grarpamp wrote: > On 12/17/19, Razer <[email protected]> wrote: >> https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-closer-to-ending-the-grand-jury-7b9d3ad6537a >> đ Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades đ´ââ ď¸ > Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
I intended for Kevin to get the clicks. He deserves them for making sure she's not 'forgotten' :> Rr > https://twitter.com/xychelsea > https://twitter.com/resistschelsea > https://xychelsea.is/ > > > Here's some related news and direct links... > > #OpSeasonsGreetings > #OpSeasonsGreetings2019 > https://twitter.com/brazenqueer > https://pastebin.com/yJhMTMVa > > https://twitter.com/wikileaks > https://twitter.com/defendassange > https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ > https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/12/respected-press-freedom-organization-excludes-assange-from-annual-list-of-jailed-journalists/ > https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/10/opponent-paul-rosenzweig-wikileaks-vault-7-schulte-trial/ > > https://twitter.com/freejeremynet > https://freejeremy.net/ > https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/10/jeremy-hammond-issues-statement-explaining-why-he-is-resisting-the-edvas-grand-jury/ > https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/10/imprisoned-activist-jeremy-hammond-found-in-contempt-for-failure-to-testify-before-federal-grand-jury-in-the-edva/ > > > Chelsea... > > https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6112339/Chelsea-Manning-s-Letter-To-Judge-On-Opposing.pdf > https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6112339/Chelsea-Manning-s-Letter-To-Judge-On-Opposing.txt > > " > Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 14-1 Filed 05/31/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 913 > > The Honorable Anthony Trenga > Justice of the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division > Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse > 401 Courthouse Square > Alexandria, VA 22314 > May 28, 2019 > Dear Judge Trenga, > During the contempt hearing on May 16, 2019, this Honorable Court > directed me to take the > opportunity during my confinement to reflect on my principles with > respect to the institution of > grand juries in the United States. This letter responds to that directive. > During the hearing, you stated that there exists âno dishonorâ in > providing evidence to a grand > jury. You suggested that codification of grand juries in the text of > the U.S. Constitution provided > ample justification for this institution. In response to my suggestion > of âpreliminaryâ or > âcommittalâ hearings, you expressed skepticism over whether such > publicly held hearings served > the same purpose without damaging innocent people accused of crimes. > These arguments are raised frequently in discussions about the > problems with grand juries. They > are certainly not novel to me. Over the last decade, I frequently > considered these and many other > arguments while forming my opinions about the grand jury process. > After spending the last two > weeks reflecting on my decision not to testify before this grand jury, > I wish to present my > position in a more careful and complete manner than an impromptu > colloquy can provide. After > working with lawyers and researchers, I can also now cite specific > sources that support my > position. > First, I shall compare grand juries in their earliest form, including > the ideals and practical > problems they sought to address, to grand juries as they currently > operate. Second I want to > clarify that while my objection to grand juries emphasizes their > historical use against activists, I > also view grand juries as an institution that now undermines due > process even when used as > intended. > The drafters of the U.S. Constitution, despite their many flaws, > possessed a sophisticated > understanding of modern political theory. The framers did not set out > to short-circuit due process > protections. Obviously, to a contemporary reader, we now understand > the many flaws and > compromises in the Constitution, and see some as inherently cruel and > indefensible: legal human > slavery; the legalizing of subordinate civil status for women; > segregation; and the > disenfranchisement of those who did not own land come to mind. > Some such practices might have struck contemporaries of the > Constitution as ânormalâ or > ânecessary,â but with the passage of time, and through the tireless > work of millions of people > taking bold and dangerous action, they are now obsolete. I am > certainly not alone in thinking that > the grand jury process, which at one time acted as an independent body > of citizens along the lines > > 1 > > Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 14-1 Filed 05/31/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 914 > > of a civilian police review board, slowly transitioned into the > unbridled arm of the police and > prosecution in ways that run contrary to the grand juryâs originally > intended purposes. 1 > The 5th Amendment provides many of our most cherished procedural > safeguards, concepts > foundational to our criminal legal system, including âdue process,â a > prohibition on double > jeopardy, and the right against compelled self-incrimination. The > grand jury is also enshrined in > the fifth amendment, however, prior to the recent publicity > surrounding the Mueller investigation, > most Americans only knew two things about the grand jury. > First, people hear that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. > Early grand juries acted > independently, as investigations by citizens. Now, the grand jury > process means the prosecutor > decides what the grand jurors see â and what they donât see. The grand > jury imagined by the > drafters of the fifth amendment â which did not involve a prosecutor â > bears no resemblance to > what we see today, where more than 99.9% of indictments sought are granted. > Second, we learn another, more sinister thing about grand juries: they > donât indict law > enforcement. For example, in Dallas over a stretch of several years, > more than 80 police shootings > came before grand juries. Only one returned an indictment. 2 Grand > juries have protected police > officers since the slave patrols. They were used to indict > abolitionists, but not people capturing and > reenslaving people seeking freedom from bondage. They were used to > indict reconstructionists, > while actively protecting lynch mobs. Both the âham sandwichâ > statement and selective indictment > happen because of grand jury secrecy. > Also, a prosecutorâs presentation of a case is shaped by their own > ideas and goals. There > does not need to be any misconduct or bad intent on the part of a > prosecutor to influence the > grand jurors in a way that destroys their independence. If you look at > legal scholarship about the > history of the grand jury, you can see how todayâs grand juries are > unrecognizable from English > and early American ones. The original grand jury was more than an > investigator; they were > supposed to protect citizens not just from unjust indictments but from > unjust laws. In England, > grand jurors who even allowed a prosecutor to come into the grand jury > room were seen as > having violated their oath.3 > I am positive that the founders never intended the grand jury to > function like those we see > today. If grand juries were actually independent bodies that nullified > unjust laws or their unjust > application, to determine whether it was really in the public interest > to decide who should be > made âinfamousâ under the law, I would feel differently. Reading the > history of grand juries, I > have read of how during the American Revolutionary war, grand jurors > refused to indict tax > resisters against the crown, because while it was technically illegal, > the grand jurors recognized > 1 > > District Judge Edward Becker concluded, without chagrin, that it is > true, generally, that âthe grand jury is > essentially controlled by the United States Attorney and is his > prosecutorial toolâ Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Dir. of > Internal Revenue, 406 F. Supp. 1098, 1119 (E.D. Pa. 1975) > A grand jury could 'indict a ham sandwich', but apparently not a white > police officer â The Guardian, Tuesday 25 > November 2014 > 3 Roots, Roger, PhD, (2010) Grand Juries Gone Wrong > 2 > > 2 > > Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 14-1 Filed 05/31/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 915 > > that what made it a criminal act was a law imposed by an authority > that most of them by that > time did not recognize4. Nonetheless, the grand jury once provided a > modicum of due process, at > least to the class of people to whom due process was made available. > In 2019, the federal grand jury exists as a mockery of the institution > that once stood > against the whims of monarchs. It undermines the Fourth Amendmentâs > protections against > unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth Amendmentâs guarantees > of due process. Todayâs > grand juries do not safeguard such fundamental rights, and they are > easily subject to abuse. > Secret proceedings lend unearned legitimacy to prosecutorial decisions > that protect the > powerful against accountability and over-punish the marginalized. It > is not surprising that > members of the defense bar are generally unsupportive of grand jury > proceedings. Even the > Department of Justice released a report acknowledging that âgrand > juries are notorious for being > ârubber stampsâ for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal > matters.â 5 Moreover, because > prosecutors can compel people to show up and testify or produce > documents to the grand jury > without having to show probable cause, their unmonitored subpoena > power functions to let them > side-step the Fourth Amendmentâs protections against unreasonable > searches and seizures. > Imagine a world in which you were not a judge and were not connected > to judges and > prosecutors personally. If you or a loved one has charges brought > before a grand jury, charges of > which you or they were innocent, would you believe for one moment that > the grand jury might > not indict? What rights, specifically, would you consider safeguarded > by the fifth amendmentâs > provision for a grand jury? Consider that it is more than six times as > likely that you will be struck > by lightning than that a federal grand jury will decline to indict. > I object to grand juries even when used in the ways that are typically > understood to be > legitimate. The ability of grand juries to be abused or used for > political ends is entrenched and > perpetuated by the fact that jeopardy doesnât attach with a grand > jury, so prosecutors can > repeatedly bring the same charges. Even though there are some laws > that say prosecutors must > either show they have new evidence or that it is in the public > interest to extend or reconvene a > grand jury, this is hardly an obstacle. For instance, Thomas Jefferson > had to convene three > separate grand juries in order to indict Aaron Burr for sedition - but > he was able to continue to > convene those grand juries until he obtained that indictment. > Additionally, in the Antebellum > South, grand juries routinely indicted anti-slavery activists for > sedition, while those in the North > sometimes refused -- but charges would re-presented to new grand > juries until they stuck. In > 1968, a San Francisco Grand Jury was asked by Mayor Alioto to > investigate the Black Panther > Party. They refused, and the foreman gave a press conference about > political overreach. > Unfortunately, in 1969, a new grand jury began an investigation. > These examples run to the political, but grand jury shopping is > something that can be > done with any kind of case. Grand juries can also be used to coerce > defendants to give up their > 4 > > The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the > Internment of Political Activists, Michael E. > Deutsch, 1984 Northwestern School of Law > 5 > Plea Bargaining: Critical Issues and Common Practices, by William F. > McDonald, (U.S. DOJ, National Institute > of Justice, 1985) > > 3 > > Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 14-1 Filed 05/31/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 916 > > trial rights and take pleas, both by threatening to indict for more > severe charges than are > warranted (which we know can be done easily), or by threatening to > call a defendantâs loved > ones before a grand jury as witnesses. The very threat of the secret > proceeding is in itself > terrifying to people. The secrecy of grand jury proceedings fuel > paranoia and fear, running > contrary to our ideals of open courts and stoking our disdain for > secret testimony. I find, when I > explain the secrecy of grand juries, people are often truly shocked > that they are constitutional, > and frequently compare them to the Court of Star Chamber. > The Court of the Star Chamber existed in England from the 15th to 17th > centuries. This > court lacked the same procedures as normal courts, and often pursued > political and religious > dissidents, and others who âsinnedâ against the crown. It lacked > evidentiary standards and > proceeded on rumor and hearsay. It imposed all kinds of arbitrary > punishments, except the death > penalty. In 1641, Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber as a > dangerous relic of the past > for its brutality and capriciousness. The grand jury was once a > progressive and protective > replacement for things like the Star Chamber, but in its current > incarnation it bears far more > resemblance to the Court of the Star Chamber than to its intended role > as a bulwark against > arbitrary state power. Apart from the fact that the grand jury itself > does not impose punishments, > the biggest difference between the grand jury and the Court of the > Star Chamber is that Star > Chamber proceedings were in fact largely open to the public. > I am not alone in objecting to the grand jury as a dangerous relic > that has evolved in ways > that increase its power without increasing its protections. This is > not even a partisan issue. For > instance, even the Cato Institute has made statements critical of the > grand jury: > Prosecutors defend their actions by reminding everyone that legislators have > approved the procedures. Legislators defend what they have done by reminding > everyone that the courts have approved the procedures. Judges defend what they > have done by reminding everyone that prosecutors and legislators are free to > do > otherwiseâand that the people seem content since they have not revolted > against > the elected officials who run the system. Citizens, in turn, too often > assume that > someone in the government is looking out for their welfare, including their > constitutional rights. No one takes responsibility for the fact that > constitutional rights > are slipping away.6 > During the hearing on the 16th, you pointedly asked me whether I had > taken an oath to > uphold the constitution. What is more important than my willingness to > blindly follow that > document is my commitment to its general principles of due process and > fundamental rights. I > refuse to participate in a process that has clearly transformed into > something that violates the > spirit if not the letter of the law. Since I reject the grand jury > process, I am totally ready to > propose alternatives to it and point out that such alternatives already exist. > Only two common law systems of justice use the grand jury: the United States > and > Liberia. Even within the United States, half of the states have > dispensed with the use of grand > juries. While they reliably end with indictments, they do not reliably > end with justice. While the > 6 > > W. Thomas Dillard, Stephen R. Johnson, and Timothy Lynch, A Grand > Façade How the Grand > Jury Was Captured by Government, Policy Analysis 1â18 (2003). > > 4 > > Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 14-1 Filed 05/31/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 917 > > grand jury is anomalous in the world, other countries are nevertheless > able to prosecute people, > demonstrating that there are alternatives to the grand jury. > While the United States is one of two countries to maintain a grand > jury system, countries > that used to have grand juries include England, Scotland, Ireland, > Canada, Australia, New > Zealand, South Africa, France, Belgium, Japan and Sierra Leone. In > those countries, grand jury > proceedings have been replaced by an open and adversarial > âpreliminaryâ or âcommittalâ > hearing system. Additionally, the United States military, through the > Uniform Code of Military > Justice, 10 U.S.C. §801 et seq, sets forth procedures for preliminary > hearings, rather than grand > juries, providing servicemembers with significantly more protections > than the average person. > Preliminary hearings throw open the doors to the best of all > disinfectants: sunshine. > Nearly every country that used grand juries replaced it with these > hearings, which save time and > expense, donât criminalize refusal to comply with prosecutorial whims, > and better equip all > parties to prepare for fairer and more balanced inquiries into the > truth of matters. There exists no > shortage of due process and nothing prevents a witness who wishes to > remain anonymous from > speaking to law enforcement or the prosecution. A common justification > for grand jury secrecy is > to preserve the reputation of those investigated. First of all, as > noted, almost nobody investigated > by a grand jury is not indicted. Moreover, in countries that have > preliminary hearings, people > have an opportunity to defend themselves, and simply being > investigated does not end in ruin. > Now, I want to address my specific concerns about the ways in which > grand juries can be > used politically. > Across the world and throughout history, it has been common practice > to incarcerate or > even kill dissidents and political rivals on the mere suspicion of > being a member of an opposition > group. While in the United States we are perhaps less overt in our > persecution of dissidents most > of the time, the grand jury subpoena combined with compulsory immunity > gives unrestrained > powers to U.S. prosecutors to oppress activists and their communities. > Generally, people have no > obligation to cooperate with law enforcement investigations. But in > the context of a grand jury > subpoena, people who refuse to talk about their first amendment > beliefs and associations can be > locked away via contempt. > During the McCarthy era, when people were publicly interrogated about > their beliefs and > associations, the public was eventually outraged, and the McCarthy > hearings are widely seen as a > disgraceful episode of modern history. This kind of questioning, > however, routinely happens > under the grand jury system. Due to the secrecy of grand juries, the > public is less aware of it, and > less outraged, and therefore, it continues without interruption. > However, this is because they are > unaware it is happening and cannot feel its effects. > The investigative grand jury as we know it was developed in the wake > of McCarthy, > during the Nixon years. It was developed purportedly to battle > organized crime, but was > promptly used to subpoena members of anti-war groups, the womenâs > movement, and black > liberation groups. Prosecutors issued subpoenas in conjunction with > grants of immunity, in order > to compel testimony, and routinely had resistant activists imprisoned > for contempt. For instance, > while federal agencies were investigating the Puerto Rican > independence movement, several > > 5 > > Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 14-1 Filed 05/31/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 918 > > community organizers refused to comply out of solidarity with their > communities. They were > arrested at gunpoint for contempt of court. > Senator Ted Kennedy was not shy about expressing his alarm: > âOver the past four years, under the present administration, we have > witnessed the birth of a new breed of political animal â the kangaroo grand > jury â spawned in a dark corner of the Department of Justice, nourished by > an administration bent on twisting law enforcement to serve its own political > ends, a dangerous modern form of Star Chamber secret inquisition that is > trampling the rights of American citizens from coast to coast.â 7 > The tradition of using political grand juries to jail political > dissidents and activists is long. > The concept of a grand jury in which prosecutors subpoena activists > and jail them for refusing to > comply with the subpoena stands in stark contrast to the institution > contemplated in the > Constitution. > The foregoing is intended to give you a better and more nuanced > understanding of my > conscientious objection to the grand jury. I understand the idea that > as a civil contemnor, I hold > the key to my cell â that I can free myself by talking to the grand > jury. While I may hold the key > to my cell, it is held in the beating heart of all I believe. To > retrieve that key and do what you are > asking of me, your honor, I would have to cut the key out, which would > mean killing everything > that I hold dear, and the beliefs that have defined my path. > Each person must make the world we want to live in around us where we > stand. I believe > in due process, freedom of the press, and a transparent court system. > I object to the use of grand > juries as tools to tear apart vulnerable communities. I object to this > grand jury in particular as an > effort to frighten journalists and publishers, who serve a crucial > public good. I have had these > values since I was a child, and Iâve had years of confinement to > reflect on them. For much of that > time, I depended for survival on my values, my decisions, and my > conscience. I will not abandon > them now. > Sincerely, > > 7 > > Washington Post, March 14, 1972, at 2, col. 3 > > 6 > " > > > > Jeremy... > > https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/10/jeremy-hammond-issues-statement-explaining-why-he-is-resisting-the-edvas-grand-jury/ > > " > Alexandria, VA â Imprisoned information activist Jeremy Hammond was > found in contempt yesterday for refusing to cooperate with a Federal > Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA). Chelsea Manning > was similarly remanded into custody for failure to provide testimony > before the same Grand Jury. Hammond, who was already serving his 7th > year of a 10 year Federal Prison sentence after pleading guilty for > releasing information about the Private Intelligence Firm Strategic > Forcasting (Stratfor), has issued the following statement detailing > his reasons for resisting the EDVAâs grand jury: > > âAs many of you know, I was just a few months from my scheduled > release from federal prison when I was unexpectedly dragged in chains > and planes to this raggedy detention center in Alexandria, Virginia. I > am outraged that the government is threatening additional jail time if > I do not cooperate with their grand jury investigation. Their > draconian intimidation tactics could never coerce me into betraying my > comrades or my principles. In the spirit of resistance and with great > contempt for their system, I am choosing silence over freedom. > > âI am fully prepared for the consequences of my decision just as I had > been each and every time I was faced with similar choices before. Long > ago when I realized that government and capitalism were too hopelessly > corrupt and unjust to be reformed through legal or electoral means, I > chose to engage in civil disobedience and direct action. I knew then > that my actions could land me behind bars, yet I fought on anyway; > after a dozen arrests and even a prior federal prison sentence for > hacking, I chose once again to use my computer skills to attack the > systems of the rich and powerful as part of the Anonymous federal case > I am doing time for today. > > âWhen I pled guilty, I took responsibility for my actions and my > actions alone. I never agreed to be debriefed or testify in any way, > unlike the governmentâs informant Hector Monsegur, aka Sabu, whose > reward was one year of probation while I received the maximum sentence > allowable by law. It was a painful choice, but ten years in their > dungeons was the price I was willing to pay so I could maintain my > integrity. I have never regretted my choices the entire time I have > been incarcerated, and having seen and experienced first-hand the > abuses and inherent injustice of the prison industrial complex, my > commitment to revolution and abolition has only become more deeply > entrenched. > > âNow, after seven and a half years of âpaying my debt to society,â the > government seeks to punish me further with this vindictive, > politically-motivated legal maneuver to delay my release, knowing full > well that I would never cooperate with their witch hunt. I am opposed > to all grand juries, but I am opposed to this one in particular > because it is part of the governmentâs ongoing war on free speech, > journalists, and whistleblowers. I am insulted that those in power > claim that I have an âobligation that every citizen owes his > governmentâ to testify. As an anarchist, I am not part of their social > contract, and do not recognize the legitimacy of their laws and > courts. Instead, I believe in a Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quote I had > taped to the wall of my prison cell for years: âOne has an obligation > to disobey unjust laws.â > > âIt is difficult to view any of this governmentâs laws as just when > they are so selectively enforced, and when the government turns a > blind eye to its own misconduct, misconduct that is on display every > day that Trump is in the White House. In my case, the government, > through its informant, Sabu, instigated numerous hacks, asking me to > break into governments and companies all over the world. Nearly a > decade later, this misconduct remains ignored. The NSA continues to > surveil everyone and launch cyber attacks. Trump and his corrupt > cronies continue to hold the world hostage to their megalomaniacal > imperialist pig whims while simultaneously refusing to comply with > subpoenas and inquiries into their vicious abuses of power. Meanwhile, > Chelsea Manning and I are doing hard time in this dump for the âcrimeâ > of refusing to allow our spirits to break, after âservingâ our > sentences for exposing government and corporate corruption. > > âThis absurd hypocrisy and desperate ruthlessness reveals a crumbling > legal system, a system that has robbed me of the majority of my adult > life but could never take my humanity. I will continue to do the right > thing, no matter how long it takes. I know how to do time, and I will > never be intimidated by their threats. Ever!! I refuse!!â > > âOur integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. > It is the very last inch of us, but within that inch, we are free.â â > Alan Moore, V for Vendetta > > Additional Information > > Jeremy is being represented by attorneys Susan Kellman, Sarah > Kunstler, and local counsel Jeffrey D. Zimmerman. His legal team also > includes Elisa Y. Lee and Beena Ahmad. For information on how you can > support Jeremy, and for updates on his case please visit > freejeremy.net or follow the Jeremy Hammond Defense Committee on > twitter @freejeremynet > "
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
