Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison [View all]
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)29. Inexcusable perversion of the Constitution. (nt)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
382 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison [View all]
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
OP
She's protecting a criminal by not testifying against them. That's why she is in contempt. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#31
True. There is the presumption of innocence for anyone who might be accused of the vandalism.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#36
'fishing expedition' = seeking information, not about any specific crime, but seeking information in
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#245
If people are delibertly engaging in vandalism under the pretext of "political action"...
reACTIONary
Oct 2012
#254
first, the grand jury was convened 3 months *before* may day, so it was not convened to
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#299
The woman who just went to jail was not even present at the May Day protests.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#302
Anyone who feels smashing windows & smashing SUVs people worked hard to pay for is the way to go...
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#329
They are not vandals. Please post some proof of that claim. As for people respecting them
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#356
None of these three people were even at the May Day protests so they were not involved
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#350
She's protecting her own integrity from broad erosion of civil liberties in the name of "terrorism."
antigone382
Oct 2012
#67
There is no allegation or charge of terrorism in this case. Vandalism is vandalism.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#69
Whatever the ultimate charges, she was targeted because of broad anti-terrorism laws.
antigone382
Oct 2012
#78
Could be search warrants were illegal & that would be a way to throw out the supoenas & convictions.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#82
I would attack it on the grounds that searches for "anti-government literature" is much too vague
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#86
My hope is that such laws will eventually be overturned or found unconstitutional.
antigone382
Oct 2012
#88
Grand juries have broad scope to make inquiries and yes, they do look into crimes that occur after
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#111
The word "criminal" is already addressed. Read my other posts. Fifth Amendment does not apply here.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#132
You mean the law that abuses the Grand Jury's purpose and that violates the rights of individuals.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#157
Because of a law that was passed manipulating the system to remove those rights.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#158
these "protesters" were vandalizing cars and busting storefront windows. they
crazyjoe
Oct 2012
#306
I think you need to catch up. The woman who is the subject of this OP was not even
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#310
You need to understand recent laws that have been passed to limit the rights of dissenters...
antigone382
Oct 2012
#74
I applaud her also, she and the other two are heroes. This is what it takes to draw attention to the
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#160
no. kastigar v. US, 1972. People were summoned before a grand jury & gov't/prosecutor thought
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#332
Why punish someone for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury more than the actual perp?
Vincardog
Oct 2012
#2
Contempt conviction NOT equivalent to torture. Same as refusing to testify against an arsonist. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#32
Nothing about contempt conviction that requires solitary confinement, no communication, & no appeal.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#122
Any removal of a person's freedom who has committed no crime, IS equivalent to torture.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#161
This is an abuse of the Grand Jury system and has long been recognized as such.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#208
The woman who just went to jail was not even present at the May Day protests.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#303
They have broken the law. That's a crime. If you don't like the law change it.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#195
I like Grand Juries just fine. I like what the Founding Fathers intended them to be used for.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#206
You can stop calling me racist and sexist. That's disruptive, rude, and over-the-top. Not very DU.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#207
quoted YOUR WORDS "you would have said the same thing about the laws that forbade African Americans"
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#234
Thanks for the background. In this thread I've been called Gestapo, racist, brown, white, etc.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#266
Post some proof of this false allegation or retract it. I will be back to see your links
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#290
Still waiting? Of course you are. This little group frequently does this, it's SOP for them.
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#374
Oh, so you think that labelling like that is consistent with DU Community Standards? Think again.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#277
I've dealt with it already. Shown you your words. Over an hour ago.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#293
No you have not. You posted my words, then you posted YOUR false interpretation
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#294
And you have links to prove this or you would not be backing this false allegation I am
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#291
link to where she did this, please. cause i dont see it. i do see bernando & yourself constructing
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#298
I'm still waiting for those links that back up your allegations here, but so far
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#349
Contempt conviction is NOT torture. You have a DUTY to testify, and a right to refuse...
reACTIONary
Oct 2012
#183
The intent is the same as the intent in torture. You are the only one saying the two are equivalent
Vincardog
Oct 2012
#230
When grand juries are abused to get information on political beliefs, etc. it is another matter.
antigone382
Oct 2012
#81
You mean she could be a rat?? Fortunately she has integrity and will not allow herself to be forced
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#162
There is only one person even accused of a crime here, unless you also believe that
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#167
what crime are they investigating? not anything that happened on may day, as the grand jury
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#242
We do not live in a totalitarian police state, no one is being persecuted...
reACTIONary
Oct 2012
#376
Well, it wasn't the three people who have just been sent to jail because none of them
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#353
yeah, and what would the grand jury have been investigating before may day that concerned
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#355
Doesn't the judge have the authority to hold the witness in contempt and not the prosecutor? nt
jody
Oct 2012
#23
Do you mean that a prosecutor has the authority to hold a witness in contempt and sentence them to
jody
Oct 2012
#48
Thanks, your "Obviously" answers "5. Who controls "a federal grand jury"? and its the judge.
jody
Oct 2012
#66
The question is simple, does a federal judge over a grand jury have sole authority to hold a
jody
Oct 2012
#49
Every judge is sole authority in their court although they can be overruled by a superior court on
jody
Oct 2012
#70
According to the judge's logic cheney and rove should be in prison for the next thousand lifetimes
Dont call me Shirley
Oct 2012
#18
I don't remember worked for Reagan but in his defense he probably didn't remember at that point. nt
jody
Oct 2012
#26
Yes it did work for him. He was never prosecuted, was he? And all his cohorts
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#173
We don't. People who lived in police states like E. Germany or Iraq know the difference between
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#33
most people in police states live perfectly routine lives, just as they do here. they live their
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#35
True. But in p.s. are all aware of what is happening all around them and they behave accordingly to
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#40
so all those folks in nazi germany who said they didn't know about the camps were lying?
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#42
No. Some of them were. But there was more to the Nazi police state than extermination camps. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#45
The USA is not a police state, but there is a Prison-Industrial complex that is a little out of
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#47
Yes. It is understated. Not everyone sprinkles their posts with swearing. Sometimes I mistake DU for
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#55
It would be more efficient to not repeat most of the first line of your post as the
tblue37
Oct 2012
#92
Know why you oppose it, but not how you'd change it. BTW the lack of "serious" discussion is not you
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#192
I have already called you out & responded to every post of yours directed at me that wasn't nonsense
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#264
Well, my comment wasn't about opposing Grand Juries although I have read both
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#284
In a police state: detention without judicial review & compulsion of testimony w/o court order and +
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#50
Freedom House states that its Board of Trustees is composed of "business and labor leaders,
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#58
"They grant you immunity and if you don't testify they can throw you in jail."
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#83
Yes I saw the post. It does not logically follow that they can "force anyone to do anything". nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#87
because you say so? there are many ways to make people do what the police want, starting with
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#96
No. The person making the outlandish claim (force "anyone to do anything") has to buttress it.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#112
the woman didn't ask for immunity. she was given immunity in order to use the threat of jail time
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#218
Governments of free nations do not use drones to kill civilians in nations they are not at war
RC
Oct 2012
#166
"As of 2010, US federal government grants accounted for most of Freedom House's funding."
JackRiddler
Oct 2012
#102
Folks, the Freedom House graphic was illustrative, not definitive, & the discussion does not pivot
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#113
backing off it after it starts to become clear it's run by the same spooks who are running us
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#130
The graphic is not in any way pivotal or essential to any point I am making.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#185
DU is all about governing by consent. So why are you wasting time here if "the last vestige" vanish
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#114
I'm prety sure no one claimed DU is a police state, so that continues your streak of nonsense.
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#119
Well, read it that way if you must. Was talking about DU being all about the USA governed by consent
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#121
Wow, you do make bogus assumptions and then proceed to build & knock down straw men.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#187
So you are white? Then how can you claim to have the authority to unequivocally state that
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#221
Again you make the racist assumptions. My skin color is not in evidence and you divert with it.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#235
No, sorry, not going to happen. You are the one that has taken it upon yourself to
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#280
Did you just decide that you could tell the color of someone's skin from their username?
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#189
I wonder what one could tell from your avatar. Are you a white male writer, about 177 years old? nt
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#201
That I use Linux. I think your username says all one needs to know about you. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#224
Yes & yes. Egalitarian because I actually believe in real, complete equality. In a system wherein
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#223
I noted the implication. If it's wrong, fine. I think it is a fair assumption that the number of
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#220
I meant what I wrote. I never expected anyone to interpret it the way you did. DU a police state????
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#190
Apparently you slept through the few English classes you might have attended. I quoted, in whole,
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#225
Since when is pointing out that your point is without merit a personal attack? And when did it
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#316
Your attack is also personal when you call a DU member "a drunken moron":
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#327
It is also a personal attack to assume skin color of a DU member and assume that it matters.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#331
First, I did make that erroneous assumption and it is completely relevant to the challenge proposed.
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#337
Q remains: Since you state there is zero government by consent in the USA, why are you at DU which
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#191
Your question was answered in my previous reply. We're still waiting for you to provide
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#226
Actually, those claiming "police state" are arguing the binary mode. And about your personal attack
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#124
Will you please self-delete your accusation that a DU member is the Gestapo?
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#199
LOL! This guy reminds me of a drunken moron that heckles Sam Kinison.
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#227
That until the apparatus of the police state is used against them. Meanwhile, everyone else who is
tblue37
Oct 2012
#91
Yeah, AFTER it was TOO LATE! Too bad more of them didn't listen to the warnings
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#213
read the constitution. Read our laws already on the books. Don't like them? Change them
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#109
Thomas Jefferson jailed people who lived on his PROPERTY...i.e. they were his property &
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#358
Sheesh! slavery was alot more than wrong.I would think its a zillion times worse than Gitmo
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#363
you brought it up, same as you brought up Dr. King...I only was answering you...
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#368
well, someone did here, it wasn't me. I didn't bring Dr. King in to this
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#372
Yes, this 'forced immunity' law went on the books for the first time back in the '50s
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#351
so change the law. It's simple as A-B-C. Dr. King worked for change. It took decades.
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#359
The grand jury was convened *before* May Day (March 2, 2012). So it has nothing to do with
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#97
Um--that's probably the sitting grand jury. So what? Prosecutors generally use the sitting
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#179
What right? You are granted immunity so you won't be prosecuted for what you said
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#107
You don't have right to refuse to testify. That's been the case since the founding. nt
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#180
The fifth amendment is to avoid incriminating oneself for future prosecution.
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#106
That someone here thinks "Zbig is one of the good guys" shows how far we've gone...
Comrade Grumpy
Oct 2012
#126
The grand jury was convened *before* May Day. In March, to be exact. Do the feds usually
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#127
IIRC grand juries are allowed to investigate crimes that occur while they are seated
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#141
nobody does. because it's 'secret' & doesn't have to be disclosed to the public. but we know
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#144
That sounds very much like the grand jury is looking into criminal conspiracy
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#150
there were no 'wildings' in seattle on may day. but 'wilding' is a racially-charged word that was
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#151
Don't let facts and truthful framing of the issue get in the way of s4p's trolling! n/t
backscatter712
Oct 2012
#152
And I don't favor throwing people into prison for guilt-by-association.
backscatter712
Oct 2012
#169
She's not found guilty-by-association: she's held for contempt, a situation she can end whenever
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#170
+1. Even if they call themselves "anarchists". Even if they *are* anarchists.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#203
none of the people in jail were in seattle on may day, let alone breaking windows in seattle.
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#216
You are out of cogent arguments, so you make the personal attack, as so many do.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#237
you must have missed the cognent argument: none of the people in jail were in seattle on may day,
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#240
"grand juries are by nature "fishing expeditions". Always have been always will." = wrong.
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#248
Fine. If they refuse subpoenas by grand juries investigating masked gangs smashing violently, then
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#239
"The masked gangs that subvert peaceful protests by suddenly smashing things need to be stopped."
tama
Oct 2012
#247
Yes, those too. But there are other issues as well and nothing is simple.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#249
Call it what you like: it's black-shirted masked thuggery in my book. Here:
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#153
call it whatever names you like: the fact that there was vandalism on M1 by supposed
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#155
Her house-mate Matt Duran's statement emphasized: "I am in no way ever cooperating with the state"
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#165
most of the public didn't experience any such thing. they saw it on tv -- the same shots,
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#168
Call it propaganda if you want, but blackshirted thugs smashing windows is bad news in any town
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#204
i wouldn't answer except your language is so interesting. first you talk about 'wilding,' to draw
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#212
What has that got to do with these three people? None of them were at the May Day protests!
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#352
well, detention w/o trial is ok, you see, because she's 1) protecting criminals; 2) hiding something
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#134
Nobody has a constitutional right to not testify in a grand jury when granted immunity.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#135
If you don't like the law, change the law. No, they can't imprison anyone they like.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#182
no, the witness is in jail because she calls herself an anarchist. your point?
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#217
The witness is in jail for willfully breaking a law: refusing a subpoena; not because she calls
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#233
she didn't refuse a supoena. she answered the supoena and refused to testify. she was supoenaed
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#238
From my reading of TMIAHM and my take on the character of professor de la Paz
Fumesucker
Oct 2012
#250
My views are more complex than a fictional character or any of the fiction views of me posted in DU.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#278
they can imprison anyone they like. they can call a secret grand jury to target anyone they
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#357
No. They can't just pick some one & imprison them. A) The person has to willfully make a choice.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#360
So, the Grand Jury is investigating whether other crimes have been committed?
Th1onein
Oct 2012
#194
The michigan militia is an organized paramilitary membership group, with dues. "Anarchists" are the
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#211
I just read some old Judith Miller threads....we were all for the rule of law, then. nt
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#275
+1. Funny how often the target or the hero/villain makes people take diametric opposite positions.nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#279
I find that the far right and the far left share a common view of the law: it's okay, as long as
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#286
What a totally incorrect assessment of DUers who oppose what is happening here.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#287
The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the Internment of Political Activists"
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#297
Let's try again. It's a simple question. Name the "bad law." Not an article written in 1984. nt
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#308
If one wishes to repeal a "bad law," one might start with naming the law. Further, the 5th A does
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#322
I don't use "Google" for law. Perhaps that is why you cannot name the law you think is "bad."
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#330
Sabrina, you engaged me in this subthread, and wrote about a "bad law." While I am more than
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#335
I've made it pretty clear what is in my mind. The law which allowed a judge to
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#338
Sabrina, it may be clear in your mind, but the rest of us are still wondering which magical law was
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#345
Sabrina...'Title' in this instance, is a number. I still have no idea what "bad law"
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#365
As expected, this game you're playing is pretty childish and so transparent.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#367
There you go again, sabrina, stuffing words into people's mouths, an abhorrent practice you say
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#369
If you are familiar with the terminology, then just tell us which law you are calling a "bad law."
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#370
about your last paragraph on Dr. Rev. King, something irritates me here
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#304
I don't see these protesters 'whining' (and why is this word which has always been
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#311
You used Dr. King in your example. Change the law, but until then it is the law
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#314
so i'm wondering, with all the photographers and media around as the black bloc was breaking
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#229
Excellent analysis of what happened. This has become par for the course. When
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#295
Speaking as someone who was involved with Black Market Drugs in the 60s and 70s,
bvar22
Oct 2012
#382