Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Matthew "Maddy" Pfeiffer, Another Grand Jury Resister

Posted by on Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM

A couple of weeks ago, FBI agents served another May Day-related* subpoena, this one to Olympia resident Matthew "Maddy" Pfeiffer, ordering them ("them" is Pfeiffer's preferred pronoun) to appear at a federal courthouse this morning. Pfeiffer showed up and, according to Facebook, refused to participate. Pfeiffer wasn't immediately taken into custody for contempt of court—as other grand jury refusers/resisters have been—but has a contempt hearing scheduled for mid-December.

If Pfeiffer is held in contempt, they may join the other grand jury refusers/resisters, Matthew Duran and Katherine Olejnik, in SeaTac federal prison. (Leah-Lynn Plante has been released for reasons that remain obscure.)

* The eternal caveat: We don't actually know why the subpoenas were served or what the grand jury was going to ask, since grand juries are secret. But everything points to this grand jury being interested in May Day and anarchists, from the activists whose houses were raided to deliver the subpoenas—wouldn't an afternoon knock on the door have been enough?—to the search warrants looking for "anarchist" and "anti-government" "literature."

 

Comments (19) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
19
I met Maddy last year at a Dis-Orientation Week event at Evergreen. He was yelling and making a scene, (falsely) accusing one of the people I was with of rape and saying that no one wanted him to participate, even though all of us had no issues with him. For the rest of the year he and his colleagues proceeded to post flyers around campus accusing the same person of being rapist and other lies, and the flyers included his picture. They harassed him constantly. Then when Maddy was suspended for harassment, his colleagues tried to convince people that the decision should be repealed, saying that he had done nothing wrong. Just recently the person that they harassed for no reason committed suicide
So honestly, I don't care that Maddy is in jail. He can stay there. Because he is a dick.
Posted by tchalla on January 17, 2013 at 4:10 PM · Report this
18
@ 11. You're right. I mistook the pronoun.

@ 8. You're also right. The president of the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild has filed some motions on behalf of The Stranger to unseal some documents related to the case. I'll let you know how that goes.
Posted by Brendan Kiley on November 8, 2012 at 8:36 AM · Report this
17
@5 Grand juries are convened all the time, the fact that this one was put together before May 1st has nothing to do with anything. The article correctly states that it's likely about May Day, but that we can't know for sure.

@15 I don't know what you know, but Maddy got arrested at a noise demo once which is the only reason law enforcement is even aware of this person. Doesn't mean Leah snitched or that police found "the right anarchist documents," whatever that means. You're just spreading nonsense.

Law enforcement has always had a ridiculously skewed and biased view of what anarchism is because they filter it through their fanatical right-wing ideology. FBI reports on anarchists often read like middle school homework assignments. I believe they are probably attempting to discover some kind of hierarchy within the movement, which would be the pinnacle of irony.
Posted by PNWResist on November 8, 2012 at 6:22 AM · Report this
16
@15

Oddly enough, there are many, many anarchists in the pacific northwest who have not been subpoenaed for this particular grand jury.

So if they're playing whack-a-mole, it seems they're ignoring a huge number of moles, don't you think? Good heavens, how many anarchists would be under investigation if The PigFeds had just subpoenaed all of Leah-Lynn Plante's co-workers at the Black and Red anti-capitalist coffee shop?
Posted by robotslave on November 8, 2012 at 3:02 AM · Report this
watchout5 15
He's only going cause they let that other one go. Their link between those 2 was enough such that all she had to do was infer that she knew him. Bam. They found the right anarchist documents to know that's the new guy they want. It's just a game of whack a mole, and it's not making anyone safer.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on November 8, 2012 at 2:04 AM · Report this
14
It's entirely disingenuous to suggest that there's something amiss in a grand jury investigating anarchists prior to May 1. The vandalism and the riot that fizzled out along with it were planned long in advance, and anyone who was paying any attention at all knew there were Pac-NW anarchist groups planning hijinks in Seattle on May Day.

Law enforcement knew there were plans afoot, too— and they hardly needed a snitch to figure it out, what with all the internet chest-beating and fist-pumping.
Posted by robotslave on November 7, 2012 at 11:50 PM · Report this
13
I have a feeling that the ungrammatical pronoun is Brendan's mistake. It could be that Maddy doesn't want to be referred to with the objective, but I've never heard of that, and I do know multiple people who use they/them...
plus the FB event page for a rally outside the courthouse this morning refers to Maddy as "them"
(I'm reposting an unregistered comment above that I made -- unable to register that name because i typed my email address wrong. sigh.)
Posted by azucar on November 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM · Report this
Dougsf 12
Wikipedia? P'sha! Real legal expertise only results from countless hours in front of a television. Now, why don't they just badger the witness until someone from the gallery stands up and admits to having done whatever it is they've done. It will totally work.
Posted by Dougsf on November 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM · Report this
11
I have a feeling that the ungrammatical pronoun is Brendan's mistake. It could be that Maddy doesn't want to be referred to with the objective, but I've never heard of that, and I do know multiple people who use they/them...
plus the FB event page for a rally outside the courthouse this morning refers to Maddy as "them"
Posted by selftitled on November 7, 2012 at 4:35 PM · Report this
10
This is my last post. Re: the 5th, Dougsf is accurate, my statement was "colloquial" in nature. The wikipedia page concerning the 5th amendment is useful. I don't think it really matters, though.
Posted by RuleOfLaw on November 7, 2012 at 4:29 PM · Report this
9
By the way, the results of a FOIA request have shown that this Grand Jury was convened before May Day, and there are other inconsistencies. I don't know that the real motivation has been established. (Besides global hegemony, of course.)
Posted by RuleOfLaw on November 7, 2012 at 4:20 PM · Report this
pdonahue 8
Word on the street is a Stranger reporter is working with a NLG lawyer to file a request to the 9th circuit for more info on the scope of the GJ. Any leads yet?
Posted by pdonahue on November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM · Report this
Dougsf 7
@3 - Your right to trial by Grand Jury is one of the tenants of the 5th Amendment. Your right to not incriminate yourself is another.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't believe 'pleading the 5th' extends to telling on your friends, granting a person immunity is a shifty way around that right, which is why I was curious if that was the case.
Posted by Dougsf on November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM · Report this
6
Yeah, not to focus on the pronoun, but what 5 said. Use whatever pronoun you like, but grammar is still grammar; use the objective case when called for.
Posted by Levislade http://ballofwax.org on November 7, 2012 at 4:12 PM · Report this
leek 5
I really feel they should accept the use of "them" for instances in which they are being acted upon by a verb.
Posted by leek on November 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 4
Expect to see this used on MJ cases in WA and CO since they can't jail us anymore for that.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM · Report this
3
The 5th is already nullified with a Grand Jury, that's essentially the point.
Posted by RuleOfLaw on November 7, 2012 at 4:06 PM · Report this
Dougsf 2
Do you know if he was also offered the 5th amendment-nullifying carrot of "immunity"?
Posted by Dougsf on November 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
1
Most confusing preferred pronoun ever.
Posted by PanPaniscus on November 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy