And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison

[HiPointDem]

Last night, Portland resident Leah-Lynn Plante spent the first of what could be a year and half's worth of nights in prison for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury about people she might know who might have been involved with the political vandalism on May Day.



Plante has not been charged with a crime—in fact, the court granted her immunity from prosecution, meaning she could not invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent—but she could serve time until the expiration of this grand jury...until March of 2014.

Plante is the third person to be sent to the SeaTac Federal Detention Facility for refusing to testify in this matter... As she was sentenced...Judge Jones reminded her that "you hold the keys to your freedom" and that she could be released at any time if she chose to "exercise your right to provide testimony."



It was an odd turn of phrase—the same judge who, that morning, legally blocked her from exercising her Fifth Amendment right was sending her to federal detention for not exercising a "right." The 40 or so supporters in the courtroom stood solemnly as she was led away. "I love you," Plante said to the crowd, as marshals escorted her through a back door. "We love you!" some people in the crowd said. The security men looked tense for a moment, their eyes bright and their jaws clenched, ready for action. Then everyone walked out quietly, without incident.

The only federal defendant to be sentenced for an actual May Day-related crime so far—damaging a door of a federal courthouse...was arrested in early May and sentenced... to time served. Which brings up a pointed question: Why was the only federally identified May Day vandal sentenced to time served (about a month) while people granted immunity...government attorneys don't dispute that (Plante) wasn't even in Seattle on May Day...are looking down the barrel of 18 months in federal custody? Why is a person who might know something about a crime, but...insists she has her right to remain silent, facing more severe punishment...than the person who was sentenced for actually committing that crime?*

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/10/11/and-then-there-were-three-third-grand-jury-refuser-goes-to-prison

On edit: according to plante, discovery through freedom of information act uncovered the information that this grand jury was actually convened in March & was therefore not a response to anything that happened on May Day.

http://vimeo.com/becausewemust/statement#t=325

[randome]

1. Doesn't one need to 'accept' immunity?

If she did and she still refuses to talk, then maybe that's why a stiffer penalty?

[HereSince1628]

11. I don't think so.

Last edited Fri Oct 12, 2012, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

The idea of immunity is to guarantee the person's words aren't used against them in violation of the 5th amendment.

That can be done by the court, then they are compelled to testify.

I don't really know why someone wouldn't just have the same sort of attack of amnesia as WH staff did during the Plame grand jury.

[randome]

25. Then I don't see the point of holding her in contempt.

From the article, it doesn't sound like she has any urgent information to impart.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. She's protecting a criminal by not testifying against them. That's why she is in contempt. nt

[HiPointDem]

34. there's no evidence she's protecting a criminal.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. True. There is the presumption of innocence for anyone who might be accused of the vandalism.

So I apologize for using the shorthand "criminal" instead of "potential criminal" or some other term.

[HiPointDem]

39. there's actually no evidence this is anything but a fishing expedition.

[randome]

44. That's what it sounds like to me, too.

[reACTIONary]

178. This is a Grand Jury Investigation. It is by definition...

...a fishing expedition. It is an inquisitional proceeding (an investigation) not an accusatorial proceeding (prosecution of a crime). Its purpose is to determine if there is cause to believe a crime has been committed and sufficient evidence to indite someone.

The grand jury proceedings are secrete, to protect the innocent, since they are based on suspicion, not hard evidence. If enough evidence to prosecute is uncovered, then they return an indictment. At that time the accusatorial process and public scrutiny are in effect.

[HiPointDem]

245. 'fishing expedition' = seeking information, not about any specific crime, but seeking information in

order to construct a crime and criminal charges that can be used to persecute people for their politics.

in other words, the desire to harrass and intimidate is primary; any 'crime' is secondary.

it's political, and these kids are political prisoners.

it's secret because this travesty can't stand the light of day.


A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment. During a presentment the grand jury informs the court that they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment

[reACTIONary]

254. If people are delibertly engaging in vandalism under the pretext of "political action"...

... then there is no need to "construct a crime". The crime is evident and warrants investigation.

The details of a grand jury proceeding are kept secrete, since the proceeding is investigative and speculative in nature and may turn up personal or otherwise embarrassing information that is not related to a crime. If an indictment is returned a normal acusatorial proceeding is initiated, innocence is presumed, and the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in open court.

Let me be frank. Vandalism is not free speech or legitimate political action. It is not productive of democratic values. It will not further the cause. It will only alienate those who should be, and otherwise might be, on our side. Those engaging in it have not only brought this upon themselves, they have given the opposition the opportunity to characterize the movement as a whole by their criminal actions. They simply don't deserve our support, and won't get mine.

[HiPointDem]

299. first, the grand jury was convened 3 months *before* may day, so it was not convened to

investigate any vandalism that took place on may day.

second, only politically motivated/associated vandalism seems to lead to the convocation of grand juries; therefore it's not the vandalism, it's the politics.

"on our side" = lol.

[reACTIONary]

340. Grand juries are sometimes empanelled for an extended period of time...

... and may investigate a variety of issues over that period. Since we do not know what they are actually investigating, it may or may not be directly tied to the vandalism that occurred on May day.

Grand juries (in those districts that use them) are convened all the time for a variety of reasons. They are particularly well suited to investigating cases of criminal conspiracy and political corruption.

Politically motivated or associated vandalism is just that, vandalism. If you don't want the authorities busting on you for your politics, then stay away from violence and vandalism. In fact, stay away from violence and vandalism even if you AREN'T a political activist.

This is plain and simple political activism 101. Its like drug dealing - if you want to be a political activist, stay away from drugs and drug dealing. It can, and will be used against you in a court of law. Just common sense.

[girl gone mad]

300. "Seek to understand."

Good advice.

[reACTIONary]

342. And...

...share your understanding.

[sabrina 1]

302. The woman who just went to jail was not even present at the May Day protests.

So why was she even a subject of the Grand Jury?

[reACTIONary]

341. We don't know the connection between the may day vandalism...

... and the investigation that the Grand Jury is conducting. The vandalism may be the focus of the investigation, or it may be connected to some issue that is more serious. According to the (sketchy) news reports I've found and some of the local commentary, the three homes the FBI raided seemed to have been bank owned and the occupants (including this woman and her partner) seemed to have been squatters. According to the local commentary, the equipment that was used included remote controlled robots of the type used to diffuse bombs.

So the full scope and intent of the investigation may be broader than the vandalism that occurred during the protest.

[bvar22]

323. Gee. I'm glad the Sons of Liberty had a different idea.

You said:
[font color=red]"Let me be frank. Vandalism is not free speech or legitimate political action. It is not productive of democratic values. It will not further the cause. It will only alienate those who should be, and otherwise might be, on our side.---reACTIONary, post #254 "[/font]

Those vandals and delinquents who threw all that Tea in the Boston Harbor really fucked things up for everybody else,
didn't they?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

329. Anyone who feels smashing windows & smashing SUVs people worked hard to pay for is the way to go...

Anyone who feels that smashing windows & smashing SUVs people worked hard to pay for is the way to improve society and to make people feel positively toward your cause is free to do so if they pay the consequences, which may include time for crime and may include being called before a grand jury investigating an anarchist conspiracy.

Invoking the glory of Tea Partiers (from 240 years ago) is some kind of a strategy I suppose. However I don't recommend it until you have a large part of the populace already backing the anarchist cause.

[reACTIONary]

344. +10 (NT)

[reACTIONary]

343. We live in a liberal democracy that respects...

... our basic political freedoms, allows (non-violent) dissent, and provides many means to effect political change in the service of justice. You need only persuade your fellow citizens of the justice of your cause. If you are unable to use persuasion and rely instead on violence, I have no sympathy for you.

[ieoeja]

373. Yes, they did f’ it up for everybody else.

The protestors understandly did not want to pay for the troops occupying their colony. But in this instance they were far more angry at Britain’s actions in response to the tea embargo. The gov’t ordered the colony to purchase the tea so the colony, not the East Indies Shipping Company, would suffer the loss.

While the protestors were dumping the tea, a court in the UK was ruling in Massachusetts' favor that the gov’t could not force the colony to purchase the tea. When word of the dumping reached the UK, the same court ruled that the colony would now have to pay for the tea based on their failure to safeguard the shipping under their protection. So the protestors caused the very thing they set out to prevent.

So, yes, they majorly fucked up. The story is nice and inspiring. But that story grew a lot after the fact.

[TorchTheWitch]

333. how could there be any evidence when grand juries are secret?

And as a result, we are only getting one side of the story here. There's no way to know what's really going on because no one involved in the grand jury procedure is permitted to talk about it. If this was nothing but a fishing expedition and not a legitimate potential case then why is the judge allowing it, why is the prosecutor permitted to do it, and why would he/she risk it, and why are the citizen jurists not having a problem with it especially when grand juries are specifically barred from conducting fishing expeditions as opposed to legitimate investigation? Seeing as vandalism did occur during the protest/s that is/are being investigated that in itself certainly sounds like the grand jury is conducting a legitimate investigation as opposed to some fishing expedition. To assume that it must be some fishing expedition just because we aren't permitted to know what the grand jury is doing because of the built in secrecy is really pretty ridiculous.

[HiPointDem]

336. what we know:

- grand jury convened in march, before may day vandalism had even happened

- persons supoenaed not in seattle on may day

- all persons supoenaed identify as anarchists and are part of that general milieu

on what basis you conclude that this is a legitimate venture i don't know.

[TorchTheWitch]

346. No, we don't KNOW any of that

We don't know if this is solely about the May Day vandalism or if it's about a number of similar incidents including or not including that one. And if it is solely investigating that one day what difference does it make if the people in question where there are not? For all we know some of these people may have been subpoenaed to testify about planning or other organizational stuff... these anarchist black bloc kiddies don't just show up willy nilly on their own at nearly any sizable protest without some kind of planning and organization going on. Also, what difference does it make if the jury was convened in March if they're investigating other incidents or if this was a grand jury that was already seated? As far as I remember, fed grand juries are convened periodically and serve X amount of time (unless the time is requested to be extended which sometimes happens especially if the jury is in the middle of a big case) and handle many potential cases during that X amount of service time. I definitely recall one of the paralegals I worked with years ago had to do her duty on a grand jury for 6 months or thereabouts and they generally met a couple of times a week to deal with a number of cases... whatever came up during that time. We also don't have any idea who was subpoenaed to testify, their political affiliation, and since it's secret, why they would have been subpoenaed... certainly, witnesses to the vandalism would be subpoened to testify that had nothing to do with it but saw it occur. Believe it or not witnesses to crimes are a staple of grand jury subpoenas and testimony.

On what basis you conclude that this is NOT a legitimate venture I can't fathom. What I also can't fathom is why in the world anyone has any compassion for these people that refuse to testify. We all HAVE to testify when summoned to do so by a court, and since this one young woman in particular was granted immunity for her testimony she bloody well should go to jail if she refuses to give it. Being granted immunity absolves her of any criminal involvement so that she can't be charged for it. Immunity is a bargain made by the court when they want someone's testimony badly enough, and you better believe she was made to sign on the dotted line accepting it if she wanted that immunity. Despite that cushy deal she didn't hold up her end of the bargain by testifying.

I really don't get this hero worship for a bunch of vandals that have no real agenda other than making mayhem during any kind of protest or sizable event as cover that greatly increases the likelihood that they won't get caught and which also makes it appear that it is the legitimate peaceful protesters that are responsible because that's exactly what these rotten little shits do. They just like to use the label anarchist to give the appearance that they're something other than just obnoxious little shit vandals whose sole agenda is to cause mayhem getting their jollies out of smashing store windows, overturning peoples' cars, setting trash dumpsters on fire and all the other criminal mischief that gives them a giggle. Fuck. Them.

[sabrina 1]

356. They are not vandals. Please post some proof of that claim. As for people respecting them

for refusing to testify? Wow, I guess you approve of the origin of the law under which their 5th Amendment right was taken away from them?

Are you aware of the history of 'Forced Immunity'? It was invented by Congress back in the 'fifties to force all those Hollywood Commies to STOP taking the Fifth and to hand over lists of their friends and families to Joe McCarthy and his witch hunting Committee or go to jail?

Now maybe you think that was a good thing. That McCarthy was conducting a legitimate investigation and needed to remove the 5th Amendment right from the people in order to get those lists. But I think that was a frightening and shameful chapter in US history and any remnants of it, such as 'Forced Immunity' should be eradicated from our laws because of the potential for the same kind of abuse, which IS what is happening here.

Nixon used 'forced immunity' also, no surprise there, to go after Vietnam War protesters.

In fact it has mostly been used for nefarious purposes such as persecuting people, in the fifties, sixties, seventies, nineties and again now, for their political beliefs.

Of course if you think people SHOULD be persecuted and/or jailed for their political beliefs, then you will support what is happening to these three protesters, what happened to the 'commies' in the fifties, what happened to war protesters under Nixon etc. using this 'forced immunity' trick.

It doesn't matter what they know, or don't know. It is not their job to talk about their political views or to give lists of their friends to any GJ or Prosecutor. THAT is the crime, to try to force them to do so.

[tama]

362. It would be much better

to be able to laugh with you.

[reACTIONary]

380. +10 !!! (NT)

[sabrina 1]

350. None of these three people were even at the May Day protests so they were not involved

in any vandalism. As for the GJ 'not allowed to go on fishing expeditions', wrong. They very much are used for that purpose by over zealous government officials and prosecutors.

They are using this GJ for the sole purpose of persecuting people for their political beliefs and it is perfectly legal so far, for them to do so.

And it is not the first time the GJ has been used for this purpose.

It was used in the same manner during the McCarthy era, when Congress passed the special law forcing people to give lists of their 'commie' friends after Congress became 'frustrated' with people asserting their 5th Amendment rights. No more Fifth for you commies.

It was used later during the Nixon era to go after war protesters, later again and more recently to go after others for their political beliefs, and this case is the latest egregious example of these abuses of the Grand Jury for political purposes.

These three people join many others before them in resisting these abuses by refusing to accept the forced immunity and still exert their 5th Amendment rights. They are extremely courageous to do so on all of our behalves.

[antigone382]

67. She's protecting her own integrity from broad erosion of civil liberties in the name of "terrorism."

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/

...where terrorism is loosely defined as any minor act of vandalism or civil disobedience that challenges the hegemonic impunity of corporate thieves and their allies.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

69. There is no allegation or charge of terrorism in this case. Vandalism is vandalism.

Vandalism is not non-violent protest.

[antigone382]

78. Whatever the ultimate charges, she was targeted because of broad anti-terrorism laws.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-raid-anarchist-literature-portland-seattle/6267/

FBI Agents Raid Homes in Search of “Anarchist Literature”

by Will Potter on July 30, 2012

When FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents raided multiple activist homes in the Northwest last week, they were in search of “anti-government or anarchist literature.”

The raids were part of a multi-state operation that targeted activists in Portland, Olympia, and Seattle. At least three people were served subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury on August 2nd in Seattle.

In addition to anarchist literature, the warrants also authorize agents to seize flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing.

The listing of black clothing and flags, along with comments made by police, indicates that the FBI may ostensibly be investigating “black bloc” tactics used during May Day protests in Seattle, which destroyed corporate property.

(End quote)

These raids were what led to the three people in question being served subpoenas. Anti-terrorism dollars are being used to investigate petty vandals and to intimidate "anarchists" who may or may not know them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

82. Could be search warrants were illegal & that would be a way to throw out the supoenas & convictions.

[antigone382]

85. The problem is that they are legal under current laws.

And grand juries and the granting of "immunity" are being used to force people to yield information about their beliefs and activities. And activists are being sent to extremely tightly controlled prisons called "communications management units" where their ability to contact people outside is severely restricted, with no explanation as to why, and no way to appeal once they are placed there. And the connection between "environmental/animal-rights/anti-global hegemony activist" and "terrorist" is being solidified in the minds of the general public through the passing of laws, the publication of FBI documents, and even the dissemination of advertisements that equate the two.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

86. I would attack it on the grounds that searches for "anti-government literature" is much too vague

"Anti-government literature" is much too vague. It does not meet the test of "violent overthrow of the government" and thus that kind of search infringes on the First Amendment.

In my opinion. I am not a lawyer.

[antigone382]

88. My hope is that such laws will eventually be overturned or found unconstitutional.

But I do not view such a possibility as guaranteed, except in perhaps the very long term.

[dixiegrrrrl]

146. “anti-government...literature.”

My god, we write anti government posts every day here, when ever we criticize any of the wars, or the problems with the economy, etc.

This woman is being made an example of, in case anyone else decides to say no to the system.
Intimidation is the name of the game.
And the fact there even is a Joint Terrorism Task Force snooping into civil protestors is chilling.

Saying NO to the machine has been made illegal.

[HiPointDem]

94. they often call grand juries to fish for evidence about vandalism, do they?

ps: freedom of information materials showed that the grand jury was convened *before* the may day vandalism.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/leah-plante-grand-jury-seattle-anarchist/6448/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

111. Grand juries have broad scope to make inquiries and yes, they do look into crimes that occur after

Grand juries have broad scope to make inquiries (such as issuing subpoenas) and yes, they do look into crimes that occur after they begin convening. This is well established tradition within USA law. Nothing new about that.

[sabrina 1]

131. What criminal? She refused to give the names of other protesters.

Is it criminal now to protest in the Land of the Free?

She has a right to remain silent, or at least we were always told we had that right.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

132. The word "criminal" is already addressed. Read my other posts. Fifth Amendment does not apply here.

Read other people's posts to understand that the Fifth Amendment does not apply in her case. Grand jury law is well established and well understood (by most).

[sabrina 1]

157. You mean the law that abuses the Grand Jury's purpose and that violates the rights of individuals.

Just because there is a law, does not mean it is in line with the Constitution. And thankfully due to the fact that we have always had people willing to fight to change such laws, they eventually do get overturned.

This is one law that needs to go and I am glad that this case will draw attention to it since it has been allowed to stand for far too long.

[Confusious]

184. Which law are you looking to overturn? Nt

[Did I Just Type This]

143. The right to remain silent

is a Miranda right when you are charged with a crime. She has not been charged with a crime, therefore her rights are determined by the courts.

[sabrina 1]

158. Because of a law that was passed manipulating the system to remove those rights.

The law needs to be changed. And hopefully with more spotlight on it, eventually it will be.

[msanthrope]

193. What law needs to be changed??? nt

[crazyjoe]

306. these "protesters" were vandalizing cars and busting storefront windows. they

should be caught and jailed.

[sabrina 1]

310. I think you need to catch up. The woman who is the subject of this OP was not even

at the May Day protests. So much for your opinion on this issue.

[crazyjoe]

347. maybe your right, why is she being questioned if she wasn't even there?

[obamanut2012]

251. Link to the evidence for this?

I couldn't find any such info.

[Yo_Mama]

65. If that is true, why would she not testify?

She cannot be prosecuted for anything she says. She can, however, be prosecuted for perjury if she testifies and lies.

It sounds as if they have enough on her to be able to prove some degree of involvement (so can prosecute for perjury) and are trying to get her to rat out the more-involved others.

They probably need that for conspiracy charges, which are more serious than riot and vandalism.

As to the contempt thing, it is truly necessary to make the justice system work, even if there are often cases when the use seems problematic and troublesome.

For example, suppose you are prosecuting a wealthy white-collar criminal, and you line up the individuals in the company who had tangential knowledge to testify against him (or her). Without the ability to force testimony, what would prevent the wealthy perp from just buying all the witnesses off (and also threatening them)? Indeed, if they had the option to refuse to testify, I would bet that they would be blackballed from further employment in their industry if they did testify.

The only right any individual has not to testify when subpoenaed is when such testimony would incriminate that individual, and that escape clause has been removed in this case.

[antigone382]

74. You need to understand recent laws that have been passed to limit the rights of dissenters...

Here is a good place to start:

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/

Nonviolent activist groups have been infiltrated and targeted for intimidation based on greatly expanded laws that very broadly define terrorism to include basic acts of civil disobedience. Environmental activists have been sent to "communications management units," very secretive and tightly controlled prisons (far more strict than even Federal Supermax's). These institutions are like stateside gitmos, with extremely high populations of Muslim prisoners, who have almost zero access to their families or anyone else on the outside. People sent to these prisons are not informed prior to being sent there, are not really told why they are being sent there, and are given no opportunity to appeal once they are transferred to a CMU.

The goal here is to associate activists whose agendas could "cut profits"--which really, any awareness raising on the fundamental injustices of our current consumer culture will do--with terrorist extremism. It is a "green scare" to rival the "red scare" of the 50's, and like the red scare, intimidation and witch hunts such as this are key aspects of the overall strategy.

[dixiegrrrrl]

147. Gulags come to American soil.

There is no other word for it.

[HiPointDem]

95. because she thinks the proceedings are illegitimate?

However, we suspected that this was not really about broken windows. As if they had taken pointers from Orwell’s 1984, they took books, artwork and other various literature as “evidence” as well as many other personal belongings even though they seemed to know that nobody there was even in Seattle on May Day. While we know that knowledge is powerful, we suspected that nobody used rolled up copies of the Stumptown Wobbly to commit property damage. We saw this for what it was. They are trying to investigate anarchists and persecute them for their beliefs. This is a fishing expedition. This is a witch hunt. Since then, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request, we have learned that this Grand jury was convened on March 2nd, 2012, two months before the May Day vandalism even took place…

When they try to mercilessly gut communities, we do not scatter, we grow stronger, we thrive. I view this State repression like this: The State thinks it is a black hole that can destroy whatever it wants. In reality, it is much more like a stellar nursery, wherein it unintentionally creates new, strong anarchist stars.

My convictions are unwavering and will not be shaken by their harassment. Today is October 10th, 2012 and I am ready to go to prison.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/leah-plante-grand-jury-seattle-anarchist/6448/

[tama]

98. All three of them are resisting

and refusing to cooperate with the Grand Jury because of their convictions.
http://nopoliticalrepression.wordpress.com/

[Yo_Mama]

115. Thanks for the links

Reading them now.

[Triloon]

149. The reason she won't testify

is not because she is trying to protect herself or others from prosecution. It's because she is being asked to 'testify' about the beliefs of her acquaintances. Not their actions, not their plans, not anything other than their beliefs. She refuses to contribute to their witch hunt, and I applaud her.

[sabrina 1]

160. I applaud her also, she and the other two are heroes. This is what it takes to draw attention to the

Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)

egregious abuses of governments who pass laws that remove people's rights and it's sad to see anyone even try to defend the law under which they were able to remove her right to remain silent. What good is a Constitution if we have devious elected officials always looking for ways to get around it.

[msanthrope]

176. No. The grant of immunity is conditional on the giving of testimony.

From what I've read about this case, this was the third time this person had been brought in front of the jury, and refused to talk.

I've read all kinds of paranoia in this thread--not from you--pretty amusing, but indicative of a poor understanding of civics.

[HiPointDem]

332. no. kastigar v. US, 1972. People were summoned before a grand jury & gov't/prosecutor thought

they might take the 5th, so prosecutor got an order granting them immunity beforehand to forestall that possibility & so prosecutor would be able to *compel* their testimony under threat of jail for contempt.

petitioners objected to this, but supreme court ruled it's just fine and dandy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastigar_v._United_States

[graham4anything]

375. Post #1 after the OP said it all. Everything else was a distraction.

you cannot get immunity and take the 5th.

there is NO constituional breakdown here.

the fifth is so one can't testify against themselves
immunity means nothing one says is held against them
so then taking the fifth is reneging on the immunity

talk about having you cake and eating it to

[Vincardog]

2. Why punish someone for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury more than the actual perp?

Last edited Fri Oct 12, 2012, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Because refusing to submit to the AUTHORITY can not be tolerated in a totalitarian system.
It is the same way torture is used to intimidate the populous not to get information (for which it is totally useless).

[rhett o rick]

4. Absolutely. nm

[Stryder]

28. Bingo

[Zorra]

30. +1

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. Contempt conviction NOT equivalent to torture. Same as refusing to testify against an arsonist. nt

[Aerows]

120. It is

If it involves putting people in solitary confinement and not allowing them to communicate with family or to appeal their sentence.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

122. Nothing about contempt conviction that requires solitary confinement, no communication, & no appeal.

[sabrina 1]

161. Any removal of a person's freedom who has committed no crime, IS equivalent to torture.

I am very glad to see more attention now being paid to the abusive law that made it possible to remove an individual's right to remain silent. We have a Constitution which is useless when we have crooked lawmakers finding ways to undermine those rights. Time to rescind this unconstitutional law. Sunlight is the best way to get this done. Good for these heroes for being willing to demonstrate this vile abuse of our Constituional rightsin under cover of a very, very bad law.

[reACTIONary]

186. An individual DOES NOT have a right to remain silent...

...the fifth amendment is not a general right to refuse testimony, it applies only to testimony that is self-incriminating. By granting immunity, the testimony is not self-incriminating and cannot be refused.

Testifying in court is a DUTY that is required in order to maintain a reasonable and fair system of justice. Refusal (outside of self-incrimination) is an abrogation of our responsibilities as citizens.

[sabrina 1]

208. This is an abuse of the Grand Jury system and has long been recognized as such.

She did not ask for immunity, it was FORCED on her. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? One normally has to agree to accept immunity. It is something offered when an individual is concerned about self incrimination, which she certainly should have been concerned about considering our current system of cracking down on anyone exercising their 1st Amendment rights in this country.

Immunity is an offer made with the option for the individual to turn it down. She was not given that option. The Government made her decision for her. This is NOT what the GJ is meant to be used for.

Here, educate yourself on the law they are using to incarcerate perfectly innocent people in this country.

The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the Internment of Political Activists

The Justice Department and the FBI use the subpoena power of the federal grand jury, coupled with compulsory immunity, to jail radicals who refuse to cooperate with government investigations. n6 The government detains these political activists through a system of judicial procedures and congressional statutes that the Supreme Court has upheld, n7 but that nonetheless allow the executive branch to usurp the subpoena power of the grand jury and create a law enforcement inquisition power that requires full cooperation or indefinite imprisonment -- "Political Internment American Style."

[*1162] The contention that the legendary noble institution of the grand jury, adopted by the European settlers in America from their British cousins as a safeguard to the accused from the improper motivations of government, n8 is being used as an instrument of political repression may well be met with great skepticism or shock. In reality, however, the history of the grand jury in England and in the United States has been predominantly one of serving the interests of the government or the prejudices and passions of the local populace. n9 In the few well publicized cases where individual grand juries have refused to indict political opponents of the government against the wishes of the government authorities, these authorities have simply convened more compliant grand juries or found other ways to accomplish their political ends. n10

This Article will provide a brief historical examination of the origins of the grand jury and its use in the United States, with particular focus on contemporary history. In recent years, the government has used the grand jury as a tool of inquisition, subpoenaing and resubpoenaing activists whom the government knows will refuse to cooperate with grand jury investigations concerning their political movements. n11

Just like other bad laws, they won't change until courageous citizens like this woman and the other two protesters, refuse to recognize them as legitimate. Just as MLK, Suffragettes and others throughout history, refused to accept bad laws and were willing to go to jail to get them changed.

I hope this is the beginning of the process to get rid of this abusive law which should have been rescinded long ago.

[reACTIONary]

210. "has used the grand jury as a tool of inquisition" LOL!

Using the Grand Jury as a tool of inquisition? It IS a tool of inquisition! It is an inquisitional proceeding, rather than an accusatorial proceeding (that is, a criminal trial).

Citizens have a duty to testify against criminals. Political motivations do not excuse crimes. Vandals are criminals, whether they are politically motivated or not.

The article promotes "the principle of non-collaboration -- the refusal to cooperate in any manner with grand jury investigations concerning political activity" Let me ask you, do you consider vandalism to be a "political activity"?

(And please don't compare vandalism to MLK's non-violent protest tactics.)

[sabrina 1]

303. The woman who just went to jail was not even present at the May Day protests.

She is being asked to express her 'feelings' about those who engaged in vandalism. And fyi, the one person who was convicted of vandalism, is NOT in jail, he was released with 'time served'. So what excuse is there for dragging this woman before the GJ and attempting to force her to state her feelings about a case that has already been resolved?

I think it's obvious. This is a perfect example of what the article pointed out about how this was used during the McCarthy era, to force people to point fingers at their colleagues by granting them immunity after they exercised their 5th Amendment rights. If there is no 5th Amendment right anymore and you support that, then say so.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

195. They have broken the law. That's a crime. If you don't like the law change it.

Refusing to testify when given immunity and a legally tendered subpoena is a violation of the law.

Being imprisoned for violating law is not "equivalent to torture".

The law is not unconstitutional, since grand juries are explicitly in the Constitution. If you don't like grand juries or their power to issue subpoenas or the power of judges to enforce subpoenas, then rationally suggest reforms or changes that will accomplish the goals behind them: checks and balances on prosecutors and enabling the justice system to find out the facts.

The grand jury power to subpoena helps convict violent criminals and organized crime. So you have to suggest a way of disentangling or segregating some crimes from others in a rational way such that violent crimes like destruction of property and murder can be prosecuted. Otherwise people won't testify because they are afraid to.

[sabrina 1]

206. I like Grand Juries just fine. I like what the Founding Fathers intended them to be used for.

THIS IS NOT what they intended. This is an abuse of the Grand Jury system and completely antithetical to what was intended by the FFs.

No crime was committed by these three protesters. They are engaging in another Constitutional right, it is called free speech. They are speaking about an unjust law, which many before them have done AND gone to jail also (see MLK eg) by engaging in Civil Disobedience. Do you oppose Civil Disobedience to protest bad laws also?

Is it your opinion that once a law is passed no matter how bad, everyone should just 'obey it' like sheep?

The law that put this woman in jail is an egregious abuse of the Grand Jury system and it badly needs to be rescinded.

This woman was not even part of the May Day protests, so what are you talking about regarding 'destruction of property'? She destroyed no property. She is being asked for her 'opinion of what her fellow protesters were thinking'. This is BS and it is Government abuse against innocent people. No law can make it right no matter how you run to the 'law' to try to justify it.

I guess you would have said the same thing about the laws that forbade African Americans and Women to vote, 'oh well, it's the law and if you don't like it then change it, until then too bad'.

Well guess what, THAT IS WHAT THIS WOMAN IS DOING. She is beginning the process of what it takes to get bad laws rescinded by bringing attention to something most Americans were not aware of.

You seem to prefer we act like sheep and take whatever nasty medicine governments decide to force down our throats.

With that attitude African Americans and Women would still not be able to vote. Thank the gods for people like these three protesters, THEY are the ones and their predecessors, who keep this country free for everyone, even those who can't see their freedoms slipping away from them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

207. You can stop calling me racist and sexist. That's disruptive, rude, and over-the-top. Not very DU.

(emphasis added)

I guess you would have said the same thing about the laws that forbade African Americans and Women to vote, 'oh well, it's the law and if you don't like it then change it, until then too bad'.

Your suggestion that I am a racist has no place in DU. Please self-delete your post.

Is it your opinion that once a law is passed no matter how bad, everyone should just 'obey it' like sheep?

No.

You seem to prefer we act like sheep and take whatever nasty medicine governments decide to force down our throats.

No.

[sabrina 1]

214. Nice try at diversion.

You have consistently in this thread supported the incarceration of these three protesters by pointing to a very bad law to excuse it.

If you don't want people to misinterpret what you are saying, then be more clear.

This country has has had plenty of bad laws. Many of them have been rescinded, NOT because of people who throw up their hands and defend them, but by people like these three protesters and MLK and all the women who went out and protested, who got arrested and jailed until it became impossible to continue to defend them anymore.

DON'T put words in my mouth.

If you want make claims about what I said, then use MY WORDS, not YOURS.

You should delete that disingenuous comment which falsified what I said.

[Egalitarian Thug]

222. Diversion is, apparently, all this one has to bring. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

234. quoted YOUR WORDS "you would have said the same thing about the laws that forbade African Americans"

I quoted your words in the post that you object to. You say "use MY WORD, not YOURS".

Here, again, quoted for the second time, are your words:

I guess you would have said the same thing about the laws that forbade African Americans and Women to vote, 'oh well, it's the law and if you don't like it then change it, until then too bad'.

I did not put the words I object to into your mouth. You wrote them. You called me a racist and a misogynist. You can still delete them or at least apologize.

The irony is that what you wrote is attempting to put words into my mouth, the thing you object to. You object to that and then commit it and also commit something much worse.

Calling people racists and sexist has no place in DU discussions, especially when you are the one fabricating the words!

In another post in this thread you said you wanted a "serious discussion". Apparently you think that libelling people is a "serious discussion".

[obamanut2012]

255. She did not call you racist and sxeist, so please quit saying that

Nor did she imply it. She said you are rationalizing bad laws, and used two bad laws that have since been overturned as historic laws you may have championed. I myself have used the examples of Suffrage, slavery, and wife beating as laws that were rotten.

[99Forever]

258. Nobody CALLED you anything.

Sabrina quite correctly gave solid examples of what the fuck is wrong when shitty laws are let stand because you don't have enough spine to stand against them. You may or may not also be a racist, but that most certainly ISN'T what she said. It's just your pathetic attempt to play the victims card. Fail.

[sabrina 1]

283. I asked you to quote my words, not your interpretation of my words.

Calling people racists and sexist has no place in DU discussions, especially when you are the one fabricating the words!

No, it doesn't. Neither does making stuff up about what other DUers actually say especially when their words are easily accessible for all to see. Quote me please to back up that allegation.

This OP is about three good, innocent people who have been jailed under a very bad law. You have defended that bad law. We have had many other bad laws in this country which were also defended, or equally damaging, not opposed.

And we had people like these three people who refused to respect them which led eventually to changes in those bad laws.

You have told these three people basically that they should abide by the law and they wouldn't end up in jail. I assume from your comments in this thread that once something passes into law, you are of the opinion that anyone who challenges it, is wrong. If that is not the case it has not been apparent from your comments in this thread.

[obamanut2012]

253. She did not imply that you are racist and sexist

[jberryhill]

263. That's what Sabrina1 does

No thread is complete until she attacks your character

[Bernardo de La Paz]

266. Thanks for the background. In this thread I've been called Gestapo, racist, brown, white, etc.

It doesn't meet DU Community Standards, and is not the DU I used to know.

[jberryhill]

267. Yeah, that's pretty much SOP

Pleased to meet you. I'm a Republican troll and fascist cheerleader.

[sabrina 1]

290. Post some proof of this false allegation or retract it. I will be back to see your links

to any comments of mine that ever called anyone any names like that.

[Egalitarian Thug]

374. Still waiting? Of course you are. This little group frequently does this, it's SOP for them.

Sometimes I wish it were OK to post a thread naming them and showing how they operate, but at least this gives me another chance to kick this thread.

[backscatter712]

276. Don't want to wear the labels? Stop earning them. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

277. Oh, so you think that labelling like that is consistent with DU Community Standards? Think again.

(added on edit: ) P.S. I don't wear labels. Those flinging the mud forget their attempted personal insults say more about them than the target.

[sabrina 1]

292. I'm still waiting for you to post my comments with the labels you

claim I used. Been waiting over an hour now.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

293. I've dealt with it already. Shown you your words. Over an hour ago.

Nobody has to react to you within your time limits. Period.

[sabrina 1]

294. No you have not. You posted my words, then you posted YOUR false interpretation

of them. Nice trick, except DUers are way too smart here not to see what you are attempting to do. You either QUOTE me directly, or retract your false allegations. Nobody has to accept false allegations here within their rules, period. When you make a false allegation here, you will be called on it.

Since I know for a fact that you cannot reproduce such a quote, I expect this kind of prevarication. It's easier to simply say 'I was wrong'. People here have a lot more respect for those who are willing to admit when they are wrong.

[sabrina 1]

309. But not by me. You have stated that these three prostesters deserve

to go to jail under a very bad law. My question to you was legitimate. If someone takes the attitude that regardless of how bad the law is 'the law is the law' it is perfectly reasonable to ask them if that is always their view. And to point out, as I did, that if there were no people around like these three protesters to challenge such bad laws, that if everyone adapted the attitude that 'the law is the law', women and African Americans would still be unable to vote. Is that true or not?

[sabrina 1]

291. And you have links to prove this or you would not be backing this false allegation I am

sure. I will check back for those 'attacking your character' links.

[HiPointDem]

298. link to where she did this, please. cause i dont see it. i do see bernando & yourself constructing

straw men & putting words in her mouth, though.

[sabrina 1]

381. Thank you! n/t

[sabrina 1]

349. I'm still waiting for those links that back up your allegations here, but so far

nothing, as expected.

[reACTIONary]

183. Contempt conviction is NOT torture. You have a DUTY to testify, and a right to refuse...

...only if your testimony might be self-incriminating. Punishment for refusing to carry out a DUTY is NOT and injustice.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

196. +1

[Vincardog]

230. The intent is the same as the intent in torture. You are the only one saying the two are equivalent

The intent of the contempt citation is to make citizens FEAR their government.
Just as the intent of torture is to terrify the populace into submission.

Get it?

[Butterbean]

37. Seriously. What the hell country IS this???!!??

[99Forever]

51. That my friend is IT...

.. in a nutshell. NO ONE is allowed to stand against THE AUTHORITARIAN Powers That Be. They MUST be made examples of.

This being done by a FEDERAL Authority. Who, pray (or more accurately PREY) tell, controls that?


Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

[treestar]

53. Contempt is ignoring a subpoena

If anyone could do that, then the justice system would have no teeth.

Where you've been given immunity, you don't have to worry about the Fifth. That's why they say she holds the keys herself.

She could just testify, and let the jury decide the case. If they guy is guilty, or whoever it is, why don't they choose to go to jail as an act of civil disobedience? That's the person in the wrong here, letting her stay in jail rather than he or she (though she is too, but is enabling that person).

[antigone382]

81. When grand juries are abused to get information on political beliefs, etc. it is another matter.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-raid-anarchist-literature-portland-seattle/6267/

(snip)

"The motivation for these operations, and the instruction that “anarchist” means “terrorist,” is coming straight from the top levels of the federal government. As I recently wrote, new documents show that the FBI is conducting “domestic terrorism” training presentations about anarchists.

The FBI presentation described anarchists as “criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities.”

This is the guilt-by-association mentality that is guiding FBI and JTTF assaults on political activists; if agents find “anarchist literature” in a raid, it is evidence of criminal activity because anarchism, in and of itself, is criminal activity.

The Seattle grand jury may or may not be investigating May Day protests. What’s clear, though, is that the grand jury is being used as a tool in this criminalization of those suspected as “anarchists.” Grand juries are secretive processes that are frequently used against political activists in order to acquire information. They are fishing expeditions. If activists refuse to testify about their personal beliefs and political associations, they can be imprisoned. Jordan Halliday, for example, was recently released after serving more than six months in prison (and being imprisoned once already for four months) for asserting his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to provide information about the animal rights movement.

As one organizer with Occupy Seattle said after the raid: “…we are not being raided for connection to any crime, but to some political ideology that the police think we have."

(end quote)

Vandals are not terrorists, and the same strategies used to take down terrorists should not be used to go after the supposed, possible associates of vandals. "Anarchist" is not synonymous with "criminal."

[sabrina 1]

162. You mean she could be a rat?? Fortunately she has integrity and will not allow herself to be forced

into ratting out other protesters. Protesting is NOT illegal in this country.

And this made me laugh, sorry:

Contempt is ignoring a subpoena

If anyone could do that, then the justice system would have no teeth.

You've got to be kidding. The system apparently only has teeth when to comes to Americans exercising their Costitutional Rights.

Karl Rove??? Remember him? Did he ever answer Congress' subpoenas or did he flee to Sweden to help his buddy over there get elected?

Why was he not arrested when he ignored those subpoenas?

There is no 'rule of law' anymore, which is what makes this case all the more egregious.

[treestar]

164. All courts have the contempt and subpoena powers

And if the guy did nothing wrong, he should let her testify. If he is in fact convicted, then he committed a crime, unrelated to his constitutional rights. Your post shows you are very lost about the justice system and letting people who want to manipulate you use your feelings against your common sense. Just because someone was protesting does not mean they never broke a law. If it's a matter of civil disobedience they should be willing to go to jail.

I never understood the "rat" thing. If someone has committed a crime and you are a witness, there is nothing wrong with turning them in for it. And let the system decide it.

The crime here is likely to be rather minor, too.

[sabrina 1]

167. There is only one person even accused of a crime here, unless you also believe that

protesting is now a crime in the US. That person has been freed with 'time served'.

You are the one who seems not to understand what is going on here. This woman eg, was not even at the May Day protests. So why is she being persecuted and why, oh why is anyone on DU defending this?


And FYI, this is the anti-constitutional law they are using to persecute protesters (thanks to DUer Starroute btw)

The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the Internment of Political Activists

The Justice Department and the FBI use the subpoena power of the federal grand jury, coupled with compulsory immunity, to jail radicals who refuse to cooperate with government investigations. n6 The government detains these political activists through a system of judicial procedures and congressional statutes that the Supreme Court has upheld, n7 but that nonetheless allow the executive branch to usurp the subpoena power of the grand jury and create a law enforcement inquisition power that requires full cooperation or indefinite imprisonment -- "Political Internment American Style."

[*1162] The contention that the legendary noble institution of the grand jury, adopted by the European settlers in America from their British cousins as a safeguard to the accused from the improper motivations of government, n8 is being used as an instrument of political repression may well be met with great skepticism or shock. In reality, however, the history of the grand jury in England and in the United States has been predominantly one of serving the interests of the government or the prejudices and passions of the local populace. n9 In the few well publicized cases where individual grand juries have refused to indict political opponents of the government against the wishes of the government authorities, these authorities have simply convened more compliant grand juries or found other ways to accomplish their political ends. n10

This Article will provide a brief historical examination of the origins of the grand jury and its use in the United States, with particular focus on contemporary history. In recent years, the government has used the grand jury as a tool of inquisition, subpoenaing and resubpoenaing activists whom the government knows will refuse to cooperate with grand jury investigations concerning their political movements. n11

This needs to end. We are either a democracy with a Constitution, or we are not. Right now we are not and I wish people would stop pretending we are. We are 'free' so long as we keep our mouths shut about inconvenient truths.

[tama]

99. +1

[bvar22]

118. Nailed It!

We have gone gently into this good night because it is OK if Democrats do it.

WHY are these "terrorists" in jail when the Wall Street TERRORISTS who brought this country to its knees in 2007 are not just FREE, but rewarded with MILLIONS?

[girl gone mad]

305. Economic vandalism which destroys the lives of millions is acceptable.

Damaging a window that can easily be replaced at very little cost is a serious crime which must be punished harshly.

[reACTIONary]

181. Your logo - INVESTIGATE, INDICT, TRY, CONVICT - answers your question...

A grand jury proceeding is an INVESTIGATION. It is the duty of those who have information about a criminal act to testify (as long as their testimony is not self incriminating.) Testimony is crucial to INVESTIGATION, which is the responsibility of the Grand Jury.

Before the investigation, there is no "Actual Perp". The purpose of the investigation is to determine if there is evidence that a crime has been committed and who the actual perp MIGHT be. If reasonable evidence of a crime and a prepertrator exists, an INDICTMENT is returned. You can't INDICT without the INVESTIGATION, you can't INVESTIGATE without testimony.

Once it has been established that reasonable grounds for a prosecution exist, the process can proceed to TRIAL, and maybe CONVICTION. But you cannot get to trial without the investigation.

[HiPointDem]

242. what crime are they investigating? not anything that happened on may day, as the grand jury

was convened before may day, and none of the people called were present on may day.

what's the crime? five people broke some glass on may day? the police were right there, why didn't they arrest the perps?

[reACTIONary]

261. "five people broke some glass on may day"...

... that's a crime. I suggest that the best way to resolve this situation would be for those five people to turn themselves in and face the charges in open court. They would have the opportunity to provide a defense and to make any case they might have to the general public.

My understanding is that grand juries are usually empanelled for an extended period and may investigate many different concerns. So the fact that the Jury was standing before the incident is not very surprising.

Grand juries are particularly useful in investigating criminal conspiracy such as organized crime or political corruption. Political motivation does NOT excuse criminal behavior or conspiracy to commit crimes. Under the assumption that they are conducting such an investigation, calling witnesses that were not present at the time the crime was committed makes sense.

Vandalism is not free speech nor is it legitimate political action. It is not productive of democratic values. It will not further the cause. It will only alienate those who should be, and otherwise might be, on our side. Those engaging in it have not only brought this upon themselves, they have given the opposition the opportunity to characterize the movement as a whole by their criminal actions. They simply don't deserve our support, and won't get mine.

[tama]

285. Maybe it was you

The incidents of braking glass look like they were done not by anarchists, but by infiltrators. You have a "funny" nick stating that you are a reactionary right wing infiltrator on a leftist web site. Who knows, maybe you were there braking windows, and now have "fun" time rooting for unjust and wrongful detention of good people by the police state.

[reACTIONary]

296. If you think that advocating for the rule of law and against...

...politically motivated violence is indicative of a "right wing infiltrator", why didn't you just alert my post and let a jury of our peers decide?

[tama]

313. Not my style to alert

But you are advocating politically motivated violence here through misuse of the judicial system. Political persecution and incarceration of dissidents is violence.

I get the sense that you have some personal relation with some government security agency, and maybe the suggestion that you have been infiltrator or something like that in Occupy movement came close to truth? That would explain your motivation to defend this political persecution.

[reACTIONary]

339. If its not your style to alert...

... then you might also want to make it your style not to engage in presumptuous and unwarranted speculation about others based on the fact that they disagree with you.

My motivation is simple. The reasonable enforcement of a just law is not "political violence". I believe that citizens have a duty to testify and that those who seek to evade their duty should be subject to reasonable degree of punishment.

I'm a liberal democrat, not an anarchist. Sorry about that.

[tama]

348. I seek to understand.

What makes a "liberal democrat" support McCarthyist persecution of anarchists and totalitarian police state. You don't deny the "speculation".

[reACTIONary]

376. We do not live in a totalitarian police state, no one is being persecuted...

...and I have no reason or obligation to respond to your silly innuendos.

[tama]

377. No one is buying your lies

so why keep repeating them?

And as a human being to each other, you have no refuge to anything else. I'm a free human being, I recognize you as a free human being. If you are a free man, talk like a free man. Proud of your self and what you do.

In my ears you don't sound like a free man. You sound like a slave slaver.

[sabrina 1]

353. Well, it wasn't the three people who have just been sent to jail because none of them

were at the May Day protests. So that kind of blows your theory. Aside from that crimes are investigated every day without any help from Grand Juries and in most other democracies the GJ system has been abolished altogether.

This is a political witch hunt using the GJ, once again as this is history repeating itself over and over, to go after people for their political beliefs. These three people had nothing to do with any crime, they did not engage in any vandalism as they were not even there.

The GJ system was used in the same way by Nixon, and by McCarthy before him. It's time to stop this abuse of the GJ and kudos to these three for bringing the matter to the attention of the public. NOW, maybe we can start taking the necessary steps to end this 'forced immunity' abomination with all its potential to abuse the rights of American citizens.

[HiPointDem]

355. yeah, and what would the grand jury have been investigating before may day that concerned

anarchists?

the political activities of anarchists.

e.g. investigating them for their political beliefs, not for any criminal activities.

[Angry Dragon]

3. ' wasn't even in Seattle on May Day'

the only thing she could comment on would be hearsay

[jody]

6. You may have missed the person's title "Judge Jones". nt

[dsc]

12. the judge backs up the contempt

but doesn't run the grand jury. There is a prosecutor behind this

[jody]

23. Doesn't the judge have the authority to hold the witness in contempt and not the prosecutor? nt

[jody]

48. Do you mean that a prosecutor has the authority to hold a witness in contempt and sentence them to

jail?

That was the issue raised in the OP that "Leah-Lynn Plante spent the first of what could be a year and half's worth of nights in prison for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury".

I didn't know that anyone other than a judge had that authority over a witness before a federal grand jury.

[jody]

66. Thanks, your "Obviously" answers "5. Who controls "a federal grand jury"? and its the judge.

who is the sole authority and therefore has ultimate control of a federal grand jury.

Have a great evening. nt

[dsc]

63. yes but the prosecutor asks the judge to do so

[jody]

24. I replied to "Who controls 'a federal grand jury'?"

True a prosecutor made the motion but the decision to hold a witness in contempt is solely the judge's.

That is the context in which I answered the question regarding "controls".

[jody]

49. The question is simple, does a federal judge over a grand jury have sole authority to hold a

witness in contempt and sentence them to prison?

That was an issue raised in the OP with "Leah-Lynn Plante spent the first of what could be a year and half's worth of nights in prison for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury".

The answer is either yes or no so what say you?

[jody]

70. Every judge is sole authority in their court although they can be overruled by a superior court on

appeal.

I've sat on several juries including grand juries and I know from experience who controls a court.

Have a great evening and goodbye

[Solly Mack]

7. That's beyond fucked up.

[Supersedeas]

8. If it looks like a perversion of the Fifth Amendment, then it probably is

[closeupready]

9. Question: Why? Answer: Authoritarianism.

Seriously, WTF. This really is unbelievable.

[hack89]

10. This is pretty fucked up. nt

[Agony]

14. Hey, we have the BEST justice system on the planet!

If that were true... why is this so fucked up?!!!!!!!!

fuck exceptionalism.

fuck this rotting advanced civilization.

what else is there to say?

[librechik]

15. I don't understand anything in this country since the coup.

I don't even know when the coup happened exactly. Was it 63? or 69? or 2000? 2004?

it seems to be an ongoing invisible circus.

[formercia]

41. JFK's Assasination

..although, one could go back to 1933 for an example,as well.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

145. 1933?

FDR?

[formercia]

156. The attempted Coup on FDR

by corporate bigwigs who wanted to form a pact with Hitler to keep the US Neutral in case of War, that way, they could make Money from both sides.

FDR made the mistake of appeasing them and appointing some to positions in the Government, from which we still have not recovered and has led to where we are Today.

The Coup failed on its surface, but the perps were able to go to ground instead of Prison, and plot their return.

JFK was supposed to be their 'boy', but chickened-out at the Bay of Pigs, and the 'boys' and their Mafia cohorts were unable to recover Cuba.

The rest is History.

[CanonRay]

16. Because many Federal judges think they are Gods

and the longer they are on the bench, the worse they get. It doesn't seem to matter what their politics are, either.

[Whovian]

17. This is a prime example of a political prisoner.

We have become what we once hated.

[socialist_n_TN]

77. BINGO!!!! Got it in one.........

As a Trotskyist, I expect this is in my future too.

[Dont call me Shirley]

18. According to the judge's logic cheney and rove should be in prison for the next thousand lifetimes

[Live and Learn]

20. Brave lady. I would have resorted to the "I can't recall" meme

Actually, I do forget things all the time so it would probably be accurate.

[randome]

21. So 'Live and Learn' is more of a hoped-for philosophy, right?

Sorry! Just kidding!

[Live and Learn]

22. I learned many things are best forgotten lol nt

[jody]

26. I don't remember worked for Reagan but in his defense he probably didn't remember at that point. nt

[sabrina 1]

173. Yes it did work for him. He was never prosecuted, was he? And all his cohorts

even those who were convicted, got away with their treasonous crimes.

[KG]

27. but, but, we don't live in a police state...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. We don't. People who lived in police states like E. Germany or Iraq know the difference between

People who lived in police states like E. Germany or Iraq or Chile under Pinochet know the difference between a police state and hyperbolic sloganeering.

[HiPointDem]

35. most people in police states live perfectly routine lives, just as they do here. they live their

entire lives never feeling themselves to be in a 'police state'.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. True. But in p.s. are all aware of what is happening all around them and they behave accordingly to

True. But in a police state everyone is all aware of what is happening all around them and they behave accordingly to maintain that routine nature of their lives.

Most people who live in the USA, which is not a police state, live perfectly routine lives without much care as to who is watching and listening in and misconstruing ordinary activities and conversations. People in police states do not have that luxury and they fully know the difference (it's not a luxury, but you understand that turn of phrase).

[HiPointDem]

42. so all those folks in nazi germany who said they didn't know about the camps were lying?

i doubt that everybody in a police state knows what's going on.

look, we incarcerate a higher percentage of our people, by far, than any other state on earth. In 2010, 1 out of 10 black men were in the prison system, 1/15 of black children have a family member in prison, and 1/3 of black men will be in prison at some time in their lives.

Does everybody 'know what's going on" there? I doubt it. If you're not black, it's pretty easy to be oblivious or to believe that 'those people' deserve it. Same thing is true, to a lesser degree, the lower your income -- the more likely you are to get involved in the prison system. and obviously, as these kids are finding out, if you step outside the lines you are likely to get involved with the prison system.

and if you don't have good connections, look out. that's why bill ayers (son of a CEO) & bernadine dohrn got basically 0 jail time for leading the weathermen, while david gilbert & a bunch of black people whose names nobody knows still rot in solitary. you can go through the list of 60s activists and you'll find the working class ones are way more likely to still be in prison today, or to have served long sentences, than the preppie types like ayers.

Plus -- everyone who's on-line is effectively spied on. consumer purchases, finances, employment records, etc. are all tracked. If you go to a homeless shelter or access government services your name will go on a data base. It is very difficult to participate in the economy without your activities being tracked. Even if you recycle stuff for money, you have to present ID.

What's your definition of a 'police state'?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

45. No. Some of them were. But there was more to the Nazi police state than extermination camps. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. The USA is not a police state, but there is a Prison-Industrial complex that is a little out of

The USA is not a police state, but there is a Prison-Industrial complex that is a little out of control. Law & Order politicians work hand in glove with prison construction and service providers and prison guard unions to maintain egregiously tough mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws so that the prisons are always overcrowded and small towns can be talked into making land available for new prisons.

The racial and social and income inequalities in prisons are well known and not much is being done about it, especially by Republicans who step on public education and Big Bird and anything else socially progressive that they can.

[99Forever]

52. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about understated:

" but there is a Prison-Industrial complex that is a little out of control."

A little?

What the fuck?

I mean really, WHAT THE FUCK?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. Yes. It is understated. Not everyone sprinkles their posts with swearing. Sometimes I mistake DU for

Yes. It is understated. Not everyone sprinkles their posts with swearing. Sometimes I mistake DU for a place to hold serious discussions. I apologize.

[99Forever]

56. Aren't you just so very superior.

I'm humbled to be in your presence.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. I rest my case about "a place for serious discussions". Sorry.

[99Forever]

59. "Rest my case."

So now this is a freakin' courtroom?

I hope we can get a better brand of justice than the young lady in the OP.

Got some more Authoritarian hogwash to sell?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

60. :eyes:

[99Forever]

62. That's what I thought.

[tblue37]

92. It would be more efficient to not repeat most of the first line of your post as the

subject line of the post. Instead, just use the first line of the post to finish that partial sentence used as the subject line, and then start a new one.

[sabrina 1]

172. Let us know when you are ready for a serious discussion.

A serious discussion about the destruction of civil rights in this country. Something you appear to support. That's fine, but we would like to hear more than 'it's the law' in support of your support for laws that clearly violate the rights of American citizens. A discussion means explaining WHY you are supporting this abuse of the Grand Jury system rather than just 'it's the law'. We have had many laws that violated the rights of American citizens and fortunately not everyone defended them. They FOUGHT them as this woman is doing and we call them heroes now.

So why do you support this draconian, obvious, anti-Constitutional rights law that has put an innocent person, three innocent people, in jail? Make your argument or do not accuse us, who have already stated why we oppose it, of 'not being serious'.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

192. Know why you oppose it, but not how you'd change it. BTW the lack of "serious" discussion is not you

Grand juries originated as a check and balance against prosecutors who would bring charges with no foundation just because they could.

Grand juries are not "obviously anti-Constitutional" since they are in the Constitution.

There are plenty of reasons to reform or even oppose grand juries in this day and age. The USA is the only jurisdiction that retains them. I support the concept (as far as I understand it, which is imperfectly) because I support checks and balances, but I'm open to suggestions for change. I don't quite understand how other places hold prosecutors in check.

How would you reform grand juries or replace them? How would you place checks and balances on prosecutors in the absence of grand juries?

Would you exclude certain categories of crime from the scrutiny of grand juries? Vandalism? Destruction of property? Arson? Theft? White collar crime? Electoral process abuse? War crime? Government corruption?

Would you excuse anyone who wants to be? If a grand jury is considering indicting a mafia boss for multiple assassinations, would you excuse all the witnesses because they were afraid of testifying?

By the way, the issue about lack of serious discussion was not with regard to you. It was not with regard to reform or support of the grand jury system. It was regarding the posts by 99Forever:

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about understated: " but there is a Prison-Industrial complex that is a little out of control." A little? What the fuck? I mean really, WHAT THE FUCK?

Aren't you just so very superior. I'm humbled to be in your presence.

[99Forever]

262. Going to call me out?

But don't have the balls to respond to me when I post directly to you?

You are one brave talker, aren't you?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

264. I have already called you out & responded to every post of yours directed at me that wasn't nonsense

... plus a few that were nonsense.

[99Forever]

265. No you haven't.

[sabrina 1]

284. Well, my comment wasn't about opposing Grand Juries although I have read both

sides of the arguments about them from people in within the legal system. The original reason for them was a good one, but they are very much open to abuse by prosecutors.

I haven't thought about how to fix the obvious loopholes in the system that makes it so easy for overly zealous prosecutors to abuse them but I know a lot has been written about the subject and there are good arguments on both sides.

My problem with this case is not the GJ system itself, it is how it is being used by the government to harass protesters. My problem is mainly with the law, which I believe I posted information on above, that allows and seems to have been designed to allow the persecution of protesters.

These three protesters have chosen to challenge the law. They are engaging in Civil Disobedience which may be the only way to draw attention to this law. Eg, I did not know about it until this case and another DUer, Starroute, posted information explaining how they were able to use the GJ in this case. Hopefully now more people will learn about and over time with enough people challenging it, we can get it changed, as has happened in the past.

Eg, right now while this case is in the news, it would be a good idea to get a petition started, on Avaaz eg, to oppose the law. Organizing groups to go to DC and talk to legislators eg. Protesting outside the jail. It won't happen quickly, that's the problem with bad laws, once they are passed, which DOES happen fairly quickly, it takes a long, long time to get rid of them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. In a police state: detention without judicial review & compulsion of testimony w/o court order and +

The Wikipedia definition is a reasonable starting point (though I don't intend to get into a long involved discussion):

A police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

Yes, there are rogue elements in authority in parts of the US, but nothing like places where you can be called in by police and compelled to inform and testify against your co-workers, neighbors and family.

Yes, there are extremely worrisome developments in US law and jurisprudence since 2001, and yes light must be shone on them, but it is nothing like true police states that exist in other parts of the world.

No amount of loose sloganeering about "police state" is convincing. Contempt of court convictions for refusing to testify to grand juries is a well established long standing important tool in USA law.

[img][/img]

Green "free", yellow "partly free", blue "not free".

Freedom House was founded in October 1941, and Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt served as its first honorary chairpersons. It describes itself as a "clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world". As of 2010, US federal government grants accounted for most of Freedom House's funding.

[HiPointDem]

58. Freedom House states that its Board of Trustees is composed of "business and labor leaders,

former senior government officials, scholars, writers, and journalists"....The board is currently chaired by William H. Taft IV. Taft assumed chairmanship of the board in January 2009, succeeding Peter Ackerman. Other current board members include Kenneth Adelman, Farooq Kathwari, Azar Nafisi, Mark Palmer, P. J. O'Rourke, and Lawrence Lessig, while past board-members have included Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Otto Reich, Donald Rumsfeld, Whitney North Seymour, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House

Yeah, staunch defenders of 'freedom' all.

It's easy not to be a 'police state' when you've defined 'police state' as nazi germany.

Let's see: Mexico is 'free,' but venezuela & bolivia are only 'partly free'. South africa is 'free' but mozambique is only 'partly free'. Russia is 'unfree' but latvia is 'free'. mongolia is 'free' but china is 'unfree'. indonesia is 'free' & papua new guinea is only 'partly free' and the us has a free press (if you own one).

well, what the fuck ever.

[HiPointDem]

83. "They grant you immunity and if you don't testify they can throw you in jail."

"I just read about this a few weeks ago but I can't remember where or in what context. It was a lawyer talking about how the government can force just about anyone to do anything the government wants them to."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1528515

freedom house = otto reich, the us government official deeply involved in the 2002 venezuelan coup attempt, making judgements about how free venezuela is.

here's a hint: governments of free nations don't foment coups against freely elected governments in other nations, otto. jesus fucking christ, that turd as judge about who's free & who's not is a mine-sized joke.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

87. Yes I saw the post. It does not logically follow that they can "force anyone to do anything". nt

[HiPointDem]

96. because you say so? there are many ways to make people do what the police want, starting with

eliciting confession through torture & manipulation -- which, if organizations like The Innocence project are to be believed, happens fairly often.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

112. No. The person making the outlandish claim (force "anyone to do anything") has to buttress it.

No. The person making the outlandish claim (force "anyone to do anything" by granting immunity for testimony to a grand jury) has to buttress it. On the face of it, it is illogical, so the ball in their court. THEY are the one making the allegation, so it is not my "say so", it is their "say so".

The point the poster was making was about grant of immunity for testimony to grand jury. It was not about broader topics of police malfeasance which are much too prevalent. The Innocence Project does tremendous work and deserve the highest praise.

[HiPointDem]

218. the woman didn't ask for immunity. she was given immunity in order to use the threat of jail time

to coerce her testimony.

she chose jail time & more power to her.

[RC]

166. Governments of free nations do not use drones to kill civilians in nations they are not at war

with, then call the dead militants or terrorists. Then strike the same place later when rescuers are working to save the injured.

[JackRiddler]

102. "As of 2010, US federal government grants accounted for most of Freedom House's funding."

ON EDIT: In addition to the below, Freedom House was chaired for three years by James Woolsey, the former Director of Central Intelligence, member PNAC, and one of the neo-con warmongers leading the way into Iraq. Whatever it may have been in the past, this is a US intelligence front.

On Woolsey, Freedom House in Russia:

http://www.exile.ru/print.php?ARTICLE_ID=8000&IBLOCK_ID=35

...

So, a think tank funded by the US government does your thinking for you on the state of political freedoms in the United States?

On that map, the narcostate Mexico, currently overrun by military death squads in a policy originally promoted and heavily backed by the US, is "free," but Venezuela is "unfree." No ideological bent there! Israel is "free," of course.

...

And unlike these young people being persecuted by our government, Pussy Riot got a trial!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

113. Folks, the Freedom House graphic was illustrative, not definitive, & the discussion does not pivot

Folks, the Freedom House graphic was illustrative, not definitive, & the discussion does not pivot on the details of the map. But it does make an interesting off-topic diversion for some.

[HiPointDem]

130. backing off it after it starts to become clear it's run by the same spooks who are running us

foreign policy, are we?

[JackRiddler]

137. Don't you dare worm out of this.

You posted it, along with a lot of other nonsense. Sorry if the facts SUCK for you. Your reply to the demolition of the various lies and distortions you've posted are hilarious. When you're caught this nakedly, though, a simple apology might make it look like you've got some minimum integrity.

You are presenting unadulterated Soviet-style pro-government propaganda to defend a government that has invested decades and hundreds of billions of dollars in building the world's most enormous, technologically sophisticated, and increasingly unitary police state. The government is claiming the right to kill or disappear any US citizens on a suspicion without charges, and the country has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world thanks to an insane war on drugs. Political opposition is infiltrated and framed on bogus charges as a matter of routine, also dating back decades and now worse than ever. The last thing those of us on the targeted left need is pretend-liberal statists trying to deny the obvious or point a finger at some foreign country while our own turns techno-fascist.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

185. The graphic is not in any way pivotal or essential to any point I am making.

You can knock it down just fine. Knock yourself out knocking it down. Go to it.

If you want to debate other points, debate them with reference to the posts where they were raised.

I'm not worming out of anything. The USA is imperfect. It is trending in the direction of a police state and that needs to be addressed and reversed. Is that clear enough for you?

[JackRiddler]

200. Blah blah blah, it's not about "the graphic"

But pretty much all of your apologetics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1532315

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. That is one of the most asinine string of words I've ever read here.

A police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

As the maintenance of a standing police force became common in the late 19th and early 20th century, the term "police state" came to be used more commonly to refer only to when a police force was used "too" strenuously, in a "rigid and repressive" way, as under fascism, crony capitalism, and in retroactive application to oppressive/repressive historic incidents like the French Revolution and the Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

If you would like to engage in a debate, I am more than happy to go through this point by point. I suspect you will not.

The United States of America has become a police state. The last vestige of governing by consent of the governed was lost in 2000, though we have been on this path for much longer.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

114. DU is all about governing by consent. So why are you wasting time here if "the last vestige" vanish

DU is all about governing by consent. So why are you wasting time here if "the last vestige" vanished in 2000? (It did not, regardless of the peculiar way the close election was stolen).

The USA is not a police state and no amount of over-the-top sloganeering will make it so. Yes, there are important problems that need to be addressed.

[Egalitarian Thug]

119. I'm prety sure no one claimed DU is a police state, so that continues your streak of nonsense.

Other than that, your reply is, as predicted, a non sequitur. Unfortunately, Bernie D's declaration that it isn't so, carries no weight at all in the real world. If you're lucky, you will never find out how wrong you are through personal experience, even though that is probably the only way you will learn.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

121. Well, read it that way if you must. Was talking about DU being all about the USA governed by consent

Nothing in what I wrote implied that DU is a police state.

Nothing in what I wrote implied that anyone claimed DU is a police state.

You claimed that the USA is no longer governed by consent. That there is no vestige of such consent. That all traces of it have vanished.

I claim that that the USA still is governed (imperfectly) by consent. 2008 is some evidence. Perhaps you wish to ignore that or perhaps you consider Obama a totalitarian thug who does not govern by consent; how else are we to make sense of your claim that "The last vestige of governing by consent of the governed was lost in 2000"?

Since you believe that there is no vestige of government by consent in the USA, why are you wasting your time on a site dedicate to government by consent in the USA (the site called DU)?

[Egalitarian Thug]

163. You're the one that wrote, "DU is all about governing by consent."

So you didn't mean what you wrote, fine everybody does it sometime.

The governed have been reduced to a choice of one of two choices provided by two parties both of which are owned and controlled by the same tiny minority, and no one that is not approved by the party has any realistic chance of even being heard, let alone elected. Eugene V. Debs was probably the last populist candidate to break through the authority of the parties, and they threw him in jail to stop him. Do you think that when Barack Obama had that conference after his DNC speech in 2004, he wasn't being vetted for his run in 2008? Do you imagine that Alan Greyson or Bernie Sanders could ever get the nomination for President?

Did you even read the description of a police state from Wikipedia?

You wrote; "in a police state everyone is all aware of what is happening all around them and they behave accordingly to maintain that routine nature of their lives." Have you ever lived in East LA, or whatever has replaced Cabrini–Green, or any of the similar ghettos in every American city? Do you imagine that anyone there is not profoundly aware of what is happening all around them and what can happen to them at any time for any, or no, reason? Are you seriously not aware of completely innocent people that have been murdered in their own homes by the police with no consequences except, rarely, the cop might lose his job, if the press deigns to report it?

Your name implies that you are brown. Tell you what, why don't you try driving around in Gold Coast or Hyde Park @ 2:00 am in an old car, and then when you're pulled over for no reason at all you tell the nice policeman all about your rights as an American citizen. We'll be waiting for your report.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

187. Wow, you do make bogus assumptions and then proceed to build & knock down straw men.

Your name implies that you are brown.

How about you leave your racial assumptions out of this discussion? It has no place here.

You know nothing about me. But you want to make it personal about me because you are running out of arguments. Stop.

[Egalitarian Thug]

221. So you are white? Then how can you claim to have the authority to unequivocally state that

you know for certain that America is not a police state? Poor people of color are primarily the people that face the reality of the American police state every day, you are in no position to deny their reality.

You set up the conditions and when they are exposed as nothing more than wishful thinking on your part (to be charitable), you choose to divert. According to your profile, you live in one of the most undemocratic and bifurcated cities in America, so all you would have to do to see the truth is take a short drive. In short, you and others like you are the problem. It is you that allow this to exist and to escalate.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

235. Again you make the racist assumptions. My skin color is not in evidence and you divert with it.

Just stop with the fascination with my skin color.

You've made two contradictory assumptions about my skin color. One based on my user name, and one based on my avatar. They can't both be right and they may both be wrong.

Stop now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

280. No, sorry, not going to happen. You are the one that has taken it upon yourself to

make the asinine statement that you know for a fact that America is not a police state, despite all evidence to the contrary. I challenged you to prove it by putting yourself into a perfectly legal situation and then to vigorously assert your rights with the CPD and report back to us.

You are also the one that chose to engage the entire thread about three people that have real convictions and are now spending their nights in jail rather than to submit to the police state apparatus that is using its unconstitutional power in an attempt to coerce her submission. I say unconstitutional, not in the legal sense, but rather in the sense of its founding premise that these rights are not granted by a King nor the Constitution itself, but by acknowledging that they exist despite any assumed authority of men or institutions.

You are also the one that chose a username that I mistakenly assumed was yours only to find that it is the product of another Libertarian hack in a book about, ironically, a group of people that revolt against just such an infringement, but in their struggle readily and knowingly commit mass-murder against innocent people that just happen to live on the same planet (Earth) as the authority.

Sorry, you can admit you are wrong, ignore me, or simply slink away, but I will not stop.

[msanthrope]

189. Did you just decide that you could tell the color of someone's skin from their username?

Wow. Just Wow.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

198. Apparently Egalitarian Thug thinks she or he has that power.

Egalitarian?

Thug?

[msanthrope]

201. I wonder what one could tell from your avatar. Are you a white male writer, about 177 years old? nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

224. That I use Linux. I think your username says all one needs to know about you. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

223. Yes & yes. Egalitarian because I actually believe in real, complete equality. In a system wherein

coercion is impossible and therefore cooperation is required.

Thug because I don't take shit from anyone anymore, but I am more than happy to throw it right back at you.

[Egalitarian Thug]

220. I noted the implication. If it's wrong, fine. I think it is a fair assumption that the number of

white middle class people named Bernardo de La Paz is pretty limited. And if it is true, I would appreciate it if Mr. de La Paz accepted the challenge and put this whole issue of the American Police state to rest.

But the truth is, and as you well know, if he were to do as suggested, and he survived, he would gain an entirely new perspective on the issue at hand.

America is a police state.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

190. I meant what I wrote. I never expected anyone to interpret it the way you did. DU a police state????

I wrote "DU is all about governing by consent". Obviously that means DU is all about the process of US electoral politics whereby the populace is governed by its consent. Obviously what I wrote is a kind of short form for that.

Nothing I wrote implied or stated that DU is a police state.

[Egalitarian Thug]

225. Apparently you slept through the few English classes you might have attended. I quoted, in whole,

what you wrote. If you intended to say something else, you failed.

DU is all about being a message board for liberal leaning people, preferably that are also members of the Democratic Party. It is not a government.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

236. You keep making personal attack. Just stop, please.

[Egalitarian Thug]

316. Since when is pointing out that your point is without merit a personal attack? And when did it

become a personal attack to point out that you wrote something other than what you meant? Or is it perhaps that you are used to getting away with this because so few people feel it's worth bothering with?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

326. Your attack is personal when you call me illiterate.

Your attack is personal when you call me illiterate.

You call me illiterate when you write:

Apparently you slept through the few English classes you might have attended.

You can make your points without the personal attacks. Just stop it and start looking to the DU Community Standards.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

327. Your attack is also personal when you call a DU member "a drunken moron":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1535603

[Bernardo de La Paz]

331. It is also a personal attack to assume skin color of a DU member and assume that it matters.

You still don't know if I am brown or white or yellow or red or black or purple. But for some reason it seems to matter to you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1535545 and your post prior to it.

You had to go there even though the skin color of a DU member has nothing to do with this grand jury or this anarchist or this contempt citation.

[Egalitarian Thug]

337. First, I did make that erroneous assumption and it is completely relevant to the challenge proposed.

A challenge that we both know will go unmet.

Secondly, I didn't call you a drunken moron, you should probably look up the meaning of the word analogy.

And finally, it is your lack of literacy that makes you illiterate. For the third time now, what you wrote is apparently not what you meant. The mistake is yours. It is not up to the rest of the world to try to decipher what you meant, it is up to you to write it clearly, or lacking that, to clarify your meaning once the misunderstanding has been brought to your attention.

And in addition to reacquainting myself with with the simple-minded philosophy behind the writing of Robert A. Heinlein to learn the origin of your username, I ran across information on the real life person upon which the character whose name you have chosen to take on this message board is based. Robert LeFevre of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a Libertarian Think Tank to stretch the term as far as possible, and creator of the deservedly ignored political philosophy of Autarchism.

To reiterate; These three people have real convictions and are now spending their nights in jail rather than to submit to the police state apparatus.

You are wrong, wrong-headed, and out of your depth.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

191. Q remains: Since you state there is zero government by consent in the USA, why are you at DU which

The question remains: Since you state there is no government by consent (zero, zip, zilch, vanished, gone) in the USA, why are you at DU which is all about the process whereby the populace is governed by consent?

It seems illogical for you to hang around a site dedicated to a process you don't believe in and don't believe exists.

[Egalitarian Thug]

226. Your question was answered in my previous reply. We're still waiting for you to provide

any evidence, or even a cogent argument, to support your asinine statement.

Edited to add that I looked up your username and why am I not shocked to find you've adopted it from a fictional character in a book written by a right-wing lunatic who also happens to be an icon to the morons of the Libertarian Party? None of you have the intellect to consider where your simple-minded philosophy inevitably leads.
TANSTAAFL indeed!

[bvar22]

123. You are trying to argue Black vs White,

....and using the Logical Fallacy of presenting a more extreme example to discredit a valid argument.
"We aren't as bad as East Germany, so we can NOT be a Police State!"
BULLSHIT!!!

We aren't arguing Black vs White.
Of course there are examples of more extreme, more evolved, more mature Police States.

We ARE arguing Degree & Direction.
We ARE moving toward those example you mentioned.
If we maintain our direction, we WILL arrive there given enough time,
AND we are closer than you would like to admit.
You ARE on the side of the guys with the long leather coats.

"When they came for the...."



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[Bernardo de La Paz]

124. Actually, those claiming "police state" are arguing the binary mode. And about your personal attack

My point, stated repeatedly, is that the USA is imperfect but does not meet the definition of a police state.

I agree that there are trends toward "police state" that must be fought.

I have not made any kind of evil character assassination like you do when you say "You are on the side of the guys with the long leather coats" (Gestapo). You would do well to retract that because nothing could be further from the truth.

Your personal attack surely is the kind of attack that DU bans for being "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate".

Stop now.

[bvar22]

139. One simple question for YOU and those reading this thread:

With the passage of the Patriot Act, BOTH political parties endorsement of the "Unitary Executive" and the "Bush Doctrine", the creation of a mammoth "Homeland Security Department", the elimination of Constitutional prohibitions and accountability on the Telecoms (FISA), the NDAA, the nationally co-ordinated violent suppression of OWS, the militarization and national co-ordination of our local Police Departments, drone and unlimited video surveillance of civilians, Military deployed to "police" peaceful domestic protests, the establishment of "vandalism" as a priority target for Grand Jury Investigations,....

[font size=3]Would you say we are moving TOWARD a Police State,
or moving AWAY from a Police State? [/font]

Bonus Question:
[font size=3]Would you say that those who are alarmed at the direction this country is heading have a valid concern?[/font]

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the Unions,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Teachers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a teacher.

Then they came for the Protestors,
and I didn't speak out because I was a "good citizen".

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

If the long, black leather trench coat fits,
wear it.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[HiPointDem]

142. +1

[99Forever]

148. Hell yes.

[sabrina 1]

175. +10,000!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

197. Yes.

Would you say we are moving TOWARD a Police State, or moving AWAY from a Police State?

Yes, we are moving toward a police state. It needs to be addressed and reversed.

Bonus Question: Would you say that those who are alarmed at the direction this country is heading have a valid concern?

Yes, those who are alarmed have a valid concern. I share their concern.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

199. Will you please self-delete your accusation that a DU member is the Gestapo?

[Egalitarian Thug]

227. LOL! This guy reminds me of a drunken moron that heckles Sam Kinison.

every time he thinks it's finally over, it just gets worse.

[tblue37]

91. That until the apparatus of the police state is used against them. Meanwhile, everyone else who is

not at that moment subject to the abuses of the police state goes on feeling that he or she is not living in a police state--that is, of course, until. . . .

[randome]

38. Forget it. He's on a roll.

[sabrina 1]

213. Yeah, AFTER it was TOO LATE! Too bad more of them didn't listen to the warnings

early on from those who saw it coming.

The German people claimed they knew nothing. Of course so long as you don't oppose policies that you are not supposed to oppose, you can survive quite comfortably even in a police state. Millions of people have. Otoh, if rather than just going along with policies that took away OTHER PEOPLE'S rights, they had joined the minority voices early on, there would never have been a Nazi Germany or a Pinochet or any other police state.

I am sure conversations just like this took place in Germany, in fact I KNOW THEY DID because I have read them, before it was too late. But those in denial refused to see the signs. In fact many Jews failed to see the signs others saw and didn't believe things could ever develop to the point they did. Those who saw the signs, while probably called 'hyperbolic' etc, were right in the end.

So considering the fact that an awful of people in this country are seeing the signs here I hope we learn from history and try to stop what is becoming a rapid decline into a police state, before it is too late.

[Zorra]

128. (pic heavy) We do, but generally, only those who question authority,

or who are in control of the police state, recognize it as such.

Some determine what the status quo that serves them should be...



...some are the police, who will blindly follow orders given by the authority of those who determine the status quo...



....some are content to live in captivity, so long as they believe that they are safe, have comfy pajamas and a TV, and usually get three square meals a day...



Some are much too busy to care...



And then, there are the rest of us...





[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"][font color="black" size="12" face="face"]SUBMISSION. SAFETY. SECURITY. It’s the LAW![/font]

[font color="red" size="12" face="face"]Obey. Be Normal! Do Not Question. Work Will Make You Free.[/font]

[sabrina 1]

215. That is excellent! You should make it an OP, maybe in the OWS forum!

Did you put that together yourself? It really is so good!

[Zorra]

289. Thanks, sabrina 1,

so glad you get it, and think it worthwhile.

Yeh, I put it together, it's a subject I've been concerned about for far too many years. I'll post it in the Occupy forum.

[DirkGently]

29. Inexcusable perversion of the Constitution. (nt)

[treestar]

54. There are contempt citations every day

By this logic, anyone you wanted to testify against the banksters or Rove wouldn't have to testify either - they could just ignore the court's subpoena.

[treestar]

79. The point was that the courts have rules

and people here seem to think there is something terribly wrong with the court having subpoena power and contempt power.

[DirkGently]

174. No. Under this logic, fishing expeditions like this are in bad faith.

[Poll_Blind]

72. I just read about this trick- it's been used for quite a while.

They grant you immunity and if you don't testify they can throw you in jail. I just read about this a few weeks ago but I can't remember where or in what context. It was a lawyer talking about how the government can force just about anyone to do anything the government wants them to. Wish I could pull up the link because it would probably make much more interesting reading in this context.

PB

[HiPointDem]

76. i'm going to quote your post to the police state guy if you don't mind.

[graham4anything]

80. If she was granted immunity, then she by law can't take the 5th.

it really is quite simple.

all the other bullshit being spewed by some of the retorts of this is just diversions.


btw-as I am Jewish, throwing around the word Nazi and all to something that doesn't imply belittles what happened to millions during the war.

again, it was quite simple.
She was granted immunity. Therefore she has to testify to the grand jury.Left/right/center you can't after being granted immunity refuse to testify.

Have no idea, but it sounds like she is covering up info, otherwise, why would they grant her immunity.

Subverting justice is subverting justice and makes a mockery of our system, leading to pure anarchy(which is directly opposite our system).

btw2 to one of the replies on the thread-looking up a list of famous people on all sides, and then saying en masse they are all bad by association, wasn't that what good people railed against during the McCarthy hearings?
Whenever I see Zbig's name on a list, well, he is one of the good guys not bad guys, and stereotyping people is wrong imho

[99Forever]

89. Like a frog in a pot.

You think Hitler and Co started out doing mass exterminations?

It's just sad to think that some people will accept this TOTALITARIAN horseshit as ok. ESPECIALLY given the history we all know.

[graham4anything]

105. this is the system of the founding fathers

Change the law if the law is not liked
but don't complain about the law that is on the books by calling it names it isn't

the law is the law

And our founding fathers were not the nicest people, nor followers of their own decrees either

wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who wrote the laws that said "all are created equal"
but kept slaves(who were not considered equal nor full persons, ) and abused his women slaves without their consent to what really you know, was rape. Being that they had no choice in the matter.)

If everyone who is granted immunity then reneges on their deal and says they won't testify,
the court system would be no more.

btw-the guy in the Barry Bonds steroid case did the same thing. As have many others.
Bonds never got jail time, but just put his old picture next to his look now, and well, it is not natural. Just ask Mark McGwire's body.

And I can name you 100 other examples of simliar things.

If the laws are not liked, change them.


Once granted immunity(which protects what the 5th amendment is for doesn't it?, she can't be jailed for anything she might say, she is immune to prosecution on it), well then, she is wasting taxpayer and court time and money
If you are going to do the crime, do the time as the cliche goes.

and let's keep it focused on the law, the USA and not Germany decades ago. NO, Hitler did not start out by refusing to testify in the grand jury. Hitler was elected by the people to serve the people.
(OH MY GOD JIM...TO SERVE MAN...IT'S A COOKBOOK(lol from the twilight zone)


Whereas, this is the law of the land, so your comparison would be Founding Fathers=Hitler, then I take it???(NO I am not saying you said that, but your analogy then becomes that, something I doubt you meant to say, correct?)

And bringing Hitler into the conversation -it is inappropriate, and that is another country, years ago. A more apt would be a thread on the Ron Paul literature and his backers, and the John Birch Society and Jorg Haider in Austria's words and how similiar the Paul's are to Haider, and how Haider and Hitler have common ideas and all(before Haider died of course).
But it really is over the top.
And just distracts this minor topic by putting in a major topic.

IMHO,I am not trying to be provocative, just trying to say how the two have nothing to do with each other.

This is OUR law. Not to follow the law is anarchy. Pure and simple. Anarchy is NOT democracy.

[99Forever]

108. Poppycock.

Show me ANYWHERE the Founding Fathers (you invoke them but don't even have enough respect for them to capitalize their name?) EVER advocated jailing someone who had committed NO crime. Prove it, don't just say it.

Thanks for another fresh steaming Totalitarian pile.

[graham4anything]

109. read the constitution. Read our laws already on the books. Don't like them? Change them

but stop with the totalitarianism/socialist/communist/Hitler analogies
it is pure poppycock(aka bullshit/malarky).

And this has been on the books for years.

since when are "FOUNDING FATHERS" capitalized? They were not Gods, that was their whole point, they are just men(note there were no women, was that just a coincidence?)

guess what-women couldn't vote.

[99Forever]

110. Someone put you in charge of ..

.. which opinions can be posted? You'd think they would have notified the rest of us.

ie: "..but stop with the totalitarianism/socialist/communist/Hitler analogies"

Jailing people who have committed NO FUCKING CRIME is what Totalitarian/Authoritarian assholes do. I didn't bring up Hitler, one of your fellow Authoritarian apologists did. Nor have I said a fucking word about "socialist/communist". Don't put words in my mouth, that's what people without a legitimate argument do.

Anyway. Where's your proof that the founding Fathers advocated jailing people without charge? Got anything? At all?

[graham4anything]

358. Thomas Jefferson jailed people who lived on his PROPERTY...i.e. they were his property &

those people were locked on his land without any way of freedom until the Civil War.

how bout that dear99forever.

[99Forever]

361. Slavery was wrong...

... but it wasn't jail.

Weak sauce analogy, deargraham4anything.

Fail.

[graham4anything]

363. Sheesh! slavery was alot more than wrong.I would think its a zillion times worse than Gitmo

Gitmo being temporary, but slavery was forever.Can you imagine the physcial and psychological damage?

Alot more than a pampered middle class/upper class person in jail for breaking the law of being granted immunity, then wanting not to talk either.
having ones cake and eating it to.

I can imagine a best seller and book and movie coming after. You think dear Gwenyth Paltrow can portray her? Maybe have it being Kristen Stewart to get the young audience.
$millions

reminds me of an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents from the 1950s.

[99Forever]

366. This thread is not about slavery ..

... and your lame attempt to divert the debate, is lame.

As I can clearly see, you don't have anything substantial to buttress your silly claims, so you are going to try and play games. No thanks, I don't waste my time with such nonsense.

[graham4anything]

368. you brought it up, same as you brought up Dr. King...I only was answering you...

you can't claim the 5th if you are granted immunity, which means whatever you say CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST YOU

How many times we go round the may pole I don't know.

[99Forever]

371. Bullshit.

I "brought up" neither. Now you've resorted to just plain lying. It's like trying to converse with a Republican. I don't countenance liars.


Bub bye.

[graham4anything]

372. well, someone did here, it wasn't me. I didn't bring Dr. King in to this

to think that Dr. King died while a rich Rodeo Drive girl is whining that she broke the rules and is in jail, and then the audacity to compare the two

gmafb

it is quite easy for her to get out of jail.
Just answer the grand jury questions

And I am Jewish. Bringing up McCarthyism, when it was MY people that got it in that, has nothing to do with this.

It is like a person getting gas
the people in the car go inside and rob the place and kill the owner
the person in the car knows nothing.
they come back out with a soda and candy and go about their way
The drive is 100% as guilty as the other two.

[reACTIONary]

378. +1 (NT)

[sabrina 1]

351. Yes, this 'forced immunity' law went on the books for the first time back in the '50s

when good people took the fifth as was their right, in order not to be forced to provide lists of their 'commie' friends, many of them at the time, Hollywood artists, producers, actors, composers. The Commie hunters didn't like the fact that American were exercising their right to remain silent so Congress passed this law that took away that right by FORCING immunity on them. If you know anything about that era, the horror of such a law should not have to be explained to you.

A newer version of the law was passed in the seventies in order make it easier to catch major gansters from the Mafia. THIS is what they are using to abuse the rights of these protesters to remain silent because they not want to rat out their friends, just as McCarthy's victims did not want to rat out their friends for no good reason either.

Nixon used this abusive anti-Constitutional law also for political reasons to go after war protesters. This is a major abuse of the Grand Jury system and has badly needed to be addressed a long time ago.

[graham4anything]

359. so change the law. It's simple as A-B-C. Dr. King worked for change. It took decades.

[tama]

116. Anarchy is democracy

Your system is kleptocratic oligarchy turned into totalitarian police state. Occupy movement practices horizontal democracy, and these people are being persecuted because of their participation in Occupy movement and their anarchist convictions.

Who said:

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? "

"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. "

"I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others. "

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. "

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for. "

Same guy who wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[99Forever]

117. Excellent post. Thank you.

I'm still waiting on the quotes from the Founding Fathers that say what this "graham4anything" character contends. So far?

Nadda. Zippo. Nothing. Zilch.

Which is no surprise to me.

[reACTIONary]

379. And who was it who said...

"Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts."

Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1843)

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1921&chapter=114226&layout=html&Itemid=27

(If you follow the link, its best to click the "Hide TOC" button right under the bibliographic information. This brings the actual text into view, instead of the long table of contents)

[HiPointDem]

97. The grand jury was convened *before* May Day (March 2, 2012). So it has nothing to do with

any vandalism that happened on May Day. It has to do with a fishing expedition against 'anarchists'.

If she doesn't want to participate in a witch hunt, she must be 'covering up info'? That's the logic of a police state; yes, the logic of nazis.

Exercising one's constitutional rights & being willing to be jailed for doing so is 'making a mockery of our system'? I'd say it's the highest expression of 'our' system's ideals.

She was granted immunity so they could send her to jail if she refused to testify.

Zbig is a 'good guy'? lol. There are no 'good guys' in geopolitics.

stereotyping people. look in the mirror.

https://vimeo.com/becausewemust/statement#t=234

[msanthrope]

179. Um--that's probably the sitting grand jury. So what? Prosecutors generally use the sitting

grand jury, since it's cost effective.

[Union Scribe]

100. sounds like the court is inventing crimes, then.

If they grant you immunity you didn't ask for, then take your rights away because of that, then throw you in jail for disobeying the terms of a deal you didn't enter into...that's one of the most fucking insane things I've ever heard of. That is genuinely scary shit.

[graham4anything]

107. What right? You are granted immunity so you won't be prosecuted for what you said

Once granted immunity, YOU ARE NOT PROSECUTED for what you said.
Therefore, your right to the 5th is meaningless-as the 5th means you will not say anything that may implicate you and lead to your own arrest(that is what immunity is).

Therefore you cannot use the 5th to a grand jury.

And it is our law.

If one doesn't like a law, get it changed. But it is already the law.
Nothing new. It is the United States of America system in place for 100s of years.

Ask Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers.

It is the only way that leads to democracy, not anarchy.
Without the grand jury system, there would be no law.

Democracy or anarchy? I choose to pick democracy over anarchy. (regardless if I can think of at least 2 prior same situations that I felt were wrong, but look at it from another way-

when she gets out,she will be famous if her backers keep it in the news
She will then make millions off her fame by writing books, and becoming a beacon to better America against laws on the books she might not like. We can see her on tv, a movie will be made about her life, and she will become a talking head on tv like Karl Rove is.
She can even get into politics (or law school). And run for office.
So in a way, this is her national service leading up to a very, very successful life after jail.
And this charge is not criminal.

(and I can think of a major example of what I just wrote, but don't want to sidestep the very basic fundamental of our legal system and all this distracts from how the 5th is irrelevant if one is granted immunity.)

IMHO of course. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v.

[msanthrope]

180. You don't have right to refuse to testify. That's been the case since the founding. nt

[tama]

101. Your system is mockery of justice. nt

[graham4anything]

106. The fifth amendment is to avoid incriminating oneself for future prosecution.

Granting immunity means NO FUTURE PROSECUTION

it really is quite simple. She cannot claim the 5th and not talk. She is not at risk to herself.

end of simple story.

IMHO

again, if the laws of the land are not liked, change the laws.But until the laws are changed,
there is a system in place.

(otherwise there would be no grand jury system left. No independent prosecutors, or named prosecutions when someone has a conflict of interest.

It would appear, not knowing the case minutia details itself, just guessing here- that she does not want to rat on someone, and if she talks but lies, she would open herself to a new perjury charge. But not wanting to be a rat is not an answer legally, no matter if the case itself is on the side of good or bad.

[Comrade Grumpy]

126. That someone here thinks "Zbig is one of the good guys" shows how far we've gone...

Zbig was a Cold War hawk. He only comes off as reasonable because the foreign policy discussion in this country has moved so far to the crazy right, especially after 9/11.

[obamanut2012]

256. Absolutely shocked to see Zbig be considered a "good guy"

[JackRiddler]

103. At least Pussy Riot got a trial.

[JackRiddler]

104. All of my heroes have FBI files!

[struggle4progress]

125. Seattle May Day protest marked by vandalism, arrests

May 01, 2012
By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times

SEATTLE — Downtown Seattle erupted in chaos Tuesday as black-clad May Day demonstrators marauded through the shopping district, smashing plate glass windows at banks and retail outlets, spray-painting cars and slashing tires.

At least eight people had been arrested by early evening. May Day arrests also were reported in Portland, Ore., and New York.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn signed an emergency order authorizing police to confiscate sticks, tire irons, hammers and other implements that might be used for continued destruction ...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/01/nation/la-na-may-day-seattle-20120502


Ms Plante is, of course, entitled to her anarchist views, though I suspect there's little potential for significant growth of that movement. In any case, the public-at-large will not be very sympathetic to smashing windows, spray-painting cars, slashing tires and other such propaganda-of-the-deed: the view of the general public will be that such activities are criminal and that organizing such activities qualifies as criminal conspiracy. So if Ms Plante has knowledge of such conspiracies, but is unwilling to testify when the justice system attempts to unravel said conspiracies, she will not find much public support for her stance, and the public will generally regard as a crackpot extremist anyone who supports her

[HiPointDem]

127. The grand jury was convened *before* May Day. In March, to be exact. Do the feds usually

convene grand juries for vandalism? I haven't noticed any in my town though we have graffitti a-plenty.

[struggle4progress]

141. IIRC grand juries are allowed to investigate crimes that occur while they are seated

I don't know what this jury is investigating

[HiPointDem]

144. nobody does. because it's 'secret' & doesn't have to be disclosed to the public. but we know

what the cops who busted into these folks' home in the middle of the night were looking for: anarchist literature.

not bombs, knives, guns (they didn't find any of that, either).

anarchist literature.

The grand jury is investigating anarchists in the Northwest, following FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force raids in search of “anarchist literature.” Two other anarchists, Matthew Kyle Duran and Katherine Olejnik, have already been imprisoned for refusing to cooperate.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/leah-plante-grand-jury-seattle-anarchist/6448/

Reportedly, the FBI search warrant was for black clothing, paint, sticks, computers and cell phones, and ‘anarchist materials or literature.’ According to an FBI Domestic Terrorism guide published by greenisthenewred.com, “anarchists are criminals seeking an ideology to justify their actions,” and are “not dedicated to a particular issue.” Common meeting places are “college campuses, underground clubs, coffee houses/ internet cafes.” The implication is that owning “anarchist” literature is enough to indicate to the FBI that one is a criminal – even if that person happens to be a student studying political thought. Or maybe particularly if you are a student – the FBI document states that anarchists are “educated persons of various backgrounds, often students.”

All this is because someone vandalized a Seattle courthouse on May Day. Leah has publicly stated that she does not endorse what happened on May Day, and that she was not in Seattle during that time. She has made it clear that her refusal to co-operate is not a strategy to protect criminals, but is rather a protest against a legal system which is unconcerned with the civil rights of citizens. Considering that she could be held in contempt of court and sentenced to jail time, we should take what she says seriously. Matt Duran, also subpoenaed and brought before a Grand Jury, has already been held in contempt of court and is currently in U.S. Federal custody. His contempt hearing was made private by the presiding Judge, a move unprecedented since the McCarthy era.

http://thesoundandnoise.com/2012/09/14/young-persons-called-to-private-grand-jury-for-owning-books/

oooh, scary.

[struggle4progress]

150. That sounds very much like the grand jury is looking into criminal conspiracy

associated with the May Day wildings in Seattle

[HiPointDem]

151. there were no 'wildings' in seattle on may day. but 'wilding' is a racially-charged word that was

used to frame black teenagers in the central park rapist case, not to mention drum up fear of black kids.

speaks for itself.

you have no clue what they're investigating as it's all top-secret and they don't have to disclose it. not to mention that they didn't even let observers into the proceedings -- unprecedented since mccarthy.

we do know what they were looking for in their raids, though:

anarchist literature (i have some)
black clothing (i have lots, btw)
paint (i have lots)
cell phones (i have two)

none of which are evidence of criminality or anything else.

[backscatter712]

152. Don't let facts and truthful framing of the issue get in the way of s4p's trolling! n/t

[struggle4progress]

154. I don't much favor masked gangs smashing windows

[backscatter712]

169. And I don't favor throwing people into prison for guilt-by-association.

But authoritarian thuglings like yourself can't appreciate this line of thought. You're far too busy orgasming over the thought of ruining people's lives.

[struggle4progress]

170. She's not found guilty-by-association: she's held for contempt, a situation she can end whenever

she chooses

[backscatter712]

171. That's just the official excuse.

The government targeted her because they didn't like what she reads. The exact excuse the government concocts to lock up someone in political persecutions is irrelevant.

And no, I don't think that unwillingness to snitch should be a reason to lock people up.

You're the one cheerleading when people are deprived of their liberty and thrown in solitary.

The only time when you and your ilk turn up on DU is to cheer on the transformation of America into a police state.

[LAGC]

228. You said it.

There sure are some disgusting authoritarian personalities on this site.

Sure is predictable which threads they always pop their heads up in...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

203. +1. Even if they call themselves "anarchists". Even if they *are* anarchists.

[HiPointDem]

216. none of the people in jail were in seattle on may day, let alone breaking windows in seattle.

but i'll put you down as being in favor of star chambers, inquisitions, and fishing expeditions.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

237. You are out of cogent arguments, so you make the personal attack, as so many do.

[HiPointDem]

240. you must have missed the cognent argument: none of the people in jail were in seattle on may day,

let alone breaking windows in seattle."

i put you down as one favoring star chambers, inquisitions and fishing expeditions because you demonstrate the fact in every post.

not a personal attack: a fact. you're in favor of those things. you accept them as legitimate because you accept this proceeding as legitimate.

there is no rationale for compelling this woman's testimony except fishing.

and the star chamber doesn't have to have a rationale -- it can summon people indiscriminately -- just to intimidate, in fact.

just like in police states.

proceedings are secret & closed -- just like in police states.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

243. False attack

i put you down as one favoring star chambers, inquisitions and fishing expeditions because you demonstrate the fact in every post. not a personal attack: a fact. you're in favor of those things. you accept them as legitimate because you accept this proceeding as legitimate.

Wrong. I am not in favor of star chambers or inquisitions. However, grand juries are by nature "fishing expeditions". Always have been always will.

Would you like to see a grand jury impaneled to investigate Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld for what they did to Iraq?

(on edit: ) Did you object to Patrick Fitzgerald's use of a grand jury to indict Scooter Libby in the Valery Plame case?

[HiPointDem]

246. "I was subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in May of 1982 in New York City.

It has left me as something of a specialist in an arcane, secretive, and obsolete area of the law – one that has just reappeared with FBI raids, seizures of private papers, computers, and subpoenas to compel testimony in Chicago, Minneapolis, and other cities across the country.

I spent more than seven months in the federal correctional facility, not charged with any crime, allegedly not being punished (according to the judge), but rather being compelled to testify, and not knowing when, if ever, I would be released or if I might even be indicted.

(IOW, the person who refuses to testify is not in jail because they 'broke a law,' they're in jail TO COMPEL THEIR TESTIMONY.)

The federal grand jury is a secret, coercive, fishing expedition, a rubber stamp and tool solely of the prosecutor. Although it was once (at the time of the Magna Carta) a check on the singular and arbitrary power of the king, it has become its opposite: a greatly enhanced power of the executive. It has been abolished in England, virtually everywhere else in the world, and in more than half of the states in the U.S. It embodies fundamental violations of basic rights, and it is not necessary to the investigation and prosecution of crime.

Inside the grand jury room, there is no judge. The person compelled to appear cannot testify with her or his lawyer present, and cannot have a transcript of the proceedings. The grand jurors are sworn to secrecy. The prosecutor – alone – decides who and what to subpoena (testimony, records, computers, letters, photos), what possible crimes to investigate, who will testify, who gets immunity, and what charges to bring. It is famously said that any competent prosecutor can “get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich”.

Here are ten key and surprising elements of the federal grand jury:

- It grants sweeping subpoena powers to prosecutors alone, with no safeguards or checks and balances.
- Prosecutors can use a grand jury to conduct an inquisitorial investigation or fishing expedition where there is not sufficient evidence of a crime.
- Defense counsel is barred from the grand jury, and no judge is present.
- It is not open to outsiders.
- Grand jurors hear one side only; prosecutors draft and read the charges to the grand jurors who are not instructed on the law, or screened for bias.
- Grand jury proceedings are secret.
- A grand jury subpoena compels a witness to testify under threat of an indefinite jail sentence until compliance; this coercion promotes unreliable evidence.
- There is no way to know what the grand jury investigation is about or who is considered a target.
- Grand Juries subvert the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (ban on unreasonable state seizure of private property).
- Grand Juries subvert the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (ban on compulsory examination under oath).

It is no wonder that former judges and prosecutors, as well as legal scholars and organizations, call for reforms or abolition of the federal grand jury system.

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/10/11/know-your-enemy-grand-juries-on-witchhunts-fishing-expeditions/

iow, it IS a star chamber. and you support it.


Nearly two years ago, the FBI raided the homes of nine antiwar, labor and international solidarity activists in Chicago, Michigan and Minnesota. The activists, along with fourteen others, were issued subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury empaneled to investigate the activists for providing “material support to terrorism.”

Each activist refused to testify because they understood their activism on behalf of Palestinians, Colombians and others in the world was what the Justice Department was investigating and they have a right under the First Amendment to assemble, organize, engage in freedom of speech and dissent against the policies of the United States government.

“Not only is the US Attorney trying to criminalize my lawful acts and the acts of so many of us peace activists, but he is also gathering information on people, who just happen to be connected to us—my family, the sons of my dear friend Stephanie Weiner and Joe Iosbaker, who were raided as well in Chicago, six other children in Minnesota,” explains Abudayyeh. “All the partners, husbands and wives and extended families of all the subpoenaed are caught up in this horrible violation of our privacy and our civil liberties. “

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/09/21/two-years-later-activists-raided-by-fbi-demand-grand-jury-investigation-be-closed/

[HiPointDem]

248. "grand juries are by nature "fishing expeditions". Always have been always will." = wrong.

A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment. During a presentment the grand jury informs the court that they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment


III. SUBPOENAS

Scope of Subpoena Power

A grand jury's subpoena power is coextensive with its broad power to investigate. Accordingly, it may subpoena all witnesses, nonprivileged documents and other physical evidence relevant to its investigation, provided that the subpoenas are not unreasonably burdensome. Probable cause is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a subpoena.(1) There is a strong presumption of regularity that accompanies a grand jury subpoena.(2)

Subpoenas must seek relevant evidence - Subpoenas may not constitute a "fishing expedition&quot 3)

3. United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., U.S. , (1991); FTC v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298, 305-06 (1924).

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206696.htm#N_3_

[tama]

231. Other well know American etc. anarchists:

David Henry Thoreau: "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
Emma Goldman
Chomsky
David Graeber
Tolkien
Gandhi

and

Thomas Jefferson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism

[Bernardo de La Paz]

239. Fine. If they refuse subpoenas by grand juries investigating masked gangs smashing violently, then

Fine. If they refuse subpoenas by grand juries investigating masked gangs smashing violently, then put them in jail too.

It doesn't matter what they call themselves or what they are.

The masked gangs that subvert peaceful protests by suddenly smashing things need to be stopped. The grand jury is part of that process.

[tama]

247. "The masked gangs that subvert peaceful protests by suddenly smashing things need to be stopped."

Agreed:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

249. Yes, those too. But there are other issues as well and nothing is simple.

[tama]

272. Oh, it's simple

when you just admit yourself that you don't want harm to anyone, and stop looking for complex rationalizations to justify systemic violence against people who have never hurt you and you don't want to hurt. Very simple.

[obamanut2012]

259. Being an anarchist isn't against the law any more

Neither is being a Communist. Neither is being a "fellow traveler." I know this must be disappointing to you.

I am neither an anarchist, a Communist, nor a fascist, but I own literature about all of them. I own black clothing. I own red clothing. I have a CCCP shirt someone bought me as a joke. I am friends with "known communists."

I guess I should be compelled to testify against those friends of mine, especially when immunity I didn't ask for and don;t want is forced upon me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

260. " I know this must be disappointing to you."

"I know this must be disappointing to you."

Please don't pretend to be stupid. You don't do a good job at pretending to be stupid. You are smarter than that. But let me spell it out for you, even though you and so many would like to make this personal rather than about the idea.

No, I am not disappointed. I am glad that being an anarchist or communist or "fellow traveler" is not against the law.

I could tell you about my T-shirts too, but these discussions are meant to be about the ideas and facts, not about personalities.

[tama]

273. Actually

this discussion if very much about "authoritarian behavioral models", putting some totalitarian "idea" above the well being of your fellow human beings, above compassion. All of us who have studied the history of authoritarian totalitarian governments and psychology of authoritarian behavior know that there is lot to be afraid from such things, and that there is not much else to be done to prevent authoritarian totalitarian systems taking over and hurting us, except to reach for human connection, comprehension and compassion.

[struggle4progress]

153. Call it what you like: it's black-shirted masked thuggery in my book. Here:

[HiPointDem]

155. call it whatever names you like: the fact that there was vandalism on M1 by supposed

'anarchists' doesn't give the gov't carte blanche to break into the homes of all 'anarchists' on a fishing expedition. (especially since a not-insignificant number of alleged 'anarchists' & black-bloccers have turned out to be police).

Any more than vandalism on Halloween is cause to bust down the doors of random trick or treaters -- or non-tricker-treaters, which is the case with the three people currently in jail, who weren't even present on M1.

arrests were made on the scene. they can interrogate & prosecute the arrestees.

[struggle4progress]

165. Her house-mate Matt Duran's statement emphasized: "I am in no way ever cooperating with the state"

Duran has every right to choose to be jailed for contempt for his ideological refusal to cooperate with the state in any way, but most of the public won't be sympathetic -- because most of the public will experience masked gangs of armed thugs, who smash other people's stuff, as oppressive, and most people will figure it's partly the job of government to protect the rest of us from masked gangs of armed thugs

Don't get me wrong: I do think people can organize to protect themselves from masked gangs of armed thugs, without bringing government into the picture, but that kind of unofficial self-protection has an unsavory history, under the headings of vigilantism and lynch law

Duran and Plante may think it grossly unfair that the state apparatus can offer them the choice between immunized testimony or imprisonment for contempt -- but in the state-free world, that they imagine would be a utopia, they (and other people with odd minority views) might actually fare much worse

[HiPointDem]

168. most of the public didn't experience any such thing. they saw it on tv -- the same shots,

over and over and over and over -- for best propaganda effect.

pretty obvious what you're advocating here.

[struggle4progress]

204. Call it propaganda if you want, but blackshirted thugs smashing windows is bad news in any town

[HiPointDem]

212. i wouldn't answer except your language is so interesting. first you talk about 'wilding,' to draw

some connection between may day vandals and rapists running wild in the streets, randomly attacking women (albeit that incident was a police-sponsored & media-created hoax).

now it's 'blackshirted thugs,' which alludes to mussolini's fascist paramilitaries.

but the blackshirts attacked union members, peasants trying to organize against landowners, communists & similar types. they were pro-capital and they beat up & *killed people* as well as vandalizing property.

the anarchists (to the degree that they're not police provocateurs) attack corporate establishments and don't beat up people or kill them.

how orwellian of you.

[obamanut2012]

269. Yeah, the "wilding" thing really bothered me

[tama]

232. masked gangs of armed thugs

Most people figure out that you are on the side of masked gangs of armed thugs who hurt people, deny their freedoms and smash and steal their stuff.

Anarchism builds on social and natural capital:


http://shawnewald.info/aia/pro_gardens.html

[girl gone mad]

307. Oh yea, another brave soul who believes that protecting windows..

is more important that protecting human rights and civil liberties.

[HiPointDem]

219. wonder why the cop in this picture didn't arrest that guy...

one cop = others out of the picture.

how is it that with video surveillance, cameras & cops right in the action, they never can catch these elusive black-bloccers.....?

hmmmm

[obamanut2012]

270. +1

[obamanut2012]

268. But the woman in the OP had nothing to do with it

Maybe you should get in trouble the next time a friend or colleague does something they shouldn't.

[obamanut2012]

257. WILDINGS?! Cannot believe you used that word

[sabrina 1]

352. What has that got to do with these three people? None of them were at the May Day protests!

And from the Right Wing Rag the LA Times comes that last paragraph. The public doesn't like crackpot far right extremist rags like the LA Times which at one time before it was taken over, used to be a decent newspaper. Now they can't give it away.

[Comrade Grumpy]

129. I salute them for having the courage of their convictions.

[Taitertots]

133. Arbitrary detention without trial for invoking constitutional rights

Are there really people in America who are so ignorant that they think they are actually free?

[HiPointDem]

134. well, detention w/o trial is ok, you see, because she's 1) protecting criminals; 2) hiding something

3) not respecting the judicial system; etc.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

135. Nobody has a constitutional right to not testify in a grand jury when granted immunity.

The Fifth Amendment applies only to self-incriminating testimony.

[Comrade Grumpy]

136. Yes, it's lawful, but sometimes the law is an ass.

If they want to get something to nail the anarchists on, they can come up with their own damned evidence.

I salute these young people for having the courage of their convictions in the face of the federal repressive apparatus. They may lose 14 months of their lives, but not their self-respect.

No forced snitching!

[JackRiddler]

138. Racially segregated facilities were also once lawful.

In Rome, the testimony of a slave could only be accepted if the slave had been tortured (since slaves are otherwise untrustworthy and will say whatever keeps them out of trouble).

In other words, laws should not be confused with justice.

Laws can be abused all the time. This is one reason we have juries - the grand jury as presently used is the opposite of an adversarial procedure, however. It is a means for prosecutors to get any charges they like, unchallenged, and as we see also imprison anyone they like.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

182. If you don't like the law, change the law. No, they can't imprison anyone they like.

Racially segregated facilities are almost entirely non-existent now because the law was changed, not because the law was ignored.

However, the famous saying is "a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich". But any prosecutor who wastes judicial and jurisprudence resources bringing bogus indictments will have a short career. Police malfeasance is a separate issue, except where they collude with the prosecutor, but going that far is much rarer than simple police malfeasance.

To state that prosecutors can use a grand jury to get any charges they like "unchallenged" is false. The charges will be challenged. If they collapse, it might not harm the prosecutor's career if it happens once, but more than that the District Attorney will take an interest and end up firing the prosecutor.

The fact that a grand jury is not adversarial means that the testimony is protected: not made public so that unfounded baseless accusations do not damage reputations. The testimony is reviewed by the prosecutor and the jury, so it is not simply accepted blankly.

The prosecutor can't "imprison anyone they like" (or don't like). To get sent to prison such as the OP's subject, several criteria have to all be satisfied: 1) There must be an offense that needs investigation. 2) A grand jury has to be properly and legally constituted. 3) The prosecutor has to convince enough jurors to issue a subpoena. 4) The subpoena has to be refused by the witness subpoenaed. 5) There may be a round of negotiation where immunity is offered to the witness. 6) The prosecutor has bring the issue before a judge. 7) The prosecutor has to convince the judge that there is no possibility of self-incrimination or offer immunity to the witness. 8) The judge has to issue a contempt citation. 9) The witness has to again refuse to testify.

[JackRiddler]

202. Racially segregated facilities are...

almost non-existent now because millions of people fought to change the law. They broke the law over and over so as to expose it and fight it. Otherwise there would have been no change to the law.

Your set of criteria for whom a prosecutor before a grand jury may imprison in this case already collapses at #1. Petty vandalism is treated as a conspiracy, people who weren't even in the city at the time are imprisoned! And you're right, they could get out of it by making themselves tools of this official injustice - being forced to rat out their friends, or how about to just say yes to whatever the prosecutor claims?!

This case exists only because it is an attack on a political ideology. These are political prisoners.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

205. Read the OP. The witness is not in prison for vandalism.

[HiPointDem]

217. no, the witness is in jail because she calls herself an anarchist. your point?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

233. The witness is in jail for willfully breaking a law: refusing a subpoena; not because she calls

The witness is in jail for willfully breaking a law: refusing a subpoena; not because she calls herself an anarchist. She could call herself a blue cheese, but she would be in jail for the the same reason: refusing a subpoena.

[HiPointDem]

238. she didn't refuse a supoena. she answered the supoena and refused to testify. she was supoenaed

because she calls herself an anarchist and hangs out with similar types.

This will be the second time I have appeared before the grand jury, and the second time I have refused to testify.

http://nopoliticalrepression.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/leah-lynn-plantes-statement-and-demonstrations-in-support-of-grand-jury-resisters/

thus, she's in jail because she calls herself an anarchist.



In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith.

A prosecutor can obtain a subpoena to compel anyone to testify before a grand jury, without showing probable cause and, in most jurisdictions, without even showing that the person subpoenaed is likely to have relevant information. In the federal system the prosecutor is not required to demonstrate any relevance. The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination.

A grant of immunity to a grand jury witness overcomes the witness’s privilege against self-incrimination, and the witness is then required to testify...

A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury.

http://www.abanow.org/2010/03/faqs-about-the-grand-jury-system/


IOW, the state, just as in soviet russia or nazi germany, can *compel* you to appear before a grand jury for any damn reason it chooses and *compel* you to give testimony incriminating friends, family, coworkers -- for any damn reason it chooses, and imprison you for an indeterminate term should you refuse.

you defend this, and call choosing jail over show trial 'willfully breaking a law'.

it's kind of sickening.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

241. Ok, she refused to testify, not refused the subpoena.

A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury.

Exactly.

Grand juries are nothing like proceedings in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. Not even close.

[HiPointDem]

244. it's precisely the same.

[Fumesucker]

250. From my reading of TMIAHM and my take on the character of professor de la Paz

The real fictional professor would have been on the other side of the argument than you are, he would have been on the side that maximized individual liberty and you are clearly arguing for the power of the state over the individual.

Grand juries in the US may or may not be like "proceedings in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany" but that by no means implies that they cannot become that way or indeed that they are not in the process of becoming that way.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

278. My views are more complex than a fictional character or any of the fiction views of me posted in DU.

Life is more complex than a fiction. Yes, I would like to maximize individual liberty. No, I don't believe all laws should be dropped or that there should be no police; at least not anytime soon. We may evolve to such a state, but we ain't there yet.

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

[Fumesucker]

281. All we have to go by is your words on our screens.

And that's what we use to form our opinions of you, the same way you form your opinions of us.

[obamanut2012]

274. She didn't refuse a subpeona, she refused to testify

And, she wasn't allowed to do so because immunity was FORCED on her, so she could not invoke her constitutional right of the Fifth Amendment. She didn't ask for immunity.

She was targeted ONLY because of anarchist friends and certain anarchist leanings. This is exactly like HUAC and being a "fellow traveler."

[HiPointDem]

357. they can imprison anyone they like. they can call a secret grand jury to target anyone they

don't like and can grant them immunity against their wishes and then throw them in jail for refusing to testify.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

360. No. They can't just pick some one & imprison them. A) The person has to willfully make a choice.

You also mischaracterize the process: The proceedings (testimony) are secret, but the existence of the grand jury is public and if somebody refuses to testify, the proceeding where the judge cites them for contempt is public.

The prosecutor can't target somebody to "imprison anyone they like" (or don't like). To get sent to prison such as the OP's subject, several criteria have to all be satisfied: 1) There must be an offense that needs investigation. 2) A grand jury has to be properly and legally constituted. 3) The prosecutor has to convince enough jurors to issue a subpoena. 4) The subpoena has to be refused by the witness subpoenaed. 5) There may be a round of negotiation where immunity is offered to the witness. 6) The prosecutor has bring the issue before a judge. 7) The prosecutor has to convince the judge that there is no possibility of self-incrimination or offer immunity to the witness. 8) The judge has to issue a contempt citation. 9) The witness has to again refuse to testify.

Yes, we know that sometimes people will choose to go to prison rather than testify against a mafia boss to a grand jury. It's one way crimes go unsolved, criminals unpunished.

Over the top rhetoric such as "imprison anyone they like" that is false on the face of it, and false when examined, is unconvincing to the cause it advocates. In fact, over the top rhetoric like that makes observers think the people saying it are loons.

You are not a loon. You are a thoughtful writer who researches issues. I'd suggest avoiding the over-the-top rhetoric.

[HiPointDem]

364. ...

The federal grand jury is a secret, coercive, fishing expedition, a rubber stamp and tool solely of the prosecutor. Although it was once (at the time of the Magna Carta) a check on the singular and arbitrary power of the king, it has become its opposite: a greatly enhanced power of the executive. It has been abolished in England, virtually everywhere else in the world, and in more than half of the states in the U.S. It embodies fundamental violations of basic rights, and it is not necessary to the investigation and prosecution of crime.

Inside the grand jury room, there is no judge. The person compelled to appear cannot testify with her or his lawyer present, and cannot have a transcript of the proceedings. The grand jurors are sworn to secrecy. The prosecutor – alone – decides who and what to subpoena (testimony, records, computers, letters, photos), what possible crimes to investigate, who will testify, who gets immunity, and what charges to bring. It is famously said that any competent prosecutor can “get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich”.

It is no wonder that former judges and prosecutors, as well as legal scholars and organizations, call for reforms or abolition of the federal grand jury system.


Here are ten key and surprising elements of the federal grand jury:

- It grants sweeping subpoena powers to prosecutors alone, with no safeguards or checks and balances.

- Prosecutors can use a grand jury to conduct an inquisitorial investigation or fishing expedition where there is not sufficient evidence of a crime.

- Defense counsel is barred from the grand jury, and no judge is present.

- It is not open to outsiders.

- Grand jurors hear one side only; prosecutors draft and read the charges to the grand jurors who are not instructed on the law, or screened for bias.

- Grand jury proceedings are secret.

- A grand jury subpoena compels a witness to testify under threat of an indefinite jail sentence until compliance; this coercion promotes unreliable evidence.

- There is no way to know what the grand jury investigation is about or who is considered a target.

- Grand Juries subvert the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (ban on unreasonable state seizure of private property).

- Grand Juries subvert the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (ban on compulsory examination under oath).

It is no wonder that former judges and prosecutors, as well as legal scholars and organizations, call for reforms or abolition of the federal grand jury system.

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/10/11/know-your-enemy-grand-juries-on-witchhunts-fishing-expeditions/

[obamanut2012]

271. The immunity was forced on her, it wasn't granted

[upi402]

140. Twain, on "Law"

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity."
-Twain

Jailing her MAY be the law, but not reasonable nor just.

[JackRiddler]

159. Bumping because this is real. This is our country.

This is not tyranny in some officially designated enemy.

This is an ever-expanding police state and dismantling of human rights at home. This is tyranny - bipartisan and growing.

[Blue_Tires]

177. K+r

[Vattel]

188. The state murders innocents by the thousands.

I am not an anarchist, but I am sympathetic.

[Th1onein]

194. So, the Grand Jury is investigating whether other crimes have been committed?

Isn't that a job for the police? Who you can refuse to talk to?

And even assuming that this is right, and that a grand jury can investigate (yes, it can, but it's got to be reasonable about things; ie., there's got to be a reasonable belief that a crime(s) has been committed), can anyone be compelled to talk about their political beliefs, or the political beliefs of others? I say it's none of the Grand Jury's fucking business, nor any of the Prosecutor's fucking business, either. Since when do we have thought police?

[Robb]

209. More photogenic than, say, the Michigan Militia.

But the strategy won't end up being any more effective for her and her compatriots than it was for them.

Sounds unjust to me; but only because she's on my side of the aisle, so to speak. I doubt I'd side with her were the politics different. The law is an ass -- or, as they say, we have the worst legal system in the world, except for all the other ones.

[HiPointDem]

211. The michigan militia is an organized paramilitary membership group, with dues. "Anarchists" are the

opposite. Not organized, not membership, no dues & not paramilitary.

The Michigan Militia, or the Michigan Militia Corps (MMC), is an organized paramilitary organization founded by Norman Olson, a former U.S. Air Force non-commissioned officer, of Alanson, Michigan, USA.[1] The organization formed around 1994 in response to perceived encroachments by the federal government on the rights of citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Militia

the girl wasn't in seattle for may day & her housemate wasn't either. nor is there any evidence they planned the may day events or are any kind of 'leaders'.

it's just a fishing expedition.

[msanthrope]

275. I just read some old Judith Miller threads....we were all for the rule of law, then. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

279. +1. Funny how often the target or the hero/villain makes people take diametric opposite positions.nt

[msanthrope]

286. I find that the far right and the far left share a common view of the law: it's okay, as long as

it's doing their bidding, and not interfering with their political message.

For example, I am betting that no one on this thread would decry the use of subpoena against Phill Kline regarding the murder of George Tiller. Had Mr. Kline refused to testify, would he have been rightfully jailed??? Of course, and many on this thread would have led the charge.

The rule of law is the rule of law.

[sabrina 1]

287. What a totally incorrect assessment of DUers who oppose what is happening here.

You don't ever seem to understand much about Progressive Dems and what they stand for.

Fyi, what is being opposed here is a bad law and regardless of who is affected by it, it is a bad law and should be rescinded. Hopefully by engaging in these acts of Civil Disobedience, exposing the law that probably a majority of Americans are unaware of, it will be the beginning of overturning it.

I find your constant attacks on the Left here to be reprehensible which raise questions for me as to why you are so constantly wrong in your 'I know all about how the Left thinks' comments. You clearly do not only not know 'how the left thinks' you clearly do not know the history of the Democratic left in this country over the past number of decades, or you simply do not like their activism, their protests, their refusal to give up when things are not right and need fixing.

And then to conflate people who oppose this obviously abusive law with Freepers who are for EVERY LAW that locks up 'liberals', all I can say is you could not be more wrong.

A bad law is a bad law and these are very courageous people for standing up against it for all of us. Just as so many have done in the past.

The rule of law is the rule of law.

Wow, so much wrong with that statement. There is NO rule of law in this country if you know the right people. The rule of law eg, does not apply to War Criminals, it is waived, we move on from such crimes, it does not apply to the massive crimes committed by Wall Street against this country, we make agreements with them.

Not to mention how wrong many laws have been throughout history. So let me ask you this, when people like MLK did what these people are doing, would you have been cheering him on, or doing what you are doing now, stating 'the rule of law is the rule of law'???

[msanthrope]

288. Kindly cite the "bad law" to which you refer. nt

[sabrina 1]

297. The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the Internment of Political Activists"

The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the Internment of Political Activists

The Justice Department and the FBI use the subpoena power of the federal grand jury, coupled with compulsory immunity, to jail radicals who refuse to cooperate with government investigations. n6 The government detains these political activists through a system of judicial procedures and congressional statutes that the Supreme Court has upheld, n7 but that nonetheless allow the executive branch to usurp the subpoena power of the grand jury and create a law enforcement inquisition power that requires full cooperation or indefinite imprisonment -- "Political Internment American Style."

[*1162] The contention that the legendary noble institution of the grand jury, adopted by the European settlers in America from their British cousins as a safeguard to the accused from the improper motivations of government, n8 is being used as an instrument of political repression may well be met with great skepticism or shock. In reality, however, the history of the grand jury in England and in the United States has been predominantly one of serving the interests of the government or the prejudices and passions of the local populace. n9 In the few well publicized cases where individual grand juries have refused to indict political opponents of the government against the wishes of the government authorities, these authorities have simply convened more compliant grand juries or found other ways to accomplish their political ends. n10

This Article will provide a brief historical examination of the origins of the grand jury and its use in the United States, with particular focus on contemporary history. In recent years, the government has used the grand jury as a tool of inquisition, subpoenaing and resubpoenaing activists whom the government knows will refuse to cooperate with grand jury investigations concerning their political movements. n11

You did not answer my question. Are you always supportive of laws even when they are clearly bad laws? Would you have supported laws that forbade women and African Americans to vote eg simply because 'it's the law' or would you have supported all those who like these protesters, went to jail rather than allow such laws to stand?

[msanthrope]

308. Let's try again. It's a simple question. Name the "bad law." Not an article written in 1984. nt

[sabrina 1]

312. Are you saying that they have been jailed illegally? Show me the law which

made it possible to jail them for exercising their 5th Amendment rights?

Yes, let's start over. 'The law is the law'. What law? This is the cry of those who support this decision, which was made by a judge. You say there is no law. So the 'law is NOT the law'!

What law made it possible for a judge to jail these protesters? How about you, who unlike the rest of us, claim to be a legal expert, explain to us how a judge can remove someone's right to remain silent under the Constitutiona, and throw them in jail simply because he felt like it.

If there is no legal basis for his doing so, then they are indeed political prisoners, incarcerated by a rogue judge who had no law to base his decision on. That seems to be what your are now claiming.

And fyi:

Distressed by witnesses invoking this fundamental constitutional right of the fifth amendment, the government took steps to remove this obstruction. In 1954 Congress passed a special immunity law n88 ("the Act&quot , which applied only to matters of internal security. Upon a grant of transactional immunity n89 approved by the Attorney General, the Act compelled a witness to give testimony before a congressional committee or a grand jury. This was the first time that legislation provided for compulsory testimony in return for immunity in an area concerning political thought and activity. Prior to this Act, immunity legislation was used exclusively in the field of economic regulation. n90 Upon the passage of the 1954 Act, President Eisenhower announced that "[t]his Act provides a new means of breaking through the secrecy which is characteristic of traitors, spies and saboteurs." n91 The cold war, anti-communist hysteria period was coming to an end rapidly, however, and in the nine years after its passage, the Act was used only three times. n92 Nevertheless, the mechanism for the grand jury as a political inquisition and a tool of internment was in place. It took only the re-emergence of political dissent for the government to call the grand jury back into action.

Maybe you should have read the whole article ....

[msanthrope]

315. Sabrina--you used the term "bad law." Tell us 'which' law is "bad."

FYI--if you are going to quote me, then go back and cut and paste, properly.

[sabrina 1]

317. 'The Forced Immunity Statute'

Legislation passed by Congress in 1954. That is the 'bad law' I am talking about. That is the statute under which these protesters were sent to jail.

Here it is again, in case you missed it in the article:

The Forced Immunity Statute

Distressed by witnesses invoking this fundamental constitutional right of the fifth amendment, the government took steps to remove this obstruction. In 1954 Congress passed a special immunity law n88 ("the Act&quot , which applied only to matters of internal security. Upon a grant of transactional immunity n89 approved by the Attorney General, the Act compelled a witness to give testimony before a congressional committee or a grand jury. This was the first time that legislation provided for compulsory testimony in return for immunity in an area concerning political thought and activity. Prior to this Act, immunity legislation was used exclusively in the field of economic regulation. n90 Upon the passage of the 1954 Act, President Eisenhower announced that "[t]his Act provides a new means of breaking through the secrecy which is characteristic of traitors, spies and saboteurs." n91 The cold war, anti-communist hysteria period was coming to an end rapidly, however, and in the nine years after its passage, the Act was used only three times. n92 Nevertheless, the mechanism for the grand jury as a political inquisition and a tool of internment was in place. It took only the re-emergence of political dissent for the government to call the grand jury back into action.

[msanthrope]

318. That was repealed in 1970. Try again. nt

[sabrina 1]

320. Yes, and they made it worse.

So, while you try to pretend that there is no bad law here that needs changing, the truth is that these protesters were jailed under a law that was meant for major criminals such as the Mafia. The use of that law to jail protesters for exercising their 5th Amendment right, or trying to, is an abuse which I already stated.

The law needs to be changed to make it impossible to use it to remove civil rights from ordinary citizens who are NOT involved in Organized Crime or Terrorism or any other major criminal activities.

[msanthrope]

322. If one wishes to repeal a "bad law," one might start with naming the law. Further, the 5th A does

not apply here.

I'm more than willing to debate you on the law, but you should name it.

[sabrina 1]

325. Try using Google if you don't have the information. That's what I did.

You are the one claiming to be a legal expert, I am surprised therefore that you are not familiar with the law under which these protesters have been jailed.

[msanthrope]

330. I don't use "Google" for law. Perhaps that is why you cannot name the law you think is "bad."

On edit--as a general rule, when you want to repeal a law, you might wish to name said law.

What law, precisely, Sabrina, is the one you think is "bad" and needs to be repealed or otherwise changed?

I'm still willing to debate you on the law, Sabrina, as soon as you tell us all which one it is.

[sabrina 1]

334. I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions. What law

made it possible for these protesters to be jailed for exercising their 5th Amendment rights, or trying to?

I see the game you are playing.

I asked several you, comments ago since YOU, not I or anyone else I see here, claim to be a legal expert, to explain what law was used to put these protesters in jail AFTER you claimed not to know. That was cute 'but what law needs to be changed'? Lol!

Of course you weren't really claiming not to know, you were playing a little game to try get me to say something you could then attack! Why that would be important to you only you can tell. I never did understand this internet phenomena of game playing in order to try to 'get' someone. Always seemed very childish to me not to mention, disingenuous.

I can come to one of two conclusions since you have refused to answer the questions.

1) You are not a legal expert and know nothing about the case or how these protesters were sent to jail ... but you support their incarceration anyhow because the 'law is the law' .... or

2) You have the same information I have but are not interested in a discussion. Just the same old 'if I can't make a case to support my position, I will just keep using diversionary tactics'.

Old lawyer's trick, emphasis on 'old'. I am not interested in game playing there are whole sites where people can play games.

I am interested in issues and if someone has more knowledge about an issue than I do, I am always grateful when they share it. And most DUers have always been willing to share information which is how we all learn.

So, if you really want a discussion, then be honest about what you know and stop acting like you are in a courtroom. You're not. It comes down to whether or not you support the incarceration of these protesters based on laws that remove people's Constitutional rights or not.

I can answer those questions easily. How about you?

[msanthrope]

335. Sabrina, you engaged me in this subthread, and wrote about a "bad law." While I am more than

happy to answer your legal questions, or otherwise debate you, I cannot guess what is in your mind.

Kindly tell me the law you expect me to opine on?

[sabrina 1]

338. I've made it pretty clear what is in my mind. The law which allowed a judge to

force immunity on a protester, who is not accused of any crime, is a bad law. That law was not put in place to persecute people like this woman who was not even at the May Day protests.

The law is being used, as the first one was used to catch 'commies' back in the fifties when Congress passed legislation out of frustration with people who took the fifth rather than be bullied into fingering other mostly innocent people for Joe McCarthy.

That was a shameful reason to pass a law and a very disgraceful chapter in US history.

When that law was repealed, it was not because of morality, it was because the government wanted to make it even more effective in forcing people to testify. But they passed it with the claim that it would only be used to force testimony from people who were likely guilty of crimes themselves, but lesser crimes than say, Mob Bosses. They were given immunity to get information on major criminals. Maybe there is some argument for that IF it is used only to catch major criminals, murderers, torturers etc.

But now it has been abused and used for the sole purpose of forcing a person NOT GUILTY of any crime, to rat out her friends. If it can so easily be used for such a vile purpose, to deprive an innocent person of their rights, then it is a bad law.

[msanthrope]

345. Sabrina, it may be clear in your mind, but the rest of us are still wondering which magical law was

passed to catch Mafia dons, but not other people.

Generally, one cites federal laws by noting their Title in the US Code, and the relevant section. So here's the US code---

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

Have at it.

[sabrina 1]

354. And who said there was a law meant to catch ONLY Mafia Dons?

I already had the Title of the statute and didn't need your link which I thought I made clear already. I don't play your games, sorry.

I see you finally did use Google after all. Too bad you didn't do so at the beginning rather than waste all this time.

Now, maybe you can state whether or not you believe this bad (my opinion as stated already) law was used appropriately in this case. I have already made my position clear, but you have not.

[msanthrope]

365. Sabrina...'Title' in this instance, is a number. I still have no idea what "bad law"

you are referring to and have given you a link to an online lbrary of the US Code, since I cannot link you from Lexis.

I remain interested in debating you over this "bad law." I'm just hoping you'll eventually tell us all what it is.

FYI--- you brought up the Mafia, not me. Perhaps you could clarify why you felt they are relevant.

[sabrina 1]

367. As expected, this game you're playing is pretty childish and so transparent.

I know it's hard to have to admit on a Democratic board that you support the subversion of people's rights under the US Constitution even if they are under cover of a bad law.

As a trained Court Reporter, although I never worked in the field, I am very familiar with legal terminology just fyi. So your now obviously petty attempts to distract from the actual topic, just roll over me frankly.

How about you stop playing games now and just answer the simple questions you seem so reluctant to answer for some reason. You have not addressed a single question so far which has not gone unnoticed.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

369. There you go again, sabrina, stuffing words into people's mouths, an abhorrent practice you say

There you go again, sabrina, stuffing words into people's mouths, an abhorrent practice you say you abhor.

You write in response to msanthrope:

I know it's hard to have to admit on a Democratic board that you support the subversion of people's rights under the US Constitution even if they are under cover of a bad law.

Just stop it. You have no right to say what msanthrope says or "admits" or should admit.

You say:

DON'T put words in my mouth. If you want make claims about what I said, then use MY WORDS, not YOURS.

Stand by that principle and stop doing it to other people. Please. Now.

If your line of reasoning had any merit you would deal with the facts and the ideas. But no, you have to make it personal in a personal attack against msanthrope.

msanthrope is dealing in facts, such as the laws which have been passed and are the laws of the USA. Try restricting yourself to the facts and do a little research and look up in the US Code for the "bad law" you keep referring to that you also have no idea how you'd change or what you'd replace it with.

Facts, laws, not posters' personalities, please.

[msanthrope]

370. If you are familiar with the terminology, then just tell us which law you are calling a "bad law."

I have no problem debating you--just would appreciate knowing which law we are debating.

[graham4anything]

304. about your last paragraph on Dr. Rev. King, something irritates me here

Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. accepted arrest and did not whine.
What he did was continue on

THEN HE GOT THE LAW CHANGED and LBJ signed the civil rights/ voting rights acts changing the law.

Not whining about jail or being agitated that it was Hitler like and shifting the focus from the cause to the individual.

Don't like the law? That's great. DO ALL YOU CAN TO CHANGE IT, and eventually it will change.

But there are consequences as long as THE LAW IS ON THE BOOKS.

all the other stuff as said before is a diversion to the fact that you get immunity, in any grand jury, you cannot take the 5th.

BTW-a grand jury is made up of average U.S. citizens, same as a jury. (Just you serve longer.)
It is not a secret or special court.

It is how criminals or alleged criminals go from step one to step two to step 3 in the crminal justice system.

Get rid of our legal system, and there is nothing. And the jury system is one of the highlights the world looks up to.

[sabrina 1]

311. I don't see these protesters 'whining' (and why is this word which has always been

used by Right Wingers to describe liberals, showing up on DU so often these days, btw?).

MLK wrote about his experiences in jail which was not whining. These protesters have also expressed their reasons for refusing to cooperate with what they too believe is a bad law. Which is also not 'whining'.

If you can find some example of their 'whining' please post it. Seems to me they have been well aware of the law, well aware from the beginning that by refusing to cooperate they would go to jail. In everything I have read from them I have seen no 'whining'. Nothing much different from the kind of explanations for their actions that we saw from MLK among others when they too decided not to cooperate with bad laws.

I find it irritating when people just make statements without backing them up.

[graham4anything]

314. You used Dr. King in your example. Change the law, but until then it is the law

And this has nothing to do with Dr. King anyhow, bringing his name wrongly into the thread is from the other side the same as bringing Hitler's name into it.

You cannot equate the two. I do not see slavery here, do you? I do not see 10000s who were lynched here, do you? I do not see the comparison.

Same as I see no comparison between OWS and say Mark Rudd, who according to statements on his website (and who backed Obama in 2008),as he grew up saw that you change the system from within and not try to blow it up.

Work to change the laws not liked.

(reminds me of the serenity connard
grant me the serenity to change the things I can
know the things I cannot change
and to accept the difference

and by the way, the Rudd example I use is meant to show, what worked in the 50s 60s early 70s does not mean it will work in 2012. And with other opposing forces in play, it only gives power to the right to exploit a fracture. Something we did not have in the 60s/70s.

this like so many other issues can be bettered argued after election, but nothing will change for the better if the wrong of the two people win.(and I mean the wrong person is if Mitt/Glove win).

[sabrina 1]

319. What I see is a violation of the Constitutional Rights of American citizens

to protest their government's policies and to take the 5th Amendment, the right to remain silent, when they feel they need to.

There is absolutely a connection between everyone who ever stood up against bad laws that removed people's civil rights. The violation of civil rights that makes it possible for the government to remove people's freedom is most definitely something that needs to be stood up against.

Same as I see no comparison between OWS and say Mark Rudd, who according to statements on his website (and who backed Obama in 2008),as he grew up saw that you change the system from within and not try to blow it up.

Where are you getting the idea that OWS or anyone else, these protesters eg, do not understand that until you change bad laws, you will be affected by them? Or that this is not what all these people are trying to do?

There is a process to changing laws. Once a bad law is passed, it takes a long, long time to get it rescinded. That won't happen until people first recognize it, as OWS has pointed out repeatedly regarding the laws governing our financial institutions. What did you think they were doing?

And in the case of these protesters, they are taking the first steps needed to begin the path towards changing another bad law.

All of these people were prepared to go to jail because THEY DID understand the consequences of trying to change these laws.

I don't get your point. This country has always had bad laws that removed rights from the people, and when rights are removed from anyone, they are removed from everyone. And the process of changing those laws generally begins with people being willing, as these protesters and OWS, to go to jail to bring attention to them and to gather support for changing them.

[graham4anything]

321. It takes decades sometimes

Lincoln abolished slavery but it took LBJ to sign civil rights/voting right acts

and it took 50 years for a black to become President after that.

But again, if you get immunity, there is NO fifth amendment right.
The fifth amendment assures your words can't be used against you and cause your arrest.
So once you get immunity- is it so hard to understand that you will not be arrested for anything you say and it cannot be used against you.

so the 5th does not apply

and this has been used forever anyhow.

And I can think of numerous examples in the past on all sides for doing this.

But yes, it takes decades.

And after she/they are released they and the cause becomes even bigger, as movies/books are written, etc. Giving more press to the cause if done correctly.

You don't expect change to be instantanously do you?
(that's a line a lifeguard at the health club I go to everyday says when we chat about fitness.)

It is like a diet- it takes years to put on the weight, yet people want to lose it all in one week.

the same thing applies to changing laws. or to quote the movie "If you build it, they will come" which really is also what our President has basically told the people who support him.
It just doesn't happen instantly.

(the other side uses bad things and achieves goals by instantly, say, getting rid of abortion in Kansas by the terroristic actions in a church, but change that way is always for the worse, not better.
Good change takes much time.

[sabrina 1]

324. Yes, I know it takes time, but it has to begin somewhere.

The granting of forced immunity imo, is wrong. Especially in this case where the woman is not charged with any crime, she was not present at the protests. She was asked to provide names of her friends and she, like so many did during the McCarthy era, refused citing her right to remain silent.

The fact that there are laws on the books now that can compel someone to waive their right to silence, doesn't make them right. From my reading of the history of these laws, they began (and I have not gone back further than the McCarthy era) when the government was frustrated with people taking the fifth in order to avoid turning in their 'commie' friends so they passed a law compelling them to do so. That makes it a shameful history imo.

Later they passed a stronger law supposedly to deal with organized crime but that law is now being applied to protesters like these people.

Governments always use fear to get support for taking away liberties and it really is up to the people to try to prevent that from happening.

But as far as thinking this is going to happen anytime soon, I agree with you, it won't but I give these protesters credit for starting the process by demonstrating how abusive the application of a law that was not intended to be used in cases like this.

[graham4anything]

328. I will give you 2 specific recent examples (out of 1000s)

the person allegedly who supplied and ALLEGEDLY was thought to have injected Barry
Susan MacD. who we all know in conjunction with you know who

(I am not writing out the full names, sure one can figure out)

two examples where this has happened. Both refused.

(personally i was on the side of one, and against the other).

Have a feeling most people who are granted immunity,(have no idea the percentages) end up talking in most cases, albeit not on witchhunts.

example number two would be witchhunt imho, example one would not be.

[HiPointDem]

229. so i'm wondering, with all the photographers and media around as the black bloc was breaking

windows on may day, and actual police in some of the pictures, how is it that they couldn't arrest the folks who actually broke the windows -- v. summoning people who weren't even there to secret grand jury proceedings?

so i look at some of the old footage and some commentary leads me to this news report. there's a big bunch of supposed black bloccers walking down the street, media people following them from various angles (above, and there's some media on the ground as well, including the woman commenter's partner). a female media person is following at a distance -- behind police, who are also following.

they eventually wind up at niketown, where a few guys proceed to bust windows -- maybe 5 max. the cops move in -- but watch them. they don't seem too interested in catching the guys who actually busted the windows (about 2:32 & on). they could have easily caught at least one of them but they seem more interested in spraying pepper spray around and somehow get distracted. the cops have white on their shoulders.

after the guys who actually did the damage move out of frame, several cops get very involved with one lone guy who doesn't seem to be one of the guys who broke the windows. also, they've got cameras following overhead, & you know they've got zooms, but rather than follow the folks who did the damage they zero in on this straggler -- only to return, when it's too late, to the main group, who are now on a different street. but seattle was crawling with police that day. with the helicopter cameras etc. they could easily have cordoned off streets and caught everyone in that bunch and interrogated them.

doesn't seem like they were trying too hard. at the end you can see there are bike cops riding along with the protestors, following them. yet no arrests that i can see. weird. the media people at the end talk about how the police 'dispersed' the protestors, as though that was the police's function -- to disperse them, rather than to arrest the folks they plainly saw busting windows.

[sabrina 1]

295. Excellent analysis of what happened. This has become par for the course. When

a protest is going along peacefully, another example was the day long over one hundred thousand people protest in Oakland to shut down the ports, and there is no sign of violence, suddenly a few guys dressed in black will show up. As you pointed out in your comment and many others have observed, for some reason, the cops never seem to 'catch' these guys even when they are right next to them.

There are have been numerous such incidents. Eg, on the evening of the Oakland protests I mentioned above, I was watching when late in the evening, after almost all the protesters were gone home with no incidents of violence, (maybe because the police had been told to stay back after they nearly killed two people a few days before), suddenly this group of people dressed in black started vandalizing a store and some garbage dumpsters. They got the maximum effect by setting a fire in the middle of the street which of course, would be used to show how the protests 'became violent' later. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

The cops made no arrests despite being there airc. I remember asking later if anyone knew of any of the vandals had been arrested because OWS keeps track of all arrests. But surprisingly there were no reports of who those people were.

I think at this point after watching so many of these 'incidents', most people know what is going on. Police are not going to arrest their own, are they?

[bvar22]

382. Speaking as someone who was involved with Black Market Drugs in the 60s and 70s,

and who managed to avoid being arrested during those two decades,
my Spidey Senses were tingling at 10.9 on the Those MFs are UnderCover scale
while watching these video clips.

[Agony]

252. a nice example of "Political Internment American Style"

hat tip to sabrina
http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=17

[Quantess]

282. Interesting.