrantly violated by Rampart CRASH officers when they arrested former gang member Alex Sanchez on an INS warrant. Sanchez is now a peacemaker, working to bring about gang truces and provide training and job opportunities to former gang members. What possible justification can the police have for going after gang violence prevention efforts instead of enforcing laws against gang violence?Worse yet, the officers appear to have been acting in retaliation against Mr. Sanchez for his testimony last September before a State Senate committee investigating police abuse against former gang members.

Investigations in the corruption scandal rocking the Rampart CRASH unit have revealed a pattern of arrogance, intimidation and lawlessness. We now add retaliation for public exposure of police abuse to the appalling list. If the police have their way, Alex Sanchez will not speak out again, sending a clear message to all victims of police abuse, documented and undocumented: "If you know what's good for you, don't talk." These most recent CRASH unit actions drive a stake through the heart of our democratic system of government.

Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, bars police from enforcing federal immigration laws. The Police Commission and top LAPD officials strongly re-affirmed the Order just three years ago.

Special Order 40 is essential. Immigrants are disproportionately the target of crime. Victims and witnesses concerned that they will be questioned about their immigration status - or arrested and turned over to INS officials by the police - will refuse to come forward. The result is inevitable: immigrants will become easy prey for criminals who know the victims will not report offenses to the police for fear of being deported.

I have great respect for the integrity and good faith of the Police Commission and its president, Gerald Chaleff. We are pleased to see some movement from the Commission on police reform, but this proposal is still no substitute for the creation of a truly independent panel. The Police Commission has proposed assembling a group of experts to help it review the Board of Inquiry report, and, eventually, discuss ideas for reform. Essentially, this group's mandate and the parameter of its inquiry will be set by the Commission, and to a large extent by the Board of Inquiry report itself.

The Police Commission is part of the department and part of the problem. It can no more be given the sole responsibility for examining itself than could Chief Parks.

The way to real reform is through an independent civilian inquiry - just as the way to clean police practices is through meaningful, on-going civilian oversight. The Commission's report says that this is their defining moment, but the defining moment for the Commission came a long time ago, when the LAPD dug in its heels against the civilian review process. Now, nothing short of a truly independent panel will get the people of Los Angeles the civilian oversight mechanism and the police department they deserve.

Two confidential sources for government agencies that spied on John Lennon have changed sides and advocated opening secret files on the ex-Beatle, according to a new book. "Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files," by Jon Wiener, a history professor at the University of California, Irvine, reports that Julie Maynard, an FBI confidential informant who spied on Lennon in the early 1970s, joined the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Wiener and the ACLU of Southern California. The lawsuit seeks release of the Bureau's files on Lennon, which date from 1971-72. The book also reports that David Shayler, who worked for MI5, the British counterpart to the FBI, has revealed that MI5 has files dating from the late 1960s on Lennon.

Maynard died in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1997. Shayler is currently living in France, where he fled to avoid prosecution in Britain for violating that country's Official Secrets Act. Lennon's FBI file, 100 pages of which are reproduced in the book, dates from 1971-72, when Lennon was living in New York and campaigning against the war in Vietnam and President Nixon was attempting to deport him. Lennon claimed the deportation order was an effort to silence him as a critic of the president.

The documents Maynard sent to the FBI about Lennon are reproduced in "Gimme Some Truth." She provided key information about Lennon's role in plans for anti-war demonstrations at the 1972 Republican National Convention. The Clinton administration refuses to release eight documents in the FBI's Lennon file on the grounds that they were provided by a foreign government under an explicit guarantee of confidentiality. "We believe these documents contain information from the MI5 files described by David Shayler," Wiener said. He and the ACLU of Southern California continue to litigate under the FOIA to win the release of these documents.

Maynard filed an affidavit in 1990 stating that she "authorize[d] the FBI to release to Jon Wiener and his lawyers . . . any information provided by me . . pertaining to John Lennon." Wiener said, "It's extremely rare for an FBI undercover agent to change sides. This provided us with a unique opportunity to see the Bureau's abuse of power in this case." The FBI initially rejected Maynard's affidavit as "irrelevant," but in 1997 settled the case and released her reports, which are reproduced in the book "Gimme Some Truth." She had told the FBI Lennon said he would participate in the demonstrations "only if they are peaceful." The FBI claimed as the pretext for their investigation of Lennon what they said were his plans to participate in "violent, disruptive demonstrations."

"Maynard's report, which had been kept secret for 26 years, undermined the Bureau's entire rationale for investigating Lennon," Wiener said. Shayler has stated that Lennon was under close surveillance by MI5 starting in 1968 because of his financial support for left-wing groups. The MI5 file on Lennon also includes a copy of the lyrics to Lennon's song "Working Class Hero" in his own handwriting, according to Shayler.

Attorney Dan Marmalefsky of Morrison & Foerester, working pro bono on the case, deposed Scott Hodes of the FBI in June 1999. Hodes reiterated the foreign government's request that information it provided about Lennon not be released. Wiener v. FBI was filed by the ACLU of Southern California in 1983. Information about it, including annotated copies of FBI documents, are available at the website www.LennonFBIfiles.com.

Lennon FBI Files Chronology

Dec 8, 1980: Lennon killed by Mark David Chapman.

Feb. 12, 1981: FOIA request filed by Jon Wiener for Lennon FBI files.

Mar. 22, 1983: Wiener v. FBI lawsuit filed by ACLU of Southern California.

Feb. 29, 1988: Judge Robert Takasugi affirms FBI position.

July 12, 1991: 9th Circuit overrules Takasugi.

Jun. 22, 1992: Supreme Court denies FBI petition for review. Case remanded to Judge Takasugi's court.

Oct. 4, 1993: Clinton declares "openness initiative"; Attorney General Reno orders internal review of pending FOIA litigation.

Sept. 17, 1997: Settlement signed; FBI releases 81 pages of previously withheld information, pays $204,000 in plaintiff's costs. 8 "national security" documents remain at issue.

June 14, 1999: Attorney Dan Marmalefsky of Morrison & Foerster, deposes Scott Hodes of the FBI, who reiterates foreign government's request that information not be released.

Jan. 21, 2000: University of California Press publishes "Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files," by Jon Wiener. Book reproduces the 100 most important documents in the file.

Today the ACLU of Southern California filed a class action lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, its Superintendent and Board of Education, the State Superintendent of Public Education, and the State Department of Education on behalf of children attending Rosemont Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles. The suit challenges school administrators' decision to conduct five separate classes (four classes of third-graders, and one class of second-graders) simultaneously in the Rosemont school auditorium, without sound barriers, floor-to-ceiling visual barriers or adequate space for learning and safety. [click here to view a floor plan of the auditorium]

'Subjecting these young seven-to nine-year-old children to this learning environment denies the children their Constitutional right to a free, adequate and equal public education,' said ACLU-SC Executive Director Ramona Ripston. 'Given the deplorable conditions under which these classes are forced to operate, how can we reasonably expect these teachers and students to succeed? '

During the 1998-1999 school year, Rosemont Avenue Elementary School conducted three third-grade classes simultaneously in the school auditorium. Beginning last July, when the year-round school year began, and continuing to this day, four third-grade classes and one second-grade class, totaling five classes and one hundred students, are forced to coexist in the Rosemont Avenue Elementary School auditorium. Teachers had to ask for donations of cloth partitions to use to separate the classes. Unfortunately, those partitions provide no sound barrier between the classes. The students often cannot hear their teachers, each other, or school loud-speaker announcements because of the noise level in the auditorium.

'The days of the one-room schoolhouse ended with the last millennium. But at Rosemont, students are being warehoused, divided only by ramshackle partitions, as if education were taking place in a M.A.S.H unit,' said ACLU-SC Legal Director Mark Rosenbaum. 'This is the first case of its kind in the state, and we're hopeful that the school district will seek a quick resolution to ensure that these children are not denied the same educational opportunities that the majority of children throughout the state receive.'

'I want my daughter to be in a classroom like other third graders,' said Adrian Rios, the father of plaintiff Daisy Rios. 'The walls in the auditorium are not appropriate for the five classes. The children sometimes yell and everything is audible. Even when the children are just speaking normally in class, all they say can be heard.'

The suit alleges that the second- and third-grade children attending Rosemont Avenue Elementary School are being denied their right to equal protection of the law because they must learn under conditions that fall fundamentally below prevailing statewide standards. In addition, the suit will challenge the conditions of the school for having a racially discriminatory impact on these children, 99.5% of whom are children of color. Third grader Natalie Molina, on of the plaintiffs in the case, said 'I want to learn more because I don't want to go low, I want to go high ... to the next level.'

The ACLU is seeking to have the children placed in separate classrooms, where they will be able to hear their teachers, move around their room safely and take full advantage of their right to a quality education.

Catherine Lhamon, an ACLU-SC staff attorney, added, 'The children at Rosemont, 99.5% of whom are children of color and more than 90% of whom receive free or reduced priced meals, are the forgotten children in our state. Through this lawsuit, the ACLU seeks to make the state and the school district remember these children, and be accountable to them.'